NewChannel TV, 20 October 2011
[Transcript]
Maryam Namazie: Hi you are watching TV International with Maryam Namazie. We got brilliant Hamid Taqvaee with us, and we are going to be speaking about the 99% movement.
Maryam Namazie: Welcome Hamid Taqvaee
Hamid Taqvaee: Thank you
MN: We have been hearing from protesters. It has been amazing to see these various protests in many cities across the world. One of the things that is coming up is the fact that it has got to do with greed. And I suppose my first question to you is, if we regulate the market and if the people become less greedy, will things then get any better?
HT: Actually the question of greed is what people say because they are told to think so. I mean, first when it happened in 2008, everybody was talking about greed; all the mainstream media, all the politicians, everybody, as if there is some bunch of greedy executives in Wall Street, bankers and major stock holders, who created the whole problem. That was the image the people got. The general image was that, ok, something is wrong with the system and it should be modified, but the real problem is the greed and the greedy people. Obviously, it is not the reason. I mean, even if you say it is greed, greed is what the system needs. It is created by the system. You can say that the problem is not greedy people but greedy system. And if you want the system to work, you need greed and that greed is personified in bankers and other capitalists. The problem is the system not some greedy people.
MN: And in the sense of the whole issue of the greed, it is often also blamed on the population at large. They say we are responsible of over-borrowing and living a life that we do not have money for. So, it sort of gives the impression that it is our behaviour that is the problem rather than the system itself.
HT: The question of credit and the fact that people have to borrow in order to live means there is no other way. People cannot be blamed because they want to live! One cannot say because people have to borrow to live, so they have created the problem. Again, here we have a system that works based on credits, credits to the banks, to the big companies, to the capitalists and credits to the people. Capitalists borrow to invest and people borrow to spend. People are consumers; they have to borrow from the banks in order to pay for the rent or mortgages, for bills and for everything.
MN: Basically, what you are talking about is not the greed but the system that is responsible?
HT: Yes, it is the whole system, and every part of the system is needed by its other parts. Everything matches. The system is based on credit cards, on mortgages, on stock market and financial capital and so on; it is based on greed, if you like. The whole thing works and works this way. One cannot say this or that part is not good; let’s switch it off and the rest will be ok. This is not going to work.
MN: Having said that, some people say even the 99% protesters are using the products of capitalism, from the social networks they use, the clothes they are wearing to the tents they have bought from Tesco and other big supermarkets.
HT: Are you sure they are products of capitalism and not the products of workers and people, with most of them out of a job now? I mean, everything Wall Street occupiers use is what they have created in the first place. The wealth of the whole society is created by the 99%. I don’t think any capitalist, any banker, any major stockholder has ever seen a production line, or has been to a factory or in a shop floor, ever. In fact the real problem is that the people who created all the products are the same people who cannot afford them. They cannot even survive without borrowing from those who posses everything without working for them; i.e., from the 1%. Well, look. When you say 99% against the 1%, it is a question of wealth and the way it is shared by the population. According to the statistics, 1% of the population of the USA owns more than 40% of the whole wealth. Now, we ask who created the wealth of this 1%? Who created that 40% or 100% of the wealth? Of course, the answer is people who have been working, and not the people who just own the capital or own the banks. It is obvious.
MN: It is interesting because the protesters are not only against an economic system, but against inequalities that people are facing and the fact that they cannot afford health care and many things any more. But it is also grievances against the political system, which is more interesting because often times parliamentary democracy is made out to be the hope of the people everywhere, something that apparently everyone is fighting for. What is your take on this area?
HT: There is a slogan in the movement that says both parties, Democrat and Republican, are Wall Street parties. People know that. I mean it is not just a matter of how the wealth of the society is distributed. The problem is that the tiny minority, who possesses the lion share of the wealth, owns the power as well. They run the army and all the armed forces. They decide on the major issues, foreign policies, on national policies; they own Wall Street, and they own Congress; they own Washington; they own all the lobbies. Everything! Any aspect of political power, social power, economic power is in the hands of 1% of the people. It is not just the question of wealth. It is the question of rights, the question of controlling the whole society which affects everyday life, politics, media, army, social matters, cultural matters, everything; all of which they control. The fact that one percent controls the media; te mainstream media is controlled by them. They decide on any major subject in any aspect of social life. This protest is against the elite of the society, which controls and runs everything.
MN: Can you just switch financial markets off? What would be the solution?
HT: You cannot switch off just one part of the system. But you can switch the whole thing off. I mean you cannot reform it somehow. You cannot have capitalism without bankers, without greed. You cannot have capitalism without Wall Street. You cannot have capitalism without bailouts, which we have these days now, without tens or hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to pump into the banking system because it has got to work. So, it cannot be said that capitalism is ok and good only if we could get rid of the bankers.
MN: So, everything is part of it; inequality and unemployment and social injustice are all part of it.
HT: Everything is part of it.
MN: So, what is the solution? Socialism, it is said, it is passed and old-fashioned?
HT: The problem is not that it is old-fashioned. I don’t know why the solution, i.e. Socialism, is old-fashioned! If you are jobless and you have no rights and no voice, and if the society is still controlled by 1% of people, then socialism is alive and relevant! Socialism is about those issues. I know that the Soviet Union brand of ”socialism” is old-fashioned; it is gone. But the Soviet Union had nothing to do with socialism in the first place. Socialism is the movement that answers all the basic issues of our time, the economic crisis and its political and social consequences. And as such, it is relevant to the everyday life of the majority of the people more than ever. This movement shows you how to get rid of the present system. And that is an urgent question for everybody. Everybody is thinking about that. You know, people would think we have parliament, we have parties, and we have, so to speak, “democracy”. But we have noting to do with what is going on. Our view doesn’t matter. Nobody is counted. Nobody asks us what to do. They make peace, they make wars, they bailout, they apply austerity measures, they do whatever they want and the whole system has nothing to do with us unless every four years I go and elect somebody, and I know all that is going to happen again because it is the same system. So, socialism is the real solution, and it is not old-fashioned until of course poverty and inequality itself becomes old fashioned.
MN: Thank you very much Hamid Taqvaee.
Be the first to comment