[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Bello on capitalism

[Patrick Bond]

It Is Time to Aim Beyond Capitalism'

Alejandro Kirk interviews Walden Bello

February 01, 2009 By *Walden Bello*
Source: IPS <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45547>

<https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>

BELEM, Brazil, Jan 26 (IPS) - The World Social Forum meeting this week in
this city in Brazil's Amazon jungle region has an urgent and crucial task:
coming up with alternative solutions for the global crisis of capitalism now
under way, and pushing for democratic control of the economy and state
worldwide, Filipino academic, author and activist Walden Bello tells
TerraViva editor Alejandro Kirk in this interview.

IPS: In the context of the current global crisis, what is the World Social
Forum's (WSF) most relevant task?

WALDEN BELLO: We are at a very critical historical juncture in which
neoliberal capitalism is unravelling and I think that the WSF is a site
where very serious discussions should be taking place, in terms of both
anticipating what is the likely response of global capitalism as well as
pushing forward alternatives to the current crisis. We must really put the
task of the WSF in the context of the truly massive global crisis.

IPS: So Belem is to be a crucial stage for the WSF's future?

WB: Yes, definitely. It would be extremely critical for global civil society
at this point to respond to this crisis beyond the kind of stabilising
solutions you are beginning to see in Europe and the United States.

The capitalist elites are in many ways already going beyond neoliberalism,
so I think on the one hand it is really important in Belem to come to a
consensus about the crisis of capitalism and we ought to have very serious
discussions on how to go beyond (such) solutions. I think we need to contend
alternatives from within the system, like an expansion of social democracy
for instance.

IPS: How can the WSF come out with such a response and how could it possibly
implement it?

WB: What you really need to look at seriously, in Belem, is to identify not
just a crisis of neoliberalism but a crisis of capitalism. We're talking
about the roots of the crisis being dynamic at the capitalist mode of
production. The alternative to that is something we need to seriously come
to grips with.

We really need to frame our responses in terms of common universal values,
like the question of justice, the question of equity, creating an
alternative that really cares for the welfare of people. I think the
discussion in Belem will really be very critical in terms of framing the
alternatives.

As for implementation, you really need to be quite innovative. We need to be
looking at solidly linking our movement across different countries,
interacting with respect to the alternatives that are being pushed. It can't
be easy, but this kind of sharing of experiences, creation of networks,
sharing of ideas - I think this is something that the forum will play a very
critical role at.

IPS: In your writings you seem to avoid classical terms such as socialism,
revolution and the like, to describe the kind of society the Forum should be
looking forward to.

WB: I do not so much shrink from articulating the alternative. We are
looking at democratising the ownership of means of production. Whether you
call that socialism or people's democracy, or democratic socialism, what you
are really talking about is democratic control of the economy.

We need to be looking at the possible articulation of mixed economies, with
different systems of ownership within the economy, which will probably
include social enterprises, cooperatives, private enterprise and state
enterprises.

That's one dimension. Another dimension is the question of refocusing on the
internal economy, the domestic economy instead of export markets; national
economic development. We would be talking about the critical importance of
equity, fairly strong mechanisms of income and redistribution. And about an
ecologically sustainable alternative. I don't want to use the term socialism
because there are certain connotations of what socialism is all about, that
bring up the image of Eastern Europe.

IPS: Is something like this actually happening anywhere in the world right
now?

WB: I think what we are seeing are efforts along this line in a number of
countries, certainly in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. I mean, of course
each process has its own particularities, its own dynamics.

I would say that as the crisis deepens - and I think we are at the beginning
stages of this crisis - peoples' struggles are going to go beyond the very
traditional mechanisms of stabilisation now under way. So I would imagine
that we will see more and more of these efforts, for democratic control and
participation as the crisis deepens.

IPS: In this process, developing countries take the lead and the
industrialised North stays behind?

