User:Griesbrei/sandbox

Samir Amin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search Samir Amin (Arabic: سمير أمين‎) (3 September 1931 – 12 August 2018) was an Egyptian-French Marxian economist, political scientist and world-systems analyst. He is noted for his introduction of the term Eurocentrism in 1988.

“Samir Amin gilt gemeinsam mit Immanuel Wallerstein, Joshua Goldstein, André Gunder Frank, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Giovanni Arrighi und Volker Bornschier (in Österreich Otmar Höll, Andrea Komlosy, Kunibert Raffer und Arno Tausch) als bedeutender Vertreter des Weltsystemansatzes. [...] avanciert er als linker Intellektueller frühzeitig zum Pionier in der Entwicklungstheorie. Er nimmt in seinen Analysen der späten 1950er Jahre wesentliche Inhalte der aus Lateinamerika stammenden Dependenztheorie vorweg” (Germ 1997?)

Contents


 * 1    Biography
 * Theory
 * 2 Views    on world order
 * 3 Views    on political Islam
 * 4    Awards
 * 5    Publications
 * 6    References
 * 7    Further reading
 * 8    External links

Biography

Amin was born in Cairo, the son of an Egyptian father and a French mother (both medical doctors). He spent his childhood and youth in Port Said; there he attended a French primary and high school, leaving in 1947 with a Baccalauréat. It was at school that Amin was first politicized when during the Second World War the Egyptian students were split into communists and nationalists with Amin belonging to the former (Brauche 2014). In 1947 Amin left for Paris where he obtained a second high school diploma with a specialization in elementary mathematics from the prestigious Lycée Henri IV and subsequently started studying. He gained a diploma in political science (Law?-> Brauche 2014) at Sciences Po (1952) before graduating in statistics at INSEE (1956) and economics (1957). In his autobiography Itinéraire intellectuel (1990) he wrote that in order to spend a substantial amount of time in "militant action" he could devote only a minimum of time to preparing for his university exams.

Already during his adolescence in Egypt Amin decided that he had to reject the social injustice he saw all around him. Witnessing the Second World War as a high school student he adopted a resolute stance against fascism and Nazism rejecting the idea of some Egyptians that “the enemy of their enemy (the enemy of Great Britain) was their friend”. After all it was also the upheaval against British domination in Egypt that his political positions. After arriving in Paris, Amin joined the French Communist Party (PCF), but he later distanced himself from Soviet Marxism and associated himself for some time with Maoist circles. With other students he published a magazine entitled Étudiants Anticolonialistes. His ideas and political position were also strongly influenced by the 1955 Asian–African Bandoeng Conference and the nationalization of the Suez Canal. The latter even encouraged him to postpone his PhD thesis that was ready in June 1956 to take part in the political unrest (Brauche 2014).

In 1957 he presented his thesis, supervised by François Perroux among others, originally titled The origins of underdevelopment – capitalist accumulation on a world scale but retitled ''The structural effects of the international integration of precapitalist economies. A theoretical study of the mechanism which creates so-called underdeveloped economies''.

After finishing his thesis, Amin went back to Cairo, where he worked from 1957 to 1960 as a research officer for the government's "Institution for Economic Management" where he worked on ensuring the state’s representation on the boards of directors of public sector companies while at the same time immersing himself in the very tense political climate linked to the nationalization of the Canal, the 1956 war, the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement, and so on. His participation in the Communist Party that was clandestine at the time made for very difficult working conditions (Brauche 2014).

In 1960 Amin left for Paris where he worked for six months for the Service des Etudes Économiques er Financières (SEEF) (Department of Economic and Financial Studies).

Subsequently, Amin left France, to become an adviser to the Ministry of Planning in Bamako (Mali) under the presidency of Modibo Keïta. He held that position from 1960 to 1963 working with prominent French economists such as Jean Bénard and Charles Bettelheim. With some scepticism Amin witnessed the growing emphasis on maximizing growth in order to “close the gap”. Although he definitively abandoned his functions as a ‘bureaucrat’ after he left Mali, Samir Amin continued to act as an adviser for several governments in the global South and for African and international institutions. Countries such as China, Vietnam, Algeria, Venezuela, and Bolivia have benefited and continue to benefit from his reflection and advice.

In 1963 he was offered a fellowship at the Institut Africain de Développement Économique et de Planification (IDEP). Within the IDEP Amin created several institutions that eventually became independent entities. Among them are the Environment and Development Action in Africa (ENDA), which later became ENDA Third World and the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA), conceived on the model of the Latin American Council for Social Sciences (CLACSO)

Until 1970 he worked there as well as being a professor at the university of Poitiers, Dakar and Paris (of Paris VIII, Vincennes). In 1970 he became director of the IDEP, which he managed until 1980. In 1980 Amin left the IDEP and became a director of the Third World Forum in Dakar.

Amin[V1]  lebte bis Ende Juli 2018 in Dakar, Senegal. Am 31. Juli 2018 wurde er in ein Krankenhaus nach Paris verlegt. Er starb am 12. August 2018 im Alter von 86 Jahren an Lungenkrebs.

