Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Samir Amin - The Future of Socialism

    Uploaded by

    Ármin Tillmann
    180 views39 pages
    A wonderful book about socialism from Samir Amin.

    Original Title

    Samir Amin – The Future of Socialism

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A wonderful book about socialism from Samir Amin.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    180 views39 pages

    Samir Amin - The Future of Socialism

    Uploaded by

    Ármin Tillmann
    A wonderful book about socialism from Samir Amin.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 39
    r} ir 4 Ee EBs at =o Fe Reeser ep Bl The Future of Socialism (Translated from the French by Michael Wolfers) Samir Amin L’Avenir Du Socialisme Southern Aftiea Politieal Eeonomy Series (SAPES) Trust 1990 PO, Box MP 111 ‘Mount Pleasant Harare Zimbabwe All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, by any means, including mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher First Edition 1990 ‘Typeset by SAPES Trust Cover design by Chaz Maviyane Printed by Jongwe Printers, Harare, Zimbabwe ISBN 0 7974 0945 9 FOREWORD On the oecasion of its international seminar on Democracy, Socialism and Development, the Southern Africa Political Economy Series (SAPES) Trust is honoured to publish this essay by this outstanding scholar, Samir Amin remains one of the consistent and constant intellectuals in the decades that have seen others either compromised on the altar of careorism or destroyed by the combined forees of external and internal intrigue in the post-colonial situation, It is Samir Amin who has taught us that the only viable way of sustaining a progressive intellectual tradition is for Third World scholars — and Africans in particular — to organise themselves in such groupings as the Third World Forum (which Samir Amin leads) and this the Southern Afriea Political Economy Series (SAPES) Trust, Sueh organisations should provide not only the framework for progressive intellectual discourse but also a more congenial home for the enhancement of collegiating among African scholars. But above all, organised African scholarship should seek, through such organisations as SAPES to interact with the wider society, creating space in the context ofthe struggle for democracy during this post-colonial era, and projecting the African identity in a world that has thrived over the conturies, if also because of Africa's demise and denigration at the hands of foreigners from the northern hemisphere, Clearly, a major scholarship remains so dependent upon external aid; and it is too early to expect that the Afriean scholarship fraternity could survive entirely on its own resources, However, the SAPES experiment might yet demonstrate otherwise, Through such publications as this tne by Samir Amin, SAPES hopes to develop a financial base sraddition to its administrative and managerial base, with vnsteh to support research, documentation and more and nore publications for both the intitutions of higher earning ‘and the public in general. Samir Amin's monograph speaks for itself. twill inspire the ptimists in their search for an “alternative development” other than the one which has 0 far appeared to "surrender to global constraints’. For Samir Amin, socialism remains an ‘essential project for sovity: ‘The changes in the word economy and political and ultra ‘Thamtion are not expected to alter te polarising character seat in capitalism, but can only heighten the contradictions ‘Toe polices of surrender to work uifeatin through the tnarkat — described as ‘adjustment™ arareceptabe alternative othe national and popular Fupbore thot is all necessary and mare than ever 80 eis always difficult for the social analysts to answer those pessimista who demand to know the process —and the ine Frame _- through which change and transformation is to be feffected, But then historical provesses are not a one-day affair, iis the test of a good analysis that it provides atleast the main elements in that process, the protagonists and tentagonists in that struggle for democracy and development ‘And what are these elements and how are they likely to act in that struggle? "The national boorgecsiesof the Ted Worl, who had co-opted ‘hovatinalixration movement totheirownadvantage Baws tend Boe largely turmod into compradors by the elution ‘Of the world systems. hey are therefore incapable of — are not, therefore, mediating tho new word. wide phenomenon tothe advantage of their own country ‘The popular clases... are sill at ‘moment of confusion following he exhaustion of the former ‘ational iteration movement Hance tis dificult to forecast the precio neat slop in an uninterrupted popular revolution that ail threatens the globalisation of upheavals in the peripheries ofthe eytom that wil fora time remain as Mash points. No doubt and quite characteristic of his earlier essays, Samir ‘Amin still views the centre-periphery contradiction — the ‘contradiction between the developed world and the Third ‘World — as the main fulerum for change and transformation, But he includes two other “orders of evolution’: the West-East relations and intra-Western competition, Therefore, the only viable strategy for progressive forces on ‘a world scale is to build a "poly centric” world based on the progressive internationalism of thee peoples of the West, East and South, But"polycentrism” means that the countries of the Bast and the South should pursue development policies that will delink them from the North; and the countries of the Bast must move away from any attempt at the "restoration of capitalism’; those of the South should refuse to become eompradors; and those of the progressive West should encourage the proliferation of "non-market social spaces" through reforms based on "socialisation of ‘economic management. For the Third World in particular, Samir Amin recommends ‘a development strategy that puts atthe top ofthe agenda the objectives of an agricultural evolution marked by ..equality in sucha way asto slow the ncontelld drift to the towns and take into account the narzow limits of international emigration, transformation of 3 he exploited and dependent informal sector into « popular calla for an effective combination of transitions economy. I lumning and market forces, ax the foundation for & aonrveratiation concerned to bring the people srial benefit in the end, SAmir Amin is concerned about the globo as & whole, he is concerned about genuine international Sooperation; the need for a "democratic world government” fs opposed to "seven-power economic summit’; the arms ace; and, finally, the "democratic institutionslisation of ‘world management through a revival of the UN". But here je an analysis that shows successfully the necessary relationship between Democracy, Socialism and Development. Tobe Mandaza General Bitor