Samir Amin on what he calls the "new democratic discourse" of Global imperialism:
Amin just proves, once again, that most are still fighting the same old battle even if it has no chance or rather has never proven that it will have fruitful results. Amin is his own way a Fukuyamist. What I'm trying to say that Amin isn't wrong, but that he has a Marxist mindset that leads to another soft of moral paternalism and that leads to not laissez-faire, but to laissez-aller because people stop believe in actions if they do not lead to the revolution or to other grand design. Amin is his own way a Fukuyamist who sees democracy solely as an ideological weapon.. Thus, my point is simply that at some point, those who believe that most of what is happening in the world is influenced or the consequences of Imperialist forces are going to have stop going to the poorly xhurch of victimization and show some spine by slaying the evil dragon.The new "democratic" discourse thus bore its fruits. It seemed sufficiently convincing for "left-wing" opinion in Europe to support it. This was so, not only for the electoral left (the socialist parties) but also those with a more radical tradition, of which the communist parties were the heir. With "eurocommunism" the consensus became general.
The dominant classes of the imperialist Triad learnt lessons from their victory. They thus decided to continue this strategy of centering the debate on the "democratic question." China is not reproached for having opened up its economy to the outside world, but because its policies are managed by the Communist Party. No account is taken of the social achievements of Cuba, unequalled in the whole of Latin America, but its one-party system is constantly stigmatized. The same discourse is even leveled against Putin's Russia.
Is the triumph of democracy the real objective of this strategy? One has to be very naïve to think so. The only aim is to impose on recalcitrant countries the "market economy," open and integrated into the so-called liberal world system. This is in reality imperialistic, its purpose being to reduce these countries to the status of dominated peripheries of the system. This is an objective that, once achieved, becomes an obstacle to the progress of democracy in the victimized countries and is in no way an advance in response to the "democratic question."
The chances of democratic progress in the countries that practiced "actually existing socialism" (at least at the beginning) would have been much greater, in the medium term if not immediately, if the dialectic of social struggles had been left to develop on its own, opening up the possibility of surpassing the limits of "actually existing socialism" (which had, moreover, been deformed by at least partial adherence to the liberal economic opening) to reach the "end of the tunnel."
In actual fact, the "democratic" theme is only invoked against countries that do not want to open up to the globalized liberal economy.
Comments