1. Théorie
Amin is “one of the leading theorists of World Systems Analysis and dependency theory“ (Robinson 2011). Seine [V2] Diagnosen wurden „zum analytischen und politischen Widerpart fast aller gängigen analytischen und politischen Entwicklungsorientierungen, vor allem jener neoklassischer und sowjetmarxistischer Provenienz“ (Senghaas 2009). Nevertheless, Amins work is rarely part of western curricula: “''In economics the situation is perhaps the most dire, where not only is non-western scholarship excluded, but since the 1970s there has also been a narrowing of the field with the rising dominance of neoclassical economics. This means that all forms of theorizing about dependency, exploitation, and historical materialism have been removed from mainstream economics teaching.''” (Kufakurinani et al. 2019).

In his intellectual production, he has focused on a harsh critique of the capitalist/imperialist

system; on the deconstruction of conventional concepts of analysis; on unfailing support for political, economic and cultural emancipation of the countries of the South; and on the defence of socialism as the only alternative to capitalism and its horrors. […] for Samir Amin intellectual and political struggles are inseparable, because as a fundamentally intellectual being, he cannot limit himself to explaining the world and its atrocities but can rather highlight and participate in struggles aimed at changing the world.[Unbekannt3] [V4]  […] A core aspect of Samir Amin’s work, since his PhD thesis, was to demonstrate the indissoluble link between ‘development’ and ‘underdevelopment’ (Brauche 2014).

“Zentraler [V5] Ansatzpunkt ist dabei eine fundamentale Kapitalismuskritik, in deren Zentrum die Konfliktstruktur des Weltsystems steht. Amin konstatiert dazu drei Grundwidersprüche der kapitalistischen Ideologie:

1.) Die Erfordernisse der Rentabilität stehen gegen das Streben der Werktätigen ihr Schicksal selber zu bestimmen (Arbeitsrecht und Demokratie wurden gegen die kapitalistische Logik erzwungen)

2.) Das kurzfristige rationelle ökonomische Kalkül steht gegen langfristige Zukunftssicherung (Ökologiedebatte)

3.) Die expansive Dynamik des Kapitalismus führt zu polarisierenden Raumstrukturen - - Zentrum-Peripherie-Modelle

Immer wieder greift dabei auch Amin auf die Analysen von Marx, Polanyi und Braudel zurück” (Germn 1997?)

1.1 [Unbekannt6] World System Theory (bzw Dependency Theory?)

Amin considers the world economy to be on integrated system. Hence poor and rich countries are analytically inseparable. “''underdevelopment is not a lack of development. It is the reverse side of the development of the rich countries“'' (Robinson 2011). Historically, it is commonly[Unbekannt7] [V8]  divided into three phases: Mercantilism (1500-1800), Expansion (1800-1880) and Monopoly Capitalism (1880-today). Amin adds that “the current phase [is] dominated by “generalized, financialized, and globalized oligopolies” located primarily in the triad [USA, Europe, Japan]” (Foster 2011).

Capitalism and its evolution could only be understood as a single and unique global system, composed of ‘developed countries’, which constitute the Cores, and of ‘underdeveloped countries’, which are the Peripheries of the system. […] Development and underdevelopment consequently constitute both facets of the unique expansion of global capitalism.[Unbekannt9]  Underdeveloped countries should not be considered as lagging behind because of the specific—social, cultural, or even geographic—characteristics of these so called ‘poor’ countries. Underdevelopment is actually only the result of the forced permanent structural adjustment of these countries to the needs of the accumulation benefiting the system’s Core countries (Brauche 2014).

“In seinem Werk „Die Zukunft des Weltsystems“ 1997 analysiert er abermals die zentralen Begriffe und Ansätze der Weltsystemtheorie. „Der Kapitalismus ist ... als Produktionsweise wie als Weltsystem zugleich selbstmörderisch und kriminell, denn letzten Endes führt er zu Massen- und Völkermord in seinen zur Revolte gedrängten Peripherien“. Diese Kritik zieht sich durch die gesamte Darstellung seines Werkes. Immer wieder fordert er eine radikale Änderung der bestehenden heute neoliberalen Verhältnisse, die insbesondere die Peripherien immer noch stärker marginalisieren werden.” (Alfred Germ, 1997?)

“Amir untersucht das Weltsystem mit dem Polarisierungskonzept, das die Zentren dieses System hervorbringen und die Peripherien konstituieren. Damit fokussiert er auf die zentralen Begriffe des Weltsystemansatzes, Zentrum und Peripherie, die rein ökonomisch definiert sind. Anders als Immanuel Wallerstein oder Giovanni Arrighi lehnt er die Kategorie der Semiperipherie oder Halbperipherie ab. In Bezug auf Arrighi lehnt er dies als „Kunstgriff“ und als „einen unnützen Schuss Willkür“ ab.” (Alfred Germ, 1997?)

