Walden Bello: "It is time to aim beyond capitalism"
The World Social Forum has an urgent and crucial task: battling the social democratic response to the global crisis of capitalism now under way, and push for a democratic control of economy and state, worldwide (Roh-Übersetzung siehe Text-Ende)
In the context of the current global
crisis: What is the WSFs most relevant task?
We are at a very critical historical junction in which neo-liberal capitalism
unravels 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 WSF in the context of the really
massive global crisis.
So Belém is to be a crucial stage for the WSFs future.
Yes, definitely. It would be extremely critical for global civil society at
this point to respond to this crisis beyond the kind of stabilizing solutions
you are beginning to see in Europe and the United States. The capitalist
elites are in many ways already going beyond neo-liberalism, so I think on the
one it is really important in Belém 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.
How can the WSF come out with such a response and how could it possibly
implement it?
What you really need to look at seriously, in Belém, is identify not just a
crisis of neo-liberalism but a crisis of capitalism. Were talking about the
roots of the crisis being dynamic at the capitalist mode of production. The
alternatives 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 Belém 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
respects to the alternatives that are being pushed. It cant be easy, but this
kind of sharing experiences, creation of networks, the sharing of ideas, I
think this is something that the forum will play a very critical role at.
In your writings you seem to avoid classical terms such s socialism,
revolution and the like, to describe the kind of society the Forum should be
looking forward to.
I do not so much shrink from articulating the alternative. We are looking at
democratizing the ownership of means of production. Whether you call that
socialism or peoples 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 enterprises, state enterprises. Thats one dimension.
Another dimension is the question of refocusing on the internal economy, the
domestic economy instead of exports markets, national economic development. We
would be talking about the critical importance of equity, fairly strong
mechanisms of income and redistribution. And an ecologically sustainable
alternative. I dont 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.
Is something like this actually happening anywhere in the world right now?
I think what we are seeing is 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, each 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
stabilization 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 deepen.
In this process developing countries take the lead and the North stays
behind?
I wouldnt say that. I think people are still stunned by the crisis, especially
in the United States, Europe
and Japan.
The crisis is moving very quickly. I would not discount the emergence of
popular movements in these areas of the world.,
There is also the risk of radical right-wing reactions such as those of France and Italy.
That is definitely a possibility. What we are going to see is three
possibilities: one a radicalization to the left, radicalization to the right - this
is a great danger in the North, in places like Italy
and France,
and the third is 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.
The German Left party seems to be an exception to the rule.
I think that Die Linke in Germany
is a very good example of trying to innovatively grapping 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.
You have recently written that the global balance of power is shifting to the
South.
What I mean is that what weve seen over the last decade has been the weakening
of the traditional center economies. We saw that the US
went into this consumption, finance-driven form of capitalism, financed by China. Chinese
credits have kept the US
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. Thats what I mean in
terms of balance of power. Im not saying they have become the new center or
hegemonic. Hegemonic power continues to be the North, especially the United States.
Is this positive for the kind of struggle you call for?
It depends. Overall, the less hegemonic countries of the North become, and the
more power is defused to the global system, I think it is a positive
development. On the other hand you must realize that these countries (of the
South), these economies are controlled by for all purposes by a capitalist
elite and in many ways, for instance in the case of China,
you have that it is less accountable than, say, the elite in the US. So on the
one hand the positive thing is a diffusion of power, 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 the
economic decision making. The agenda is the same for movements both in the
North and the South.
In this context, how do you see the Israeli aggression on Palestine?
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 support 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 say 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.
Such approach demands a permanent structure.
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.
Should the IC be an elected body?
We cant 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 organizing 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 a
decision-making that is democratic, this is the challenge of the WSF. Having
said that, despite all the unevenness 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.