--- On Mon, 5/18/09, dredmond at efn.org <dredmond at efn.org> wrote:
> Nor should we expect miracles from the social movements and
> independent
> activists of the Indian Left. The country is only 35%
> urbanized and is
> going through a very rapid, very violent process of
> industrialization.
> Near as I can tell, the vote for Congress was a diffuse,
> generalized
> rejection of market fundamentalism and its provincial
> cousin, theological
> fundamentalism -- which is a good thing, creating more
> space for
> progressive alternatives.
>
[WS:] This reminds me of the following passage from Nadine Gordimer's Nobel Prize winning novel "A Guest of Honour" (the passage is a drunken diatribe of the disgruntled historical-materialism character Roly Dando in response to the trade unionist character Shinza demanding wage structure redistribution that is more favorable for agricultural workers:)
'In African states the economy can only be developed to the detriment of the workers. For a hell of a long time to come. That's a fact. I don't care what political creed or economic concepts you want to name, the realities of production and distribution of wealth remain the same, just the same, right through the continent. No, no - I know what's coming - don't trot out what happened in Europe a hundred years ago, because you know the answer to that one, too. The sacrifices squeezed out of the European working classes in the nineteenth century enabled Western economies to reach a point where they could acknowledge the demands of the poor bastards who'd sweated their guts out. It was possible for one reason only: the point had been reached without disturbing the pattern of growth. Within limits, they'd come to a stage where increased consumption leads to greater investment.'
Shinza and Dando were shoved into the cockpit by the smallness of the bar, the drink in their veins, the curiosity of their companions - and also something else, an awareness of each other in the same room. Shinza took up the exchange with the air of a man who has done with argument. 'And why is that impossible?'
'Because, my dear Shinza, in Africa today internal saving's nonexistent. Nonexistent or unproductive. A few quid stuffed into a mattress along with the bugs. And consumption's so low it's impossible to restrict it any more to encourage increased investment...'
[p. 386-387]
>From that perspective, neo-liberal or socialist party programmes do not matter - what matters is economic development to the point that internal consumption can sustain the economy. The communists tried to do that and drew fire from populist sentiments - just in the same way Eastern European communists did. There was one big difference, though - EE communists did not allow elections, and populists sentiments that come with them - to stand in their way to economic development. There were determined to stand their ground against populist demand for greater consumption, using armed forces if necessary. Their position paid off, as evidenced by the recent EE accession to EU.
I believe that the same hold for India - whoever can manage to promote fast industrialization and economic development while withstanding populist pressures for consumption increases is the winner, no mater what their ideological label is.
Wojtek