“Zentraler Ansatz ist das Wesensmerkmal der Polarisierung, das dem Kapitalismus inne wohnt. Hauptzüge der Polarisierung sind ländliche, nicht industrialisierte Peripherien, die sich auf Landwirtschaft und Bergbau konzentrieren. Er bezieht sich ferner auf das Element des Ungleichen Tausches und benennt in Anlehnung an Arrighi zumindest 4 Polarisierungsmechanismen:

1.) Kapitalflucht erfolgt von der Peripherie ins Zentrum

2.) Selektive Migration von Arbeitskräften verläuft in dieselbe Richtung

3.) Monopolsituation der zentralen Gesellschaften in der globalen Arbeitsteilung, vor allem das Technologiemonopol und das Monopol der globalen Finanzen

4.) Kontrolle der Zentren über den Zugang zu Naturschätzen” (Alfred Germ, 1997?)

“Amin vertritt in Bezug auf das zyklische Verhalten des Kapitalismus entgegen den Erkenntnissen von Kondratjew eine Minderheitenposition innerhalb der Weltsystemtheoretiker. Er lehnt eine Zyklus-Theoriebildung und etwaige historische Rückprojektion ab. Er meint, dass die kapitalistische Produktionsweise, die auf internationaler Arbeitsteilung beruht, durch einen inneren sozialen Widerspruch dauernd angetrieben wird „mehr zu produzieren, als konsumiert werden kann“. Die Akkumulationsdynamik im Kapitalismus erklärt sich daher nicht einzig aus einer ökonomischen Perspektive, sondern benötigt immer den soziostrukturellen Kontext.” (Germ 1997?)

1.2 Hegemonie (oder “hist. Materialismus”?) (oder “aktuelles Weltsystem”?)

“In Anlehnung an Goldstein diskutiert Amin die Rivalität der Mächte im kapitalistischen System und ihre hegemoniale Stellung. Goldstein nennt dazu 4 Hegemonie-Zyklen in der Geschichte:

1.) venezianische Hegemonie 1350-1648

2.) holländische Hegemonie 1648-1815

3.) britische Hegemonie 1815-1845

4.) amerikanische Hegemonie ab 1945[V10]

Er hält wenig von Generalisierungen und dem Suchen nach allgemeinen Gesetzen von Akkumulationsprozessen, die quasi ein prophetisches Voraussagen ermöglichen würden. Er fokussiert viel mehr auf die Konzepte des Historischen Materialismus, die Antwort auf die hegemoniale Stellung innerhalb des Weltsystems geben. Für ihn ist Hegemonie innerhalb des Systems auch nicht die Regel. Er sieht die Geschichte daher auch nicht als Abfolge von Hegemonien. Viel entscheidender scheint die Auseinandersetzung zwischen den Partnern, die versuchen den bestehenden Hegemon zu entthronen. Er diagnostiziert daher die andauernde Rivalität als konstitutives Element im Weltsystem.” (Germ 1997?)

“Die Zukunft der weltweiten Polarisierung analysiert Amin wie folgt: In der Nachkriegszeit kam es gemäß modernisierungstheoretischer Ansätze zur versuchten Industrialisierung der Peripherien mit gleichzeitiger Herausbildung von Nationalstaaten (Entkolonialisierung). Er nennt diese Konstellation das alte Globalisierungssystem. Als zwei weitere Stützpfeiler der Entwicklung nach 1945 gelten ihm das vom Weltsystem abgekoppelte sowjetische Projekt - von ihm als „Kapitalismus ohne Kapitalisten“ bezeichnet - und für Europa der historische Kompromiss zwischen Kapital und Arbeit herbeigeführt durch die keynesianische Regulierung.” (Germ 1997?)

“Heute spricht Amin von einer Globalisierung mit Chaos und „globaler Unordnung“, die durch ein mehrfaches Versagen des Systems gekennzeichnet ist:

1.) Fehlen neuer politischer und sozialer Organisationsformen, die den erodierten Nationalstaat ersetzen würden

2.) Fehlen von ökonomischen und politischen Beziehungssystemen, die den Industrialisierungsprozess Asiens und Lateinamerikas sichern könnten

3.) Beziehungen zu Afrika wurden nur im Sinne einer Ausgrenzung gestaltet

Die gegenwärtige Krise charakterisiert Amin gleichsam mit vielen anderen Autoren durch die Wachstumskrise seit den 70er Jahren (B-Phase eines Kondratjewzyklus), die Dominanz des Kapitals über die Politik - konkret durch die TNCs -, die dramatische Monetarisierung, und für ihn besonders wichtig, eine Nicht-Realisierung seiner Abkopplungstheorie im Nord-Süd-Konflikt” (Germ 1997?) [siehe 1.6 Delinking]

“Das Neue am Weltsystem macht Amin dabei an zwei Erosionsprozessen fest. Der Erosion des Nationalstaates, wo politischer Raum und Raum der Kapitalakkumulation nicht mehr identisch sind. Und einer Erosion des Schemas „industrialisiertes Zentrum - nicht industrialisierte Peripherien“. Damit verbunden sind aber neue Dimensionen der Polarisierung, die das Weltsystem weiter begleiten werden. Amin nennt die Monopole der Zentren bezüglich Technologie, Finanzen, Naturschätze, Kommunikation/Medien und Massenvernichtungswaffen als dominierende Parameter des neuen Weltsystems. Wenig verwunderlich sieht Amin in diesen Konstellationen eine reaktionäre Utopie. Die zentrale politische Herausforderung ist dabei der Umgang mit der kapitalistischen Globalisierung. Dem Projekt der Globalisierung durch den Markt ist ein humanistisches Projekt der Globalisierung entgegenzustellen. Dazu bedarf es des Aufbaus eines globalen Politischen Systems, das dem Weltmarkt den Rahmen vorgibt. Dieses hätte Aufgaben der Abrüstung, Ressourcennutzung, Schaffung neuer ökonomischer Lenkungssysteme anstelle von IWF, Weltbank und WTO, sowie die Installierung eines „Weltparlaments“ zu bewerkstelligen.” (Germ 1997?)