SAPES ‘THE FUTURE OF SOCIALISM. It is surely time to raise the issue of the future of socialism ‘once again. Since the beginning of the 1980s the ideological offensive of the ultra-liberal right has been such that the predominant social-democratie forees of the Western left have found it necessary to fall broadly into line. In the Third World, the burgeoning of the relatively autonomous development has been systematically undermined in favour of total surrender to the demands of world-wide capitalist expansion. Last but not leas, the sudden collapse of Eastorn European regimes paves the way for a possible restoration of capitalisin through social and economic integration of these countries into the same capitalist world system, ‘Triumphant liberal ideology proclaims the definitive failure of socialism, For those who believe, as wedo, that socialism offersa system. of values never "achieved", and in no way & "constructed model" on show in any particular place,the issue is infinitely more complex. I would say quite frankly that today’s real danger is that the illusions affecting the peoples of the West, Bast and South can only mean that the inevitable failure of triumphant liberalism could be traumatic for the popular classes once they are ideologically and politically disarmed, ‘More than ever, I would urge that the choice lies between "socialism or barbarism". Tt might be helpful to begin this analysis with a eritique of the three fundamental bases of the fashionable liberal thesis, First liberal axiom: the "market" represents an economic rationality per se outside any specific social context,This ‘erroneous postulate is no more than an expression of the economistic alienation essential for ideological legitimation of capitalism. The "market" doos not in fact determine social relations: on the contrary, the framework of social relations determines how the market will operate, From an alienated economist stand-point, economic laws are analogous to laws of nature and exert external forees on every human action, and the economy is the product of determinate social behaviour! There is no economic rationality per se, but merely the expression of the demands of a social system at the level of economic management, No such social system is rational from a humanist point of view if it fails to meet the need of the human beings subject to it: unemployment, polarisation in world development, ecological waste are manifestations of the irrationality of this system — really existing capitalism, These negative phenomena are purely ‘and simply necessary products of the "market": the rationality of the market reproduces the irrationalities of the social system, Second liberal axiom: an interchangeable formula of apitalism-democracy and equation of democracy ‘capitalist. This is mere trickery. Contemporary trends of opinion, broadly typified by Anglo-American evolutionism and pragmatism, impoverish the debate by treating democracy as a gamut of narrowly defined rights and practices, independent of the desired social outlook. This democracy’ can then stabilise the society, by leaving “evolution” to “objective forces’. The latter are, in 6 the last resort, deemed to be governed by science and technology? operating regardless of human will; hence the functional role ofthe revolutionary process in history ean be played down, Socialist thought lies poles apart from this line of argument, ‘The analysis of economistie alienation provided by Marx, central to any seientifie and realist understanding of the mechanism of capitalist reproduction, leads to @ rehabilitation ofthe crucial function of revolutions, moments of qualitative transformation and crystallisation of potentials inconceivable without thom. In each of the three rest revolutions of the modern world (the French, the Russian and the Chinese), the play of ideas and social forces ‘at moments of radicalisation has sueceeded in moving far beyond the requirements of "historically objectively necessary" social transformation. Henee Jacobin democracy did more than merely establish "bourgeois power". Although the demoeraey operated in a framework of private ownership, its anxiety to establish power genuinely at the service of the “people” clashed with the merely bourgeois needs, At this stage of social development, the bourgeoisie looked for little more than qualified democracy such as ‘occurred elsewhere in the 19th century. The hourgeoisie were furthermore willing to compromise with the monarchy and the aristocracy. The aspirations of the" people” — namely the crowd of peasants and artisans — went further. The people Wanted something more than "free trade’. To such an extent that during the Convention, they launched the astonishingly ‘modern slogan "Liberalism (Je. economic) is the enemy of domocraey"! This looking forward was a forestate of a socialist consciousness yet to come (Babeufism is an indication). In the same way, the USSR in the 1920s and ‘Maoist China expressed a communist vision well beyond the requirements of the "national and popular" reform on the ‘agenda. Certainly these moments of radicalisation are fragile; in the end narrower concepts more consonant. with "objective" needs win the day. But it would be quite wrong to underestimate their significance as an indication of the way the movement is bound to continue. Bourgeois democracy is the product of the revolution that has dethroned "tributary metaphysics". Itestablished "equal rights" and personal liberties, but not "equality" (except under the law). As late as the latter half of the 19th century, the Jabour movement could impose unqualified political democracy and seize social rights, but in the framework of a compromise based on acceptance of capitalist management of the economy, a compromise itself made possible by world polarisation to the benefit of the industrial centres. Western democracy is thereby restricted to the politieal domain, while economic management continues to be based on non-demoeratie principles of private ownership and competition, In other words, the capitalist mode of production does not of itself require democracy but rather its characteristic oppression is hidden in economist alienation affecting the entire society. By contrast, the socialist project of a classless society freed of economistic alienation implies a democratic structure. Once capitalist reliance on competition is broken, social relations based on cooperation among workers, and no longer on their subjection, are inconceivable without a full flowering of democracy. if what are known as the Third World countries have almost never seen their political systems in a genuinely democratic form, this isnot a hangover from their "traditional culture’ ‘What I call "really existing capitalism’, that is capitalism as ‘a world aystem and not as a mode of production taken at its hhighest level of abstraction, has to date