MM
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>