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

[KJ]

2009/5/21 ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>:
> On May 20, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
>>
>> And capital will lead to development and
>> modernity, I don't see any of the far left parties--- the CPI-ML, Naxalites,
>> etc, as being anything other than a reactionary force responding to the
>> historically progressive role of the bourgeois in India and no amount of
>> dependency theory or Leninist dicta can persuade me otherwise.
>>
>>
>> From this standpoint I welcomed the election results on a level due to the
>> defeat of the Indian far right and its communalist policies, but I do regret
>> the fact that left-forces will not be able to pressure Congress like they
>> did with their minimal programme last election cycle.
>
>
> And the reason why the loss of the Left (to me that includes the end of the
> revival represented in the Janata Party, in response to Indira Gandhi) --
> the ideology, not the parties -- is of particular concern is because I think
> the historically progressive role of the bourgeois is at an end as they turn
> more libertarian in their outlook, rid of both political and religious
> education or indoctrination.

Re Bhaskar: But didn't the Left lose because, amongst other things,
they tried to join the bandwagon and "develop the productive forces" a
la the way it has been going since the late 1980s, viz. with a fair
bit of brutality? As far as social policies go, I would think the
Indian populace should be enough of a reminder that Congress resurgent
should not think they can now go the whole hog -- as the world
business media seems to be calling for, and as the Sensex seems to
reflect, and as the Front Line editorial appears to fear.

I'm also inclined to Ravi re the (non)progressive role of the
contemporary bourgeoisie. To think otherwise is to think that we -- in
the global south -- are to recapitulate the history of the global
north. Whereas "our" bourgeosie and, more broadly, "middle" classes,
has come of age in this era. Not to push any analogies, but the events
in Thailand of the last year+ should give cause for pause re this
progressive role business.

This is not a question of theory or dicta -- although this notion of
the historically progressive role of the bourgeoisie is itself a
dicta, isn't it? -- but an empirical question. I think, at the moment,
the weight of the empirical favours Ravi's judgment.

Which is not to say that in circumstances in which there is no
possible revolution in sight, a "liberal" capitalism -- as clarified
by Ravi -- is something to be scoffed at.


> Michael, I don't think it’s a case of single intention, nor is it a party
> game (the political goings on in India matter to me, including at a very
> personal level, a lot more than to those who may borrow events for pushing
> some favoured [Western] political philosophy). Rather, the legitimate
> question is: what are the factors and reasons behind the significant victory
> for the Congress Party?

Five years is a long time and much can happen that can be
irreversible. But Ravi, do you think that this win for Congress is
some kind of turning point or one of those blips? Is the Left so
irreversibly damaged? If so, then if Congress thinks this is a mandate
for it to go neo-liberal, would the right soak up electoral support
the next time around?