always generated polarisation on a world scale (the "eentres/peripheries" tontradiction). Unfortunately, this dimension has always been underestimated in socialist thought of all forms, including Marxism. International polarisation inherent in this expansion brings in turn a manifold internal social polarisation: growing inequality in income distribution, ‘widespread unemployment, marginalisation, ete, Making the world system the key unit of analysis responds to a social factor of erucial importance for an understanding of what is. ‘at stake in the struggles, namely that the essential reserve tarmy of capital isto be found in the peripheries ofthe system. Honce instability is the rule in the political life of the peripheries. The background of vieious dictatorship (military ‘or not as may be) broadly amenable to the demands of the world expansion of eapital is occasionally shaken by ‘explosions that challenge the dietatorships. Such explosions rarely lead to any semblance of politieal democracy. The commonest model is @ “populist” response, This means regimes that genuinely address at least some aspects of the social problem and contemplate a development strategy capable of reducing the tragic consequences of peripherisation, ‘There is a middle ground between dictatorships of the right and/or populist moments on to which "petty democracy" can sometimes sneak. We mean regimes that recognise the principle of multi-party elections, and grant ameasure of free speech, but fall short of addressing fundamental problems andor challenging relations of dependence and subjection to the world system. These "democracies" are little more than an expression of the erisis of the usual despotie system of capitalism. Latin Ameriea, Korea, the Philippines provide examples of contradictions unresolved by the regimes. Democratic systems imposed in such circumstances face a striking dilemma, An either-or Either the democratic political system accepts surrender to the demands of world 'adjustment’: it could not then consider any substantial social reform and the democracy would not be slow to reach crisis (as is already the ease in Argentina). Or the popular forces take hold of the democracy and impose the reforms: the system would then come into conflict with dominant ‘world capitalism and must shift from the national bourgeois project to a national and popular projet. ‘The areas of the periphery most affected by capitalist expansion are in a more desperate plight. The history of capitalist expansion should cover not only the “development” it has engendered. Capitalism has a destructive side too often omitted from flattering portrayals of the system. Here the “usual” pattern of power is the Tontons Macoutes in Haiti, Somoza in Nicaragua and a disturbing number of dictatorships of the samo stamp in contemporary Africa, ‘Third liberal axiom: a wide open door to the world system is an "unavoidable" constraint, the sine qua non of any 10 “development”. Tho underlying theoretical hypothesis is that “development” depends essentially on internal circumstances, peculiar to each society, with its integration into the world economy @ potentially positive factor (if one knows how to use the opportunities it provides). ‘This thesis is not only contradicted by the history of five centuries of capitalist expansion — incessant polarisation reproduced and intensified to date and for the foreseeable future — but is also scientifically unsound, The "world market” in question is truncated and restricted to goods and capital, whereas despite international migrations — there has never been any suggestion of a "world labour market" (and no prospect of ‘one). Liberal economics demonstrates that mobility of a single factor of production (capital) while two other factors (abour and natural resources) are imprisoned by natural and politieal geography can not lead to homogeneous produetivity levels and social conditions. In such circumstances, the world-wide law of value can only produce and reproduce polarisation (the centres/peripheries contradiction). In this sense the external factor" (integration in the world system) is of its nature disfavourable and inereasingly so. I have argued this thesis on intuitive evidence: @ few decades were enough to allow the 19th century Germany to ‘catch up" with England; how long ‘would Brazil need to "catch up" with the United States? Undoubtedly, the forms and content of the polarisation have evolved over time. From the industrial revolution to the Second World War, it was a distinction between industrialised and non-industrialised countries. Accelerated industrialisation of some areas of the Third World does not, 0 in my viow, raise a question mark over polarisation as such but merely over its forms. The mechanisms of the new polarisation are founded on various forms of domination; financial (new forms of world-wide finance capital); technological (in relation to the new sciontific and technological revolution); cultural (with the growing influence of the media); and military. In this context, the “newly industrialised countries" are not "semi-peripheries” on the way to crystalising into new centres, but the true peripheries of tomorrow. By contrast the countries ofthe so-called "Fourth World” are not true peripheries but similar to the areas destroyed by capitalist expansion in its earlier forms, The parlous condition of the "Fourth World’ is not the outcome of a refusal to integrate within the international division of labour and a "failed” attempt to delink. In fact the "Fourth World” that is talked of as something new is a consistent feature of capitalist expansion. A clear but lamentable ‘example of this former Fourth World is provided by the areas of slave labour in the Americas in the period of mercantilis North-East Brazil, the West Indies (including Haiti). These areas wore regarded as "prosperous" in their day; and they were the heart of the periphery corresponding to the system of the time, Later the new structures of capitalist, development marginalised these areas, and they are today among the most grievously wretched parts of the Third World. Is Afriea not now on the road to exclusion from the world division of labour by a system that has consigned the continent to specialisation in agriculture and mining through extensive exploitation of the soils until they are 2 exhausted, and the technological revolution that provides substitutes for some raw materials? Fourth World societies subject to a passive delinking through rejection cannot, by definition, solve their problems through open door policies, Recolonisation, swoetened by charity, is surely trying to conceal the explicit failure of the neo-liberal solution? From the stand-point of the various peoples of the earth, unification of the world system in the unilateral concern of the market is undesirable. It is not even the most likely