1.3 Imperialism (and Capitalism)

Amin believes that capitalism and imperialism are intimately linked at all stages of their development. Contrary to Lenin, who argued that imperialism was a specific stage in the development of capitalism, he asserts that capitalism is imperialist by nature and that, consequently, imperialism is a much more ancient phenomenon, from the conquest of the Americas during the sixteenth century to the move to monopoly capitalism. […] For Amin the polarization between Cores and Peripheries is a phenomenon inherent in historical capitalism. However, the forms of the Cores-Peripheries polarization, as well as the forms of expression of imperialism, have changed and evolved - but always towards an aggravation of the polarization and not towards its mitigation (Brauche 2014).

1.4 Monopoly Capitalism[Unbekannt11]

According to Amin the “Global Law of Value” creates the “super-exploitation” of the periphery, while the core countries have monopolies “on technology, control of financial flows, military power, ideological and media production, and access to natural resources” (Robinson 2011). In the centre, accumulation is cumulative and wages increase according to development, while in the periphery accumulation is stagnant and wages are low, because they are not connected to the global labour markets (and because states in poor countries tend to suppress social movements which would win increased wages). At the same time these countries are more structurally dependent. This Amir calls „development of underdevelopment“ (Robinson 2011). It is through this mechanism of unequal exchange that in current capitalism declines in the rate of profit are prevented [siehe “1.5 Tendency...”].

Nowadays, Samir Amin states that we are witnessing the transformation of capitalism into a capitalism of generalized monopolies and the concomitant transformation of imperialism into a collective imperialism personified by the triad of the United States, Japan, and the European Union and by their (military, economic and financial) tools such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). This triad enjoys the monopoly of five advantages (weapons of mass destruction; mass communication systems; monetary and financial systems; technologies; and access to natural resources) that it wishes to keep at any cost. For this reason, it has engaged in the militarization of the world in order to avoid losing these monopolies (Brauche 2014).

1.5 Tendency of the [global?]rate of profit to fall

●    Marx: Overall technological progress has a long-term labor-saving effect.

●    The overall long-term effect of saving labor time (in producing commodities with the aid of more and more machinery) has to be a falling rate of profit on production capital (according to the Labor Theory of Value)

●    Post-Marxist/ Post-Keynesanist (no need for Labor Theory of Value):

The saving of labor leads to less demand (consumption). Because capitalists do not plan activities on the macro-level, but pursue short-term/ micro-level strategies to maximize profit, the rate of profit falls (due to overproduction, that renders investments in new technology a long-term loss, though they yield short-term advantages in competition and, at first, even create macro-growth due to investments → boom and bust cycles)

●     Structural over-accumulation [V12] may be the long-term result, leading to stagnation of the economy. This may have been only postponed, through different strategies of ‘artificially’ keeping the rate of profit up (f.e. through expansion; war and reconstruction; deregulation/ financialization/ changing the income distribution to the disadvantage of labor)”

// “ Er nennt diese Monetarisierung den „Weggesellen der Stagnation“.“ (Germ 1997?) //

Dependency Theory[Unbekannt13]

This analysis is shared by the Latin American school, personified by Raul Prebisch, who later became the first secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), as well as by many other renowned economists (the Latin American ‘Dependencia’ school) (Brauche 2014).

1.6 Delinking

Amin forcefully states that the emancipation of the so called ‘underdeveloped’ countries can neither happen while respecting the logic of the globalized capitalist system nor within this system. The South would not be able to catch up in such a capitalist context because of the system’s inherent polarization. This belief led Samir Amin to assign significant importance to the project adopted by the Asian–African countries at the Bandoeng (Indonesia) Conference in 1955 (Brauche 2014).

Instead of defining value by dominant prices in the world – which result from productivity in the rich countries – Amin suggests that value in each country should be set so that agricultural and industrial workers are paid by their input into the society’s net output. The main effect of this move would be to raise wages in agriculture. Amin sees national states redistributing resources between sectors, and centralising and distributing a surplus. Full employment should be guaranteed, and the exodus from rural to urban areas discouraged. (Robinson 2011)

