dear friends,
sorry for delay.
I think I can express myself better by comparing my views with Amin's
view's in his 1997 book.
There are many points which I disagree with Amin. But I will omitt these
points. Because this is not a debate between 'my views in general' and '
Samir Amin's views in general'. I try to focus on just the points which
related to our subject matter directly.
A note : Dear Cesar Augusto Baldi, I can't open part 1.2. Then,I have
send a message your e-mail address to inform you,but the system send me
back the message.
ON REALISM AND UTOPIA
Amin try to persuade us that his project is not utopian. Here are his
arguments: " Nonetheless, it is necesarry to respond and propose
solutions. I shall be formulating some below that I believe are not
utopian,because they make room for recognition of the contradiction
defined above." ( p. 22)...about the ' contradiction above' : " In my
opinion capitalism is unable to overcome the growing contradiction
between its economic management in an increasingly globalized space, and
its political and social management which remain fragmented among
national spaces."
To be not utopian it is of course necessary to recognize the
contradiction, but it is equally obvious that this is not sufficient to
be not utopian. Amin's position is weak here, he cannot persuade the
reader.
" A utopian project ? It is the only way,in my opinion, that can help us
find a way out of the tragic impasse of the present crisis and start us
on the long trail toward socialism, the only possible human response."
(p. 54) Amin may believe that his project is the only way that can help
us find a way out..... but this is not enough for us to believe it. Here
again, there is no real argument to accept the project as not utopian.
" These proposals will no doubt be glibly dismissed as utopian. Utopian
they certainly are, in the common understanding of the term, meaning
that they look forward to changes to which current trends are not
necessarily set to lead. In other words, the really existing social
,political and ideological forces of the moment are not headed in the
directions indicated. But there is a sense in which they are far from
utopian: for the first steps in this direction would trigger off a
virtuous cycle of changes snowballing into a major movement.In other
words, the utopia under discussion here is a positive , creative one,
and it has my wholehearted commitment." (p.150-151) . Once again, no
evidence to believe the snowballing effect other than Amin's
wholehearted commitment. Unfortunately his beliefs or wholehearted
commitments is not enough to believe them. We need real arguments.
" in short, a humanistic response to the challenge of globalisation
inaugurated by capitalist expansion may be idealistic but it is not
utopian.On the contrary, it is the only realistic project possible. If
only we begin to develop it, powerful social forces will rally to it
from all regions of the world." ( p. 10-11). Sorry,but once again Amin's
reference point is his beliefs. Why powerful social forces will rally to
it from all regions of the world ? Amin want to believe this,thats all.
No argument.
For me realistic means feasible.Amin's project seems not feasible,first
of all due to his targets. Radical left has always 'target problems' I
think. So much targets that makes itself meaningless....Many targets
conflict with each other ext....
Amin present his project as a realistic remedy for catastrophic dangers
of current situation . Among the targets of this project: building
regional blocks between peripheric countries, radical changes in the
functions of IMF,WTO ext., put an end the unilateral agreements...and
the most important one: to abolish the polarization of the World system.
He points the dangers for putting the bar too high in his book (
sorry,but I can't remember the page number) but,unfortunately he puts
the bar too high. These are not realistic targets. These are just our
wishes for now.
To make mutual agreements, to abolish polarisation...you must be
sufficiently strong . We are weak in those decades. Can we become strong
by building regional blocks ? Amin says: " certainly the perspective of
global competitiveness should never be forgotten, for it is this which
roughly defines efficiency in the long term. However it remains a
long-term perspective. Putting it forward as an immediate aim would be
to put the cart before the horse and,in fact, reverse any chance of
success. A certain protected and autocentric development is unavoidable
for a long while yet. Globalisation should not oppose this, but rather
contribute to its success by means of a subtle organisation -
'planned',even- of exchanges between the regions of the planet which are
unequally developed. What I understand by a delinked and polycentric
world system is nothing but this and it is within this renewed framework
that north-south cooperation, and equally that of East-west , can
support general progress.No miracle recipe, such as the market,can
substitute for this." (p.76-77).
This is the crucial point. What Amin see as cart is the horse for me,
and what I see as cart is the horse for him. I propose a new left , a
left fight for advanced technology and democratisation for periphery.
This is the only ( realistic) way to become sufficiently strong for
mutual agreements. And this opens the way for new (but familiar for us)
horizons,because left,thanks to this strategy can take the support of
third world masses on the one hand,and the left of the core countries
can become radical again due to the impoverishment of the working
classes as a result of this strategy ( my sleeping giant story).This is
realistic,because it is applicable under globalisation conditions. In
fact, Amin rejects globalisation in spite of his seemingly accept of it.
His globalisation is his mental construct,but the globalisation I refer
is an actual reality.
These are my first impressions... I think this is a very fruitful
framework to build a new and feasible leftist strategy. It needs a
maturity process, and This comparison of my views with Amin's views and
debates on them can be the first steps of such a maturity process.
I would like to repeat.I have many other thoughts on Amin's view's in
his 1997 book. But I hesitate to present them now. Because this will be
a danger to discuss systematically and a danger for miss the crucial
point, at least the crucial point for me.I hope to discuss them later,
at right connection points with our debate.
Ahmet Çakmak