outcome ofthe evolution under way, so bitter are the conflicts inexonerably provoked by submission to the unilateral criterion of the "market" operating in a world of "Darwinism. ‘The ideological discourse of the West, which has optod for this strategy aims to conceal the bitterness of these conflicts. ‘The values of socialism have their scientific (and not merely moral) justification in a rejection of the three blunders in bourgeois thought described above, All currents of socialist thought are keen to go beyond the philosophy of the Enlightment seeking to establish a "rational" society to endure for all time, Socialism comes from an analysis of the historical limits of the “rationality” in question, namely capitalism. Socialism therefore offers a project of @ qualitatively more advanced society, aiming at a more complete mastery of human beings over their social destiny. Here again the Marxist theory of alienation roturns to the centre of the stage: the project of the society in question implies liberation from the economistie alienation peculiar to bourgeois ideology. The project cannot be defined more precisely in advance, Although it would be possible to be precise as to what must be “abolished” (such as private B ownership of the means of production obviously), it. would not be possible — in the absence of any social praxis — to delineate in advance new methods of social management. Any attempt to do so would militate against the methodology Of the socialist project for liberation whereby responsibility for shaping destiny can lie only with the succeeding generations who will be making their own history. We are still faced with the fact that the so-called socialist societies of the Eastern countries have abolished private ownership and established selfstyled socialist systems of economic and political management. These systems are collapsing? Must we draw the conelusion that the socialist project itself ia utopian? If we want to embark on a fruitful debate on these experiences, we must return to the issue of the character of tho so-called "socialist" revolutions and the perception of the historical limits of capitalism whence they have sprung, Two ‘approaches are possible. One can focus on what defines capitalism at its highest level of abstraction — namely the contradiction between capital and labour — and define the historical limits of capitalist society by the boundaries imposed by is characteristic economy. This view-point ‘inovitably leads to a "stagist" vision of the evolution of society: the backward (peripheral) capitalist societies must “catch up" with the advanced societies hefore they are in turn faced with the challenges of a possible (or pethaps even necessary) supersession of the limite of those advanced societies. Or one may place more emphasis in the analysis on what I suggest calling "really existing eapitalism’, by which 1 ‘mean a system that in its actual world-wide expansion has “4 given rise to a centres/peripheries polarisation impossible to overcome within the framework of eapitalism itself, Socialism of all currents has underestimated this dimension of capitalism, as I have said, A challenge to the capitalist order on the basis of revolts from its periphery requires a serious rethinking of the issue of the ‘socialist transition” to the abolition of class. The Marxist tradition, however subtly interpreted, is handicapped by an initial theoretical vision of worker revolutions, on the basis, of advanced forces of production, initiating a fairly speedy transition, marked by democratic power for the mass of the people —a power that is theoretically more democratie than the most democratic of the bourgeois states. By contrast, I would suggest that the profoundly unequal character inherent in eapitalist expansion has brought on to history's, agenda a revolution by peoples of the periphery. This revolution is anti-capitalist in the sense that it stands against, really existing capitalist development that has become unbearable for these peoples. In other words, the eruellest contradictions entailed in capitalist expansion affect the Periphery of the system more than its centres, But forall that, the anti-capitalist revolution is not socialist. It has, by force of circumstances, a complex character, ‘The post-capitalist societies are faced with the demand for substantial development of the forces of production, Tt is illusory to imagine basing an “alternative development’ on Poverty, even if one rejects the consumer life-style of ‘capitalism in its advanced centres and takes into account its real waste and inhumanity. A recognition of this does not ‘ean accepting the thesis that an initial passage through a phase of capitalist accumulation is inevitable, The bourgeois revolution is not fundamentally a consequence of a mass movement led by political parties with an openly anti-apitalist ideology and view of the future. Capitalist, expansion accepted by the local bourgeoisie and implying development open to the world system is here challenged by ‘the mass ofthe people whom it grinds down. ‘This specific and new contradiction, not envisaged in Marx's classic concept of the socialist transition, gives the post-capitalist regimes their real quality, of a national and popular construct in which there is a conflictual mix of tions and achievements of a socialist kind and aspirations of acapitalist kind called for by the need for some development ofthe forees of production ‘This contradiction, inherent in the long transition imposed by the unequal development of capitalism, ean obviously be defined by three fundamental elements: bureaucratic planning (denying any role to market forces); anti-democratic class political monopoly (the ruling party-state); total delinking from the world system almost to the point of autarky (the latter more an imposition by the ‘Western block than a desire of the regimes ofthe East). It is certainly significant that this so-called socialist construct has worked through a non-democratie political system and through bureaucratic planning. The eomplex explanation includes socal and cultural historical determinants and the ideological influence of the socialist movement that has shaped the country’s revolutionary intelligentsia (Leninistn, Macismn), Ido beliove, however, that national and popular hegemony could operate differently and make room for 16 political democracy and "market" forees (which no more than, in the capitalist economies can exist outside the social base that defines their boundaries). I would go further and say that for this national and popular hegemony to progress, it rust move in that direction. In these circumstances the scale ofthe crisis of the societies of the East is not a great surprise to us, even if like everyone else we have beon astounded by its suddenness. These societies currently face a triple option that I briefly summarise