Amin calls for each country to delink from the world economy meaning to subordinate global relations to domestic development priorities, creating ‘autocentric’ development (but not autarky) (Kvangraven 2017). Thereby a National Law of Value should be defined without reference to the Global Law of Value of the capitalist system (e.g. food sovereignty instead of free trade, minimum wages instead of international competitiveness, full employment guaranteed by government). After the decolonization on a state level, this should lead to economical liberation from neo-colonialism. However, Amin underlines that it is almost impossible to delink 100%. ''“Amin estimates that if you can reach seventy percent delinking, you’ll have done a great job. A strong country that is for historical reasons relatively stable and has some military power will have more leverage than a small country to do this. For example, China has a margin of maneuver that Senegal does not have.”'' (Kvangraven 2017). ''“Amin estimates that China’s development is determined fifty per cent by its sovereign project and fifty per cent by globalisation. When asked about Brazil and India, he estimates that their trajectories are driven by twenty percent sovereign project, and eighty per cent globalisation. Now, if we move to South Africa we’ll see zero percent sovereign project and one hundred per cent globalisation”'' (Kvangraven 2017)[V14]

Abb. Quelle: Brauche 2014, 23

 Global Neoliberalism and Financialiszation (instead of Globalization) 

2.? Eurocentrism (and Fascism, which for Amin is a radicalization of it)

3.? Nationalism and other Fundamentalisms (Amin considers f.e. Islamism)

 Imperialism (for Amin especially: Kaustky, Lenin, Mao) 

Historic Materialism[Unbekannt15]  (as he calls his version of what is commonly referred to as Dependency Theory[Unbekannt16], to stress differences with World Systems School [Wallerstein, Arrighi] and Dependencia School [Gunder Frank and others]) (see Kvangraven 2017)

À son arrivée à Paris, Samir Amin rejoint le Parti communiste français (PCF), mais il se distanciera plus tard du communisme soviétique et s'associe pendant un certain temps à des cercles maoïstes. Sa théorie majeure est celle du développement inégal différenciant les centres du capitalisme où l'appareil de production s'est développé et où le prolétariat peut accéder au statut de classe moyenne consommatrice et leurs périphéries, où sont produites ou extraites les matières premières transformées et valorisées dans les centres et où le prolétariat ne peut accéder à l'autonomie matérielle. Théoricien principal de l'antimondialisme, puis l'altermondialisme, il préconise une manière de « développementisme marxiste » comme prolongement au tiers-mondisme de ses années maoïstes. Moins connu est le fait que sa grille de lecture économiste en fait un historien des « formes précapitalistes » des pays colonisés, notamment africains, mais aussi à propos de la Chine. Sa compréhension de l'histoire à l'aune du mode de production en fait aussi un analyste critique de la géopolitique postérieure à la dissolution de l'Union soviétique.

Er unterstützte in den 1970ern in einem Buch anfangs den kambodschanischen Umsturz durch die „Roten Khmer“ wegen dessen „rascher De-Urbanisierung und seiner ökonomischen Autarkie“ als angebliches Vorbild für Afrika. Später revidierte er die Ansicht und sah die Khmer-Herrschaft als eine Mischung aus Stalinismus und Bauernrevolte.

In die unter dem Namen arabischer Frühling bekannt gewordenen Protestbewegungen setzte er grosse Hoffnungen, befürchtete jedoch von Anfang an, dass sich diese nicht erfüllen würden. https://www.widerspruch.ch/sites/widerspruch.ch/files/pdf/wsp60_amin.pdf

Amin vertrat als Marxist und Altermondialist den Ansatz einer autozentrierten Entwicklung. „Samir Amin gehört zu den bedeutendsten und einflussreichsten Intellektuellen der Dritten Welt“, so Dieter Senghaas. Ein wichtiges Merkmal des wirtschaftlichen Aufstiegs von Staaten in Europa und den USA sah er in einer breitenwirksamen Industrialisierung und der Erhöhung der Reallöhne, die durch die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung der Zunahme der Produktivität folge. Das führe zu einer Binnenmarktdynamik und der Produktion von Gütern für einen Massenmarkt. Dieses Verhältnis von Produktivitäts- und Reallohnentwicklung findet hingegen in Entwicklungsländern, z. B. auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent, nicht statt. Ursache dieser schlechten Situation ist nach Amins Ansicht die exklavenhaft strukturierte Exportwirtschaft in Entwicklungsländern.

Views on world order

Samir Amin expressed view on world order and international relations: “Yes, I do want to see the construction of a multipolar world, and that obviously means the defeat of Washington’s hegemonic project for military control of the planet.”

In 2006, he stated:

Here I would make the first priority the construction of a Paris – Berlin – Moscow political and strategic alliance, extended if possible to Beijing and Delhi … to build military strength at a level required by the challenge of the United States... [E]ven the United State pales beside their traditional capacities in the military arena. The American challenge, and Washington’s criminal designs, make such a course necessary … The creation of a front against hegemonism is the number one priority today, as the creation of an anti-Nazi alliance was … yesterday … A rapprochement between the large portions of Eurasia (Europe, Russia, China and India) involving the rest of the Old World … is necessary and possible, and would put an end once and for all to Washington’s plans to extend the Monroe Doctrine to the entire planet. We must head in this direction … above all with determination.”

He also stated:

The ‘European project’ is not going in the direction that is needed to bring Washington to its senses. Indeed, it remains a basically ‘non-European’ project, scarcely more than the European part of the American project … Russia, China and India are the three strategic opponents of Washington’s project... But they appear to believe that they can maneuver and avoid directly clashing with the United State[s].

