[lbo-talk] Poll rout leaves India's communists a spent force

[ravi]

On May 20, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Michael Pollak 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).
>

Yes, that was my thinking pretty much.


> 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?

I think I have been using the words somewhat interchangeably... the  
above (neo-liberal capitalism) has roughly been taking place as well  
in India, starting from the late 80s (the Congress playing the free- 
market card and the BJP adding to that the alliances). This change  
(the Congress, under Rajiv Gandhi, initiated) has been referred to (in  
IMF'ish jargon) as "liberalisation", in India.

	--ravi