under the following three headings: (Evolution towards a bourgeois democracy or progress beyond it by the strengthening of the social power of workers in the management of the economy? Restoration of an out-and-out "market economy" or effective progress in carefully controlled resort to market forces through democratic planning? ‘An unguarded door wide open to the exterior or guarded relations with the surrounding capitalist, world, albeit on the basis of increased trade? The confused theoretical debate and political disputes causing shudders throughout the Eastern countries come in part because ideological Inbelling as "socialist" has obscured ‘the genuinely “national and popular" character of historical revolutions establishing each of the regimes, But more pertinent is the fact that the conflictual forces of eapitalism and socialism are meeting within genuine struggles. The forces anxious to “restore capitalism’ propose unilateral acceptance of the "market" (as a springboard for the restoration of private ownership) and of “an open door to the 1 exterior’, with or without democracy (in the Western sense of the word) according to the tactical requirements of their project. Ifthe socialist forces dither in their resistance to the project, and if they find it difficult to articulate a coherent alternative (on the lines sketched above), it is because the lack of democratic debate and the ideological fallacy indicated earlier are major impediments to action, I would ‘add that the Western ideological offensive, orchestrated by powerful media, is flocking entirely to the pro-capitalist, alboit anti-democratic, forees. ‘A response to the three questions posed above would lead to intensive internal class struggle, already (silently) under ‘way. A significant minority (20%?) in the Eastern countries might benefit from the restoration of capitalism. But, in the light of the inadequate levels of development and international competitiveness achieved by the socialist countries, this minority would never attain the Western, standard of living that fuels their aspirations, except by grinding down the mass of the people, In this struggle, the peoples of the various countries of the East start with unequal weapons. Intuitively one can grasp why peoples who made a so-called socialist national and popular revolution (USSR, China, Yugoslavia, ete...) have fan ideological weapon that may enable them to put a progressive complexion on their struggles. By contrast, those of Eastern Europe who have no comparable historical achievement run the risk of becoming stupefied by the attraction of their annexation to Western Burope. In the current erisis, democratic assertions, such as recourse to the "market" and an open door to the exterior, remain 16 ambivalent because they unite those who see them as a launching-pad to move towards capitalism and those who seek a progressive social approach to the political and economic management of their society, and thus a genuine socialist advance. It is interesting to note that social surveys in the USSR show that the privileged classes prefer the (Western-style) pluralist democracy and market open to the exterior" formula whereas the popular classes remain attached to the achievements of “socialism” (full employment, social services, national independence and public ownership). The latter favour "planning" along with democratisation of the political system. Gorbachev's power apparently juggles with these two antinomian currents, allied only in their opposition to the "conservatives" (who have always hoped for a "standstill, One notes similar cleavages in Yugoslavia. In China one knows how Deng ‘Xiaoping has opted for a formula of a door open jointly to internal and external capitalism without democratisation; (the model to which this option Ieads logically would be similar to that of South Korea or Taiwan!), an option (it should be remembered) supported enthusiastically by the West, The challenge by the democratic movement is also ambivalent by virtue of the fact that amidst the confusion, the movement has recruited minority forees more representative of the comfortably off classes aspiring openly to.a restoration of capitalism plus majority forees in popular opinion (some claiming to be Maoist) who complain of the disadvantages to them of capitalist developments of the Deng Xigoping era§ The Western media, by describing repression of the movement as a return to "Maoism" mixed with 19 "Stalinism’, have certainly not contributed to clarifying the reactionary option of a "restoration of capitalism’, even ifthe latter must be carried out to the total detriment of democratisation, ‘The situation is quite different in the Eastern European countries without a revolutionary past. Hore the "social achievements" although real, have not been won, but handed out in a paternalist manner by the communist parties installed by the Soviet Union. It is quite “obvious” to a World Bank expert, for example, that the Polish problem is simple: ‘wages must be halved (without any regard to productivity) ‘and an unemployment level of two to three million accepted, ‘Tho situation, remarkably similar to that of Argentina, is ‘obscured by the illusions of the Polish people, to whom nobody has explained that in the world system they desire to join, their place is closer to that of the NICs of the Third World than that of the Western societies where advanced social democracy operates! One must also be wary of a drift froma transitional democracy to an authoritarian rogime (of the Pilsudski kind based on the Catholic Church) as the only one capable of imposing the discipline of capitalism. Evolution of this kind is also to be feared in Hungary, for example, It is difficult at this moment to say more, especially as regards Western Germany where internal struggles are mixed up with the desires of the German people for unification and the initiative Bonn will take in response to thom (or in advance of them). Generally speaking, one is struck by the incredible naivete brought about by the depoliticisation imposed by the non-democratic regimes of Eastern Europe. The attacks on 2» the “nomenclature’, far from being the expression of a socialist rejection of privilege, seem to overlook that the class aspiring to form a bourgeoisie will inevitably be composed of this same ‘nomenclature’; that the "privileges" it has enjoyed are as nothing in comparison with the sovial inequalities in the capitalist societies; and that it is precisely the "nomenclature" that, hopes to achieve the even more comfortable bourgeois status! thange’ in the Bast is in fact taken top-down by the ruling clas itself. Ths elas is constituted on the basis of "statism" that has been the way of dealing with the capitelism/socialism contradiction within the national and popule construct. It hopes now tobe rid of the constraints ofthe popular