Hence, Europe must end its “Atlanticist option” and take the course of the “Eurasian rapprochement” with Russia, China, India and the rest of Asia and Africa. This “Eurasian rapprochement” is necessary for the head-on collision with the United States.

Views on political Islam

According to Samir Amin, Islam leads its struggle on the terrain of culture, wherein "culture" is intended as "belongingness to one religion". Islamist militants are not actually interested in the discussion of dogmas which form religion, but on the contrary are concerned about the ritual assertion of membership in the community. Such a world view is therefore not only distressing, as it conceals an immense poverty of thought, but it also justifies Imperialism's strategy of substituting a "conflict of cultures" for a conflict between the liberal, imperialist centres and the backward, dominated peripheries.

This importance attributed to culture allows political Islam to obscure from every sphere of life the realistic social dichotomy between the working classes and the global capitalist system which oppresses and exploits them.

The militants of political Islam are only present in areas of conflict in order to furnish people with education and health care, through schools and health clinics. However, these are nothing more than works of charity and means of indoctrination, insofar as they are not means of support for the working class struggle against the system which is responsible for its misery.

Besides, beyond being reactionary on definite matters (see the status of women in Islam) and responsible for fanatical excesses against non-Muslim citizen (such as the Copts in Egypt), political Islam even defends the sacred character of property and legitimises inequality and all the prerequisites of capitalist reproduction.

One example is the Muslim Brotherhood's support in the Egyptian parliament for conservative and reactionary laws which empowers the rights of property owners, to the detriment of the small peasantry.

Political Islam has also always found consent in the bourgeoisie of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as the latter abandoned an anti-imperialist perspective and substituted it for an anti-western stance, which only creates an acceptable impasse of cultures and therefore doesn't represent any obstacle to the developing imperialist control over the world system.

Hence, political Islam aligns itself in general with capitalism and imperialism, without providing the working classes with an effective and non-reactionary method of struggle against their exploitation.

It is important to note, however, that Amin was careful to distinguish his analysis of political Islam from islamophobia, thus remaining sensitive to the anti-Muslim attitudes that currently affect Western Society.

Samir Amin was one of the advocates of Marxian dependency theory.

Awards


 * The Ibn Rushd Prize for Freedom of Thought for the year 2009 in Berlin. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publications


