On Thu, 21 May 2009, KJ wrote:
> 2009/5/20 ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>:
>
>> What this election seems to represent, seen in
>> light of the defeat of both the Left and the BJP, is a pragmatic acceptance
>> and adoption of liberal capitalism by the non-ruling classes (hence my
>> follow-up questions to Sujeet).
>
> What do you make of the assessments in the current issue of Front Line
> (http://www.frontlineonnet.com), allowing for its orientation?
> Specifically, the following points in the cover story:
<begin Front Line quote>
> The primary factor, by any yardstick, has to be the overriding view
> among large sections of the electorate that only the Congress can
> provide a stable, secular government. The second factor relates to the
> track record of the Manmohan Singh government, particularly its social
> sector initiatives such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee
> Scheme (NREGS) and the bank loan waiver.
>
> The third crucial factor [I think is an elaboration of the first factor
> -- MP]
<end Front Line quote>
> Which, if accurate, would not suggest the adoption of liberal
> capitalism by the non-ruling classes.
Well actually it would -- if you use the phrase "more liberal capitalism" the way we USAmericans usually do, to mean kinder gentler capitalism. The embrace of rural help schemes to help the worst off, and the rejection of nationalist and religious chauvinism, are prime examples of what we mean -- stuff that doesn't threaten the capitalist structure, but rather actually makes it more stable and slightly more civilized, and is in any rate pushed by a party that is explicitly pro-market and has no planks in their platform about overturning it (unlike some left parties who got mauled).
Are you perhaps using the word "liberal capitalism" in the sense of "neo-liberal capitalism" i.e., the harsher Washington Consensus form, wherein "more liberal" means more free-market, less government regulated, and more prone to make alliances with repressive reactionary cultural elements?
Because in that case, you and Ravi would be agreeing, and this would just be a (word) usage difference. Although a very interesting one.
Michael