dimension of the system and opt four-square for capitalism. The "scuttling" of the system to which it lends itself to a degree astonishing to Western commentators is not really surprising at alli is the logieal terminus ofits evolution, and was perfectly foreseen by Mao. ‘This class, in attacking its own system, adopts all the ‘outworn prajudices of the eritique of socialism by bourgeois ideology, but refrains from pointing out that the system it is abandoning has been quite effective in making possible its vn constitution as a bourgeoisie! ‘We may add that the confusion is certainly accentuated by the grafting of internal national conflicts (USSR and Yugoslavia) and external (Germany/Poland, Hungary/Romania) on to the internal social struggles.” ‘The question of the future of socialism is not subsumed in Possible advances or retreats in the countries of the East ‘We turn to the countries of the Third and Fourth World true peripheries and societies destroyed by capitalist expansion — where development capable of meeting the| material needs of all social strata of the nation appears} impossible within the framework of capitalism, and it bocomes necessary to consider the substitute of alternative] development outside surrender to global constraints. This is the meaning of the expression delinking. Delinking is not a| recipe but rather a principled choice: that of delinking the| De la révolution industrielle & laf seconde guerre mondiale ce contraste s'est fondé sur} Vopposition pays industrialisés/pays non industrialisés. Liindustrialisation accélérée dans certainos régions da tiers ‘monde ne remet pas on question, & mon avis, la polarisation, 46 ‘mais seulement ses formes. Les mécanismes de la nouvelle polarisation sont fondés sur Ia domination financiére (les formes nouvelles du capital financier mondialisé), technologique (en rapport avec Ia nouvelle révolution, scientifique et technologique), culturelle (par intensification dela puissance des média), et militaire. Dans cette perspective les "nouveaux pays industrialisés" ne constituent pas de "semi-périphéries" en voie de crislallisation en centres nouveaux, mais lee véritables périphéries de demain. Par contre les pays dits du “quart monde’ ne constituent plus dos périphéries véritables mais sont de la nature de ces régions détruites par l'expansion eapitaliste dans ses formes ‘antérieures. Car l'état lamentable du "quart-monde" n'est pas le produit d’un refus de e'inaérer dans la division internationale du travail et d'un "échec" d'une tentative de déconnexion qui y aurait été tenté. En fait ce “quart-mondo" dont on parle commo d'une nouveauté, est en réalité un produit permanent de expansion capitaliste. Un bel et triste ‘exemple de ce quart-monde ancien est fourni par les régions de exploitation esclavagiste dans I'Amérique de la période merehantiliste: Nord-Est brésilion, Antilles (Haiti entre autre). Ces régions furent en ce temps eonsidérées comme "prospéres", et elles constituaient le cocur de la périphérie correspondant au systime de lépoque. Par Ia suite les structures nouvelles de développement capitaliste ont marginalisé Vimportance relative de ces régions, qui comptent aujord’hui parmi les plus tragiquement misérables. du tiers monde. Aujourd’hui le systéme qui a confiné VAtrique dans 1a spécialisation agro-minidre par ” exploitation extensive de ses sols jusqu’a épuisement, comme la révolution technologique qui économise certaines} matiéres premidres, ne sont-ils pas déja en voie d’exclure ca} continent de la divison mondiale du travail. Subissant| passivement une dévonnexion qui les rejette, par définition| _méme les soci6tés du quart monde ne peuvent pas trouver de} réponse & leurs probldmes par les seules vertus de Vouverture. La recolonisation, adoucie par la charité, nef vise-t-lle pas iei a masquer 'échee certain de la solution néolibérale? Du point de vue de l'intérét dos différents peuples de la| plandte 'unifieation du systéme mondial sur la base| unilatérale du marché n’est done pas soubaitable, Elle n'est pas d'avantage Tissue la plus probable des évolutions en} cours, tant sont aigus les conflits qu'entrainera fatalement} la soumission au eritare unilatéral du "marehé" opérant dan: lun espace mondial "darwinien". Le discours idéologique de VOceident, quia fait cette option stratégique, vise a masque Paccuité de ces eonfte Les valeurs du socialisme trouvent leur fondementf scientifique (et non simplement moral) danse refus des trois bévues de la pensée bourgeoise analysées plus haut, Tous le courants de la pensée socialiste se sont attachés & dépasser la Philosophie des lumidres qui se proposait de dévouvrir lf ‘moyen de mettre on place une société "rationnelle” a vocation} 6ternelle. Le socialisme procdde done de l'analyse des li historiques de la "rationalité” en question, en fait du capitalisme. Ce faisant le socialisme définit un projet dof société qualitativement plus avancée, allant dans le sens| dune meilleure maitrise des étres humains sur leur devenit “6 social, Tei encore done Ja thése marxiste de I'aliénation retrouve sa place eentrale: Ie projet do société en question jmplique la libération de V'aliénation économiste propre a Pridéologie bourgeoise. Ce projet ne pout pas étre défini & avanee d'une manire plus préciso. Car si ’on peut préciser ce qu'il faut “abolir" (comme la propriété privée moyens de production évidemment), on ne saurait dessiner a I'avance — en dehors de toute praxis sociale — les linéaments des, rméthodes nouvelles de la gestion sociale, Tenter de le faire serait ailleurs aller & contre sens de la méthode méme du projet socialiste de libération qui implique que la responsabilité de la construction de l'avenir n'appartient qu’aux générations suecessives qui feront cette histoire Il reste éviderment que nous sommes confrontés au fait que les sociétés dites socialistes des pays de l'Est ont aboli la propriété privée et mis en place des systémes de gestion Geonomique et politique autoqualifiés de socialistes. Or cvs systémes sont en voie de désagregation. Doit-on en conelure que le projet socialiste lui méme est utopique? Sil'on veut ouvrir un débat fécond sur ces expériences il nous faut revenir & la question de la nature des révolutions dites “socialistes" et des perceptions dos limites historiques du capitalismé dont elles ont proeéd6. Or ici deux attitudes sont possibles, Ou bien on concentre Ie rogard sur ce qui définit le eapitalisme & son niveau d’abstraction le plus élevé — 'est-d-dire la contradiction capital/travail—eton définit les limites historiques de la société eapitaliste a partir de celles que Péeonomisme qui la earactérise impose. Cette optique inspire fatalement une perception "étapiste" de I'évolution écessaire: les soviétéos capitalistes attardées (périphéries) 0 /wa1976.net (Hck doivent trapper" le modéle avancé avant d’étre leur tous confrontées aux défis d’un dépassement