 * 1957, Les effets structurels de l'intégration    internationale des économies précapitalistes. Une étude théorique du     mécanisme qui an engendré les éonomies dites sous-développées (thesis)
 * 1965, Trois expériences africaines    de développement: le Mali, la Guinée et le Ghana
 * 1966, L'économie du Maghreb, 2 vols.
 * 1967, Le développement du    capitalisme en Côte d'Ivoire
 * 1969, Le monde des affaires sénégalais
 * 1969, The Class struggle    in Africa [1] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 1970, Le Maghreb moderne    (translation: The Magrheb in the Modern World)
 * 1970, L'accumulation à    l'échelle mondiale (translation: Accumulation on a world scale)
 * 1970, with C. Coquery-Vidrovitch,    Histoire économique du Congo 1880–1968
 * 1971, L'Afrique de l'Ouest bloquée
 * 1973, Le développement    inégal (translation: Unequal development)
 * 1973, L'échange inégal et la    loi de la valeur
 * 1973, Neocolonialism in West Africa [2]
 * 1973, 'Le developpement inegal. Essai sur les    formations sociales du capitalisme peripherique' Paris: Editions de     Minuit.
 * 1974, with K. Vergopoulos:    La question paysanne et le capitalisme
 * 1975, with A. Faire, M.    Hussein and G. Massiah: La crise de l‘impérialisme
 * 1976, ‘Unequal    Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism'     New York: Monthly Review Press.
 * 1976, L'impérialisme et    le développement inégal (translation: Imperialism and unequal development)
 * 1976, La nation arabe    (translation: The Arab Nation)
 * 1977, La loi de la valeur et le matérialisme    historique (translation: The law of value and historical materialism)
 * 1979, Classe et nation    dans l'histoire et la crise contemporaine (translation: Class and nation,     historically and in the current crisis)
 * 1980, L'économie arabe    contemporaine (translation: The Arab economy today)
 * 1981, L'avenir du Maoïsme    (translation: The Future of Maoism)
 * 1982, Irak et Syrie 1960–1980
 * 1982, with G. Arrighi, A.    G. Frank and I. Wallerstein): La crise, quelle crise? (translation: Crisis, what     crisis?)
 * 1984, 'Was kommt nach der Neuen Internationalen    Wirtschaftsordnung? Die Zukunft der Weltwirtschaft' in 'Rote Markierungen     International' (Fischer H. and Jankowitsch P. (Eds.)), pp. 89–110,     Vienna: Europaverlag.
 * 1984, Transforming the    world-economy? : nine critical essays on the new international     economic order.
 * 1985, La déconnexion    (translation: Delinking: towards a polycentric world)
 * 1988, Impérialisme et    sous-développement en Afrique (expanded edition of 1976)
 * 1988, L'eurocentrisme (translation: Eurocentrism)
 * 1988, with F. Yachir: La    Méditerranée dans le système mondial
 * 1989, La faillite du développement en Afrique et    dans le tiers monde
 * 1990, with Andre    Gunder Frank, Giovanni     Arrighi and Immanuel Wallerstein:     Transforming the revolution: social movements and the world system
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1990, Itinéraire    intellectuel; regards sur le demi-siècle 1945-90 (translation: Re-reading     the post-war period: an Intellectual Itinerary)
 * 1991, L'Empire du chaos    (translation: Empire of chaos)
 * 1991, Les enjeux stratégiques en Méditerranée
 * 1991, with G. Arrighi, A. G. Frank et I.    Wallerstein): Le grand tumulte
 * 1992, 'Empire of Chaos'    New York: Monthly Review Press. [3]
 * 1994, L'Ethnie à l'assaut des nations
 * 1995, La gestion capitaliste    de la crise
 * 1996, Les défis de la mondialisation
 * 1997, 'Die Zukunft des Weltsystems. Herausforderungen    der Globalisierung. Herausgegeben und aus dem Franzoesischen uebersetzt     von Joachim Wilke' Hamburg: VSA.
 * 1997, Critique de l'air du temps
 * 1999, "Judaism,    Christianity and Islam: An Introductory Approach to their Real or Supposed     Specificities by a Non-Theologian" in "Global capitalism, liberation     theology, and the social sciences: An analysis of the contradictions of     modernity at the turn of the millennium" (Andreas Mueller, Arno     Tausch and Paul Zulehner (Eds.)), Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge,     Commack, New York
 * 1999, Spectres of capitalism:    a critique of current intellectual fashions
 * 2000, L'hégémonisme des États-Unis et    l'effacement du projet européen
 * 2002, Mondialisation, comprendre pour agir
 * 2003, Obsolescent Capitalism
 * 2004, The Liberal Virus:    Permanent War and the Americanization of the World
 * 2005, with Ali El Kenz,    Europe and the Arab world; patterns and prospects for the new relationship
 * 2006, Beyond US Hegemony:    Assessing the Prospects for a Multipolar World
 * 2008, with James Membrez,    The World We Wish to See: Revolutionary Objectives in the Twenty-First     Century
 * 2009, 'Aid for    Development' in 'Aid to Africa: Redeemer or Coloniser?' Oxford: Pambazuka Press [4]
 * 2010, 'Eurocentrism -    Modernity, Religion and Democracy: A Critique of Eurocentrism and     Culturalism' 2nd edition, Oxford: Pambazuka Press [5]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 2010, 'Ending the Crisis    of Capitalism or Ending Capitalism?' Oxford: Pambazuka Press [6]
 * 2010, 'Global History - a    View from the South' Oxford: Pambazuka Press [7] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 2011, 'Maldevelopment -    Anatomy of a Global Failure' 2nd edition, Oxford: Pambazuka Press [8] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 2011, 'Imperialsim and    Globalization' : Monthly Review Press
 * 2013, 'The Implosion of    Contemporary Capitalism' : Monthly Review Press [9] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 2016, 'Russia and the    Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism' : Monthly Review Press
 * 2018, 'Modern    Imperialism, Monopoly Finance Capital, and Marx's Law of Value' :     Monthly Review Press

References



  ''"Samir Amin at 80". Red Pepper. Retrieved 28 March 2015.''

    ''"A Brief Biography of Samir Amin". www.questia.com. Monthly Review, Vol. 44, Issue 4, September 1992 | Online Research Library: Questia. Retrieved 2017-05-19.''

    Samir Amin, ''Beyond US Hegemony? Assessing the Prospects for a Multipolar World'', (Beirut: World Book Publishing, 2006), p 17.

    Beyond US Hegemony, p 17.

    Beyond US Hegemony, p 148-149.

    Beyond US Hegemony, p 148-149.

    page 83, "The World We Wish To See; Revolutionary Objectives In The Twenty-First Century", Samir Amin and James Membrez, ISBN 1-58367-172-2, ISBN 978-1-58367-172-6, ISBN 978-1-58367-172-6, Publishing Date: Jul 2008, Publisher: Monthly Review Press

    page 84, "The World We Wish To See; Revolutionary Objectives In The Twenty-First Century", Samir Amin and James Membrez, ISBN 1-58367-172-2, ISBN 978-1-58367-172-6, ISBN 978-1-58367-172-6, Publishing Date: Jul 2008, Publisher: Monthly Review Press

    ''"Comments on Tariq Amin-Khan's text by Samir Amin | Monthly Review". Monthly Review. 2009-03-21. Retrieved 2017-10-27.''

10.              ''Jal, Murzban (2018-09-01). "Remembering Samir Amin (1931–2018)". Economic and Political Weekly. 53 (35).''

