Reformists versus radicals

WORLD SOCIAL FORUM-2004

Fiery speeches against globalisation were the order of the day at the World Social Forum in Mumbai on Monday, with Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz being the moderating influence at these meetings.

Spewing vitriol, radical Egyptian economist Samir Amin accused globalisation of causing a "genocide" of the world's peasants, called the World Bank the Ministry of Propaganda of world capitalism, said that the United States was "on the top of the list of rogue states" and insisted that it was a parasitic society which can only maintain its standard of living by plundering the savings of the rest of the world.

He said that free trade for India would be a catastrophe, "just as any alliance with the US is a catastrophe".

Those views were echoed by economist Prabhat Patnaik, who said that there were several current misconceptions about globalisation.

These included the notion that a country could take advantage of globalisation to accelerate its growth, the idea that while trade liberalisation is a good thing, financial liberalisation is not and that globalisation can be fair.

According to Patnaik, globalisation is inherently deflationary, which causes job losses and weakens social spending.

He said that trade and financial liberalisation is intimately connected, citing how the 1991 crisis was aggravated by exporters not bringing in their sales proceeds.

He pointed out that India prior to World War 1 was a paragon of free trade, the result being no industrial growth.

Patnaik said that the objective of metropolitan capital is to dominate, and whether it does it through the World Trade Organisation or through bilateral agreements depends on where it will be more successful.

He painted a very pessimistic view of the future, pointing out that large scale unemployment and gross inequality leads to the strengthening of the forces of communalism and separatism, which could make it difficult for large-sized states like India to survive, let alone prosper.

Patnaik also said that nation-states sometimes carry out the diktat of the super-imperialist US state, giving the example of anti-terror legislation enacted in various countries after the 9/11 attack.

That pessimism was echoed at a different level, with Father Cedric Prakash, the Gujarat state coordinator of the United Christian Forum for Human Rights speaking at another seminar on how human rights and democracy have been subverted, thanks to the Global War on Terror.

Father Prakash said that, "We have here in India the growth and emergence of a fascist state, under cover of the war on terror."

But China, with its eminently successful handling of globalisation, is fast becoming the bete noire of anti-globalisation activists.

Both Amin and Patnaik acknowledged that China has proven to be the "single successful example" of successfully managing globalisation so far, but believed that India could not emulate the Chinese role model.

The dissenting voice turned out to be that of Joseph Stiglitz, who made no bones about pointing out that while globalisation has deepened poverty and led to economic and social insecurity in many places, it has also brought higher growth, lower poverty and greater economic security to East Asia.

The idea, he said, is to successfully manage globalisation. He also said that the WTO was necessary, and that it was a check to the unfettered power of the US.

He also agreed that in many instances multinationals had indeed provided jobs and capital to developing countries.