possible (ou mém peut-étre nécessaire) des limites de co dernier. Our bien o donne plus d’importanee dans l'analyse & ce que nous nous Proposons d’appeler "le eapitalisme réellement existant’y entendant par la un systéme qui, dans son expansion| mondiale réelle, a généré une polarisation centres/périphéries qui ne peut étre surmontée dans le cadre du capitalisme lui-méme, Le socialisme dans tous ses courants a sous estimé cette dimension du eapitalisme, comme je I’si deja dit, Or Ia remise en cause do ordre capitaliste & partir des révoltes de sa périphérie oblige a repenser sérieusement la question de la "transition socialite" &I'abolition des classes. Quelque nuance que l'on fasse, la tradition marxiste est. restée handicapée par la vision théorique de départ de révolutions ouvriéres ouvrant, sur la base de forces productives avaneées, une transition elle-méme relativement. Tapide, earactérisée par un pouvoir démocratique des masses. populaires qui est théoriquement plus démocratique que le plus démo-cratique des Etats bourgeois. En contrepoint je irai que le caractére profondément inégal immanent a. expansion capitaliste a mis a Vordre du jour de ’histoire la révolution des peuples de la périphérie. Cette révolution est nti-capitaliste dans ce sens qu'elle se dresse contre le développement capitaliste réellement existant, insuportable Pour ces peuples. Autrement dit les contradictions les plus violentes que I'accumulation eapitaliste entraine dans son propre mouvement réel opérent a la périphérie du systome. plut6t que dans ces centres. Mais cette révolution oti-eapitaliste n’en est pas pour autant simplement liste. Elle, a, par la force des choses, une nature mplexe. 18 soviétés post-capitalistes sont confrontées & I'exigence «un développement substantiel des forees productives. Ist cn effet illusoire de penser fonder un "autre développement” sur le dénuoment, méme si Y’on rejette les modeles de vie et Je consommation produits par le capitalisme dans ses centres avancés et qu’on en mesure le gaspillage réol ot 'inhumanité, Reconnaltre cette nécessité n'est pas accepter la thése selon laquelle le passage préalable par une phase accumulation eapitaliste serait inévitable. Car la révolution bourgeoise n’est pas dans sa nature profonde le produit d'un mouvement des masses populaires organisées et dirigées par des partis politiques ouvertement nti-eapitalistes dans leur idéologie et vision de l'avenir. Aceptée par In bourgeoisie locale expansion capitaliste, qui implique un développement ouvert sur le systme mondial, cst ici remige en question par les masses populaires qurelle Liexpression de cette contradiction spécifique et nouvelle, ui n'avait pas 6té imaginée dans la perspective classique de la transition socialiste telle que Marx l'avait congue, donne ux régimes post-capitalistes leur contenu réel, celui d’une construction nationale et populaire dans laquelle se combinent contfictuellement des aspirations ot des acquis de ature socialiste et des aspirations de nature capitaliste u'appellent les exigeneos du développement des forees productives dans certains de leurs aspoets. Cette contradiction, inhérente a la longue transition. im-posée par le développement inégal du eapitaliame, a été agéréed’une certaine manidre quel'on peut sans soute définir ar ses trois composantes fondamentales: la planifieation. bureaucratique (niant tout role au marché), le monopole politique antidémoeratique de la classe — parti-Etat irigeant, une déconnexion totale par rapport au systéme mondial allant pratiquement jusqu’a l'autareie (celle-ci ayant 6t6 au demeurant imposée par le blocus occidental plutét que voulue par les régimes de l'Est). Que cette construction dite socialiste ait opéré par un systame politique non démocratique et par une planification bureaueratique, constitue certes une r6alité importante, dont l'explieation. complexe doit mettre en oeuvre, outre les déterminations, historiques sociales et culturoles, les effets de 'idéologie du mouvement socialiste qui a produit I'intelligentsia révolutionnaire de ces pays (Ie leninisme, le maoisme) Néanmoins, non soulement 'hégémonie nationale populaire pourrait — selon moi — fonctionner d'une autre manigre, faisant place & la démocratie politique et aux méeanismes du ‘marché (lequel, pas plus que dans les économies capitalistes n'existe en dehors de la base sociale qui en détermine les contours), mais encore jaffirme que la progression de cette |hégémonie nationale populaire exige qu’on aille dans ce sens. Dans ces conditions I'ampleur dela crise des sociétés de Est ne nous a guére surpris, méme si nous l'avons été, comme. tous, per sa soudaineté. Aujourd’hui ces sociétés sont confrontées & une triple option que je résume briévement. sous les trois t0tos de chapitre suivants: 1wa1976.net [Ew aa se Evolution dans le sens d’une démocratie bourgeoise ou progrés de celle-ci par I'affermissment du pouvoir social des travailleurs dans la gestion de 'economie? Rétablissement d’une "économie de marché" pure et simple ou progrés de formules effieaces permettant @encadrer un recours maitrisé aux mécanismes du marché par une planification démoeratique? ‘Ouverture extérieure totale et incontrélée ou maitrise des relations avec le monde capitaliste ambiant, fut-ce ssur la base d’une intensification des échanges? [a confusion tant dans le débat théorique que dans les affrontements politiques qui secouent les pays de I'Est provient en partie de ce que la nature veritable "nationale »pulaire’—de létape historique ouverte par les évolutions ui ont inauguré histoire des régimes en question, demeure wecultée par Iheritage idéologique qui les qualifie de "cocialiste’. Mais elle provient surtout de ce que les forces contflietuellos du eapitalisme et du socialisme s’affrontent ici ans la réalité des luttes en question. Les foces qui aspirent "rétablir le capitalisme” pronent de ce fait I'adoption onilatérale du (tremplin @ partir duquel la »ropriété privée serait rétablie) et de "l’ouverture extérieure', avec ou sans démocratie (entendue alors au sens ‘occidental du termo) solon les exigences tactiques de lam en oeuvre de ce projet. Siles forees socialistes balbutient dans vur résistance & ce projet, et s'il leur est difficile d’articuler un contre projet cohérent (selon les lignes dessinéos ci-dessus), c'est bien parce que I’absence de débat émocratique et illusion idéologique signalée plus haut constituent des handicaps majours leur action. J’ajoute que ‘mareh 53 offensive idéologique de VOccident, orchestrée par des ‘medias puissants, est toute entidre au service des forces rocapitalistes, fussent-olles antidémocratiques. La réponse aux trois questions posées plus haut résultera d'une intense lutte de classes internes, déja en cours (meme sous une forme silencieuse). I existe maintenant dans les pays de I'Est une minorité forte (20%2) qui pourrait. bénéficier d'une