Further reading


 * Aidan Forster-Carter:    "The Empirical Samir Amin", in S. Amin: The Arab Economy     Today, London, 1982, pp. 1–40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Duru Tobi: "On    Amin's Concepts - autocentric/ blocked development in Historical     Perspectives", in: Economic Papers (Warsaw), No. 15, 1987,     pp. 143–163
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Fouhad Nohra: Théories du capitalisme mondial.    Paris, 1997
 * Gerald M. Meier, Dudley    Seers (eds.): Pioneers in Development. Oxford, 1984

External links


 * Empire of Chaos Challenged: An Interview with    Samir Amin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * "Third World Forum: An Interview with Samir    Amin," Z     Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 2005 Interview with Samir Amin
 * The New    Challenge of the Peoples' Internationalism -     Interview

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * 2010 Interview with Samir Amin
 * 2012 Interview with Samir Amin
 * Revolutionary Change in Africa: An Interview with    Samir Amin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Samir Amin    Articles at Monthly     Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Samir    Amin Articles at MR Online From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Samir Amin. New Empire? In Search of Alternatives    to Global Hegemony of Capital. (Red TV)
 * A    review of Samir Amin's Re-reading the Postwar Period: An Intellectual     Itinerary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Revolution and the Third World: Exploring the    Radical Ideas of Anti-Imperialist Economist Samir Amin by Ben Norton From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Samir    Amin: a vital challenge to dispossession by     Nick Dearden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Samir Amin: Comrade in the Struggle by Immanuel Wallerstein From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quellen aus PPP:

●    Robinson, A. (2011). An A-Z of theory: Samir Amin (Part 1 and Part 2). [online] Ceasefire Magazine. Part 1 available at: https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-amin-1/ [Accessed 4 Jun. 2019].

Part 2 avaible at: https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-amin-2/ [Accessed 4 Jun. 2019].

●    Senghaas, D. (2009). ''Zeitdiagnostik, von kreativer Utopie inspiriert – Laudatio auf Samir Amin aus Anlass der Verleihung des Ibn Rushd-Preises für Freies Denken am 4. Dezember 2009 in Berlin.'' [online] Avaible at: https://www.ibn-rushd.org/typo3/cms/de/awards/2009-samir-amin/laudatory-held-prof-dieter-senghaas/ [Accessed 4 Jun. 2019]

●     Bieling, H. (2011). Internationale Politische Ökonomie: eine Einführung. 2., aktualisierte Aufl. Studienbücher Außenpolitik und Internationale Beziehungen Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften.

●    Kvangraven, I. H. (2017). A Dependency Pioneer - Samir Amin. [online] Avaible at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317603001_A_Dependency_Pioneer_-_Samir_Amin [Accessed 5 Jun 2019]

●    Kufakurinani, U.; Styve, M. D.; Kvangraven, I. H. (2019). Samir Amin and beyond. [online] Avaible at: https://africasacountry.com/2019/03/samir-amin-and-beyond [Accessed 05 Jun 2019]

●    Brauch, Günter Hans: Springer Briefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice, Volume 16, Samir Amin Pioneer of the Rise of the South, 2014

[V1]EN: Amin lived in Dakar until the end of Juli 2018. On Juli 31st he was, diagnosed with lung cancer, transferred to a hospital in Paris. Amin died on August 12th at the age of 86.

[V2]EN: His views became „the analytical and political counterpart to almost all the commonly pursued development paths, especially of those of neoclassical or sovietmarxist provenance.

[Unbekannt3]Eher bei Biography?

[V4] ja

[V5]EN TR: Übersetzung in Englisch.

The central starting point is a fundamental critique of capitalism, at the centre of which is the conflict structure of the world system. Amin states three fundamental contradictions of capitalist ideology: 1.) The requirements of profitability stand against the striving of the working people to determine their own fate (labour law and democracy were enforced against capitalist logic) 2.) The short-term rational economic calculus stands against long-term safeguarding of the future (ecology debate) 3.) The expansive dynamics of capitalism lead to polarizing spatial structures - - Center-Periphery Models.

Regularly also resorts to the analyses of Marx, Polanyi and Braudel" (Germn 1997?)

[Unbekannt6]Habe mal versucht, mit den Nummern die Kapitel bzw. Unterkapitel zu gruppieren (innerhalb vom Theorie-Kapitel)

[Unbekannt7]Von wem?

[V8]Ja..mir natürlich..

[Unbekannt9]Gedoppelt, aber gut kombinierbar mit Absatz davor

[V10]1845?

[Unbekannt11] (hier Dependenztheorie-Teil rein?) (oder bei 1.2?)

[V12]Ist dieser Teil Amins These? (davor eigentlich nur Marx?)

[Unbekannt13]Woanders hinpacken, vielleicht bei “1.4 Monopoly Capitalism“?

[V14]Vormals PPP Bulletpoints

[Unbekannt15]Eigentlich entspricht das (glaub ich) was bei 1.2 steht. Man könnte höchstens überlegen irgendwo (bei 1.2 ganz am Anfang? Oder wenn 1.2 nicht „Historic Materialism“ heißt dann ggf. gesondert) darauf hinzuweisen, dass Amin hier eine eigene Verwendung des Begriffs „Historischer Materialismus“ hat...aber dazu habe ich noch nichts explizit in Sekundärlit. gesehen...

[Unbekannt16]Siehe Kommentare oben, das entspr. Kapitel umzustellen (zu 1.2)