WB: I wouldn't say that. I think people are still stunned by the crisis,
especially in the United States, Europe and Japan. The crisis is moving very
very quickly. I would not discount the emergence of popular movements in
these areas of the world.

IPS: There is also the risk of radical right-wing reactions such as those of
France and Italy.

WB: That is definitely a possibility. What we are going to see is three
possibilities: a radicalisation to the left, a radicalisation to the right -
this a great danger in the North, in places like Italy and France - or just
paralysis. So there is no guarantee that progressive alternatives are going
to grow. Progressives, with their knowledge of society and their strategy,
must fight for hegemony.

IPS: The German Left party seems to be an exception to the rule.

WB: I think that Die Linke in Germany is a very very good example of trying
to innovatively grasp the situation, moving from denouncing to pushing
beyond social democratic responses to the current situation. Creating a
situation to move towards people power, participatory democracy in both the
economy and the state.

IPS: You have recently written that the global balance of power is shifting
to the South.

WB: What I mean is that what we've seen over the last decade has been the
weakening of the traditional centre economies. We saw that the U.S. went
into this consumption, finance-driven form of capitalism, financed by China.
Chinese credit has kept the U.S. economy going.

In the last 10 to 15 years, countries like Brazil, China and India have
become relatively stronger economic actors with the shift of jobs and
capital; they have become the creditors of the North. That's what I mean in
terms of balance of power. I'm not saying they have become the new centre.
Hegemonic power continues to be the North , especially the United States.

IPS: Is this positive for the kind of struggle you call for?

WB: It depends. Overall, the less hegemonic countries of the North become,
and the more power is diffused to the global system, I think it is a
positive development. On the other hand you must realise that these
countries (of the South), these economies are controlled by, for all
purposes, a capitalist elite, and in many ways, for instance in the case of
China, it is less accountable than, say, the elite in the U.S.

So on the one hand the positive thing is a diffusion of power, and on the
other we are also talking about these new economy actors that are making a
big difference, they are under the domination of a developmental elite. I
think the challenge in the North is really for progressive movements to push
their agenda, which is more participation and more democratic control of the
means of production, of economic decision-making. The agenda is the same for
movements both in the North and the South.

IPS: In this context, how do you see the Israeli attack on Palestine?

WB: I have held all along that there are certain key struggles that the WSF
must take a very strong stand on. Definitely, the Palestinian issue is one
of them. The WSF should take a very strong stand condemning Israel and
supporting the right of Palestinians to their own state, and supporting the
right of return of Palestinians to what is now Israel.

I really feel the WSF can no longer say that we just want to provide a roof
for discussions to take place. I have always said that that kind of academic
posture will eventually dissipate the spirit of the WSF, and I think that
has already happened to some extent.

To really reinforce its soul and continue to provide a strong kind of energy
in support of civil society movements, the Palestine issue, and Afghanistan,
the issue of capitalism really - these are issues in which the WSF must take
a very strong stand.

IPS: Such an approach demands a permanent structure.

WB: Yes, I think that we should find ways of really making the International
Council a more accountable body. The problem now with the IC is that it is
mainly a discussion group rather than a body with real effective powers to
move the struggle on.

IPS: Should the IC be an elected body?

WB: We can't be tied to forms, but we really need an International Council
that is accountable, that is representative, so to speak. There are various
kinds of formal mechanisms. I feel also that we should probably have a more
effective kind of Secretariat that is there not organising the next forum
but to ensure the implementation of resolutions and the accumulation of
lessons.

One of the problems of the WSF has been that there is no sense of
accumulation of lessons from one WSF to another, so accountability,
accumulation of lessons and decision-making that is democratic - this is the
challenge of the WSF. Having said that, despite all the unnevenness and
weaknesses of the WSF, it is still a very important mechanism for global
civil society to be able to influence the course of global events.

(*This report was published by TerraViva, an independent IPS daily, at the
World Social Forum in Belem, Brazil.)