restauration capitaliste, Mais eclle-ci ne Pourra aceéder au niveau de vie occidental qui fonde ses aspirations qu’en écrasant les classes populaires du fait de Vinsuffisance des niveaux de développement et de compétitivité internationale ateints par les pays socialistes, Dans la lutte,les pouples des différents pays de I'Est partent. \6galement armés, Intuitivement on peut saisir les raisons pour lesquels les peuples qui ont fait une révolution nationale Populaire dite socialiste (URSS., Chine, Yougoslavie ote ) disposent d'un équipement idéologique qui leur permettra ‘peut étre d’imposer des issues progressistes a leur luttes. Par contre ceux I'Burope de Est qui n'ont pas d’acquis historique comparable risquent de se laisser griser par attraction de leur annexion & 1 Europe Occidentale, Dans la crise actuelle la revendieation démocratique comme celles concernant le recours au "marché" et Pouverture extérieure restent ambigues car elles regroupent ceux qui ‘veulent les utiliser comme piédestal pour aller plus loin vers lecapitalisme et ceux qui aspirent a donner un contenu social rogressiste a la gestion politique et économique de leur société, réalisant ainsi une avaneée socialiste authentique. Il 6st intéressant de noter a cet effet que les enquétes sociologiques menées en URSS. montrent que les classes 1waq1976.net [Ew aa se privilégiées optent davantage pour la formule "democratic pluraliste (& Occidentale) et marché ouvert sur V'extérieur” tandis que les classes populaires restent attachées aux acquis du "socialisme" (emploi garanti, les services sociaux, V'indépendance nationale et la propriété publique) et partant a des formules de "planification” tout en optant pour la democratisation du systéme politique. Le pouvoir de Gorbatehev jongle apparomment avec ces deux courants antinomiques, alliés seulement face aux "conservateurs! (qui n'auraient souhaité "aucun changement”). On note des clivages analogues en Yougoslavie. En Chine on sait comment Deng Xiaoping a opté pour une formule de double ouverture capitaliste interne ot extérieure sans démocratisation (le modéle auquel conduit logiquement cette option pourrait rappeler eelui de la Corée du Sud ou de Taiwan!), une option, (fout-il le rappeler) soutenue avec enthousiasme par V'Oceident. Sa remise en cause par le mouvement démocratique reste également ambigue du fait que ee ‘mouvement a rallié dans la confusion des forces minoritaires mais bien représentées dans les classes aisées aspirant ouvertement & une restauration du capitalisme et d'autres wjoritaires dans opinion populaire (dont certaines se rovendiquent du maoisme) qui s’élavent contre les résultats sociaux inaeceptables pour elles des développement ‘apitalistes de’ére Deng Xiaoping.° Les média occidentaux, en qualifiant la répression du mouvement de retour au ‘maoisme", amalgamé avec le "stalinisme", n'ont certes pas contribué a 6clairer les lanternes, bien qu’elles aient Perfaitement rempli leur role dans le soutien de l'option Néactionnaire d'une “restauration du eapitalisme’, méme si celle-ci doit se faire en définitive au détriment de la démocratisation, La situation est passablement différente dans les pays de P’Bst européen qui n'ont pas de passé révolutionnaite. Ici les acquis sociaux" bien que réels, n'ont pas ét6 conquis, mais ‘octroyés d'une manire paternaliste par des partis ‘communistes mis en place par I'Union Soviétique. Car il est bien evident que pour un expert de la Banque Mondiale par exemple, le probléme polonais est simple: il faut réduire les salaires (sans commune mesure avec les produetivités) de 50% et tolérer un volume de 23 millions de chémeurs. Cette situation, qui présente bien des analogies avoe colle de Argentine, est obscurcie par les illusions du peuple polonais, { qui personne n'a expliqué que dans le syst?me mondial ‘auquel il aspire a étre intégré, sa place est plus proche de celles des NICs du tiers mondo que de celle des sociétés ‘occidentales ob se déploit la socialdémocratie avancéo! Aussi doit-on craindre ici la dérive d'une démocratie de transition) vers un régime autoritaire (du type Pilsuski, assis sur 'Eglise catholique) seul capable d’imposer 1a discipline du capitalisme. Des évolutions de ce genre sont également: a eraindre en Hongrie par exemple, I! est difficile & l'heure actuelle d’en dire plus, surtout en ce qui concerne: Allemagne orientale dont les luttes intornes s'entrecroisent vee les aspirations unitaires du peuple allemand et les initiatives que Bonn prendra on réponse (ou en avance) su celles-i Dune maniére générale on est frappé par l'incroyable naiveté & laquelle a conduit la dépolitisation imposée par le régimes non démocratiques de l'Europe de l'Est. Les Reo eek eae ees aa, attaques contre la "nomenklatura" loin d’étre expression dun refus socialiste des privildges semblent ignorer que la classe qui aspire & se constituer en bourgeoisie sera fatalement constituée par cette "nomenklatura” elle-méme, que les "privilages” dont elle a bénéficié sont peu de choses en comparaison des inégalités sociales dans les sociétés capitalistes et précisément la "nomenklatura aspire maintenant & aecéder & ce statut bourgeois encore plus confortable! initiative du "changement" a l'Est est en effet prise d’en haut par Ja classe dirigeante elle-méme. Constituée clle-méme sur la base de I"étatismo" qui a été le moyen de sérer la contradiction capitalisme/socialisme dans la construction nationale populaire, cette classe souhaite maintenant se débarasser des contraintes de la dimension populaire du systéme et opte earrément pour le eapitalisme. Le "sabordage” du systdme auquel elle se livre au point de surprendre les commentateurs occidentaux, n'est pas tonnant: il constitue le terme logique de son évolution, qui, avait 686 parfaitement prévu par Mao. Dans son attaque contre son propre systme, cette classe reprend a son compte tous les préjugés éeulés de la critique du socialisme par V'igologie:bourgeoise, mais se garde de dire que le systme qu'elle abandonne avait ét6 tout a fait efficace puisqu'il a Drécisément permis sa propre constitution en bourgeoisie! Ajoutons que la confusion est certainement acentuée par la greffe des conflits nationaux internes (U.RS.S. et Yougloslavie) ou externes (Allemagne/Pologne, Hongrie/Roumanie) eur les luttes sociales internes.” La question de l'avenir du socialisme ne se résume pas dans. es avaneées ou ses reculs éventuels dans les pays de l'Est, Pour les pays des tiers ot quart monde — périphéries véritables et sociétés anihil6es par l'expansion capitaliste— si un développement susceptible de répondre aux besoins matériels de ensemble dos couches sociales de la nation vere impossible dans le cadre du capitalise, lexamen de. Voption alternative d'un autre développement pensé au chors de la soumission aux contraintes globales s'impose C'est la le sens de expression de déconnexion. La

    You might also like