COMMENTARY

Capitalism in Crisis and Its Alternatives: A Conference Report

Deepshikha

A recent three-day conference in New Delhi brought together leading radical scholars with their perspectives on the global crisis and opportunities for radical transformations. While there was agreement that the crisis is a serious challenge to the hegemony of the United States and the present architecture of international capital, there was also soul-searching of how to build radical alternatives to the current political and economic systems. It was also a rare occasion to engage with major Marxist scholars from an anti-Stalinist perspective.

nited States President Barack Obamas recent visit to New Delhi coincided with another signicant event in the political and academic history of the city an international conference on The Global Crisis and Hegemonic Dilemmas on 8, 9 and 10 November 2010, which saw the participation of leading left wing political and economic experts from around the world.

Central Theme
The central theme for the opening session of the conference was The Global Crisis and Hegemonic Dilemmas. Leo Panitch, political scientist and editor of Socialist Register, Perry Anderson, historian and editor of New Left Review, and Vivek Chibber, sociologist and also editor of S ocialist Register participated as speakers while the session was chaired by former union minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar. The speakers employed the method of histo rical analogy to trace the capitalist roots of the recent global economic crisis, to identify its peculiar features and to evalu ate its implications for the future of us hegemony over the world. Leo Panitch argued that the crisis that closed the rst decade of the 21st century has demonstrated that capitalism is essentially fraught with numerous contradictions based on over-accumulation, underconsumption and a falling rate of prot, a nyone of which could trigger a crisis. Each crisis is historically distinct in terms of its underlying class and state congurations. The challenge for socialist analyses is to reveal both the nature and consequences of capitalist contradictions in the neoliberal era of globalised nance. He explained how the US inltrated other capitalist states including Japan to merge them into its informal empire. Since the 1980s, the pouring of Japanese surplus into America led to the displacement of Japan,

The conference was funded jointly by the Indian Council for Social Science Research, Indian Council for Philosophical Research, Department of Political Science of Delhi University, Department of Sociology of New York University and the Popular Education and Action Centre. Deepshikha (deepshikha.shahi@gmail.com) is a PhD scholar at the Department of Political Science, Delhi University.

thereby reinforcing US hegemony. Unlike the Japanese case, the Chinese integration into global capitalism is unprecedented. However, the US neoliberal strategy stands discredited in the aftermath of the recent crisis. Panitch called for the need to view the crisis as a turning point that can open up opportunities for the left. Perry Anderson began the discussion by posing two questions: Is the present crisis similar to the ones witnessed in the 19th century, the 1930s or, even, the 1970s? Does this crisis indicate the decline of US hegemony? While responding to these questions, Anderson drew a comparison between the concert of ve powers or pentarchy that evolved after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the one that has emerged in the contemporary post-crisis world. The structural dissimilarities between Russia, Austria, Prussia, England and France did not hinder the Congress of Vienna from settling their diplomatic differences till 1854. The concert nally d eclined only after the conicts began over the periphery of that time, namely, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Likewise, the heterogeneity of the new pentarchy the US, the European Union, Russia, China and India is not preventing mutual cooperation amongst the ve powers. Though US hege mony exists, the indebtedness of the US economy puts a question mark on its continuance. The destabilisation of the current hegemonic order can originate from the concatenation of economic disorders as political stability largely depends on economic growth. Though the US is the only power in the new pentarchy that does not suffer from insurgency, the threat to its hegemony can come from conicts in the periphery like west Asia. Vivek Chibber explained the transformation in the nature of imperial coercion over the past 100 years. In 1910, the spread of capitalism was uneven and the effect of democratisation was small. In 2010, the spread of capitalism has given rise to stable nation states with strong demo cratic movements posing greater obs taclesto imperial coercion. Though the political sensitivity to economic costs has increased, the US has been able to margin alise labour movements and push forward its imperial strategy. Despite the heavy economic costs, the US invaded Iraq and

22

december 18, 2010 vol xlv no 51 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

attempted to set the agenda not only for Iraq but for the rest of the world. The aim was to full a fourfold objective: (1) establishment of a client regime, (2) promotion of democratisation only after the client r egime was established, (3) formation of permanent military bases, and (4) opening of access to oil elds. However, the anti-US-occupation forces in Iraq have proved more recalcitrant than the US had expected. The failure of the US to full its objectives in Iraq suggests a decline in its hegemonic status. Further, in the post- crisis world, no state is coming forward to support the US as the sole global guarantor. However, many states continue to t acitly recognise its informal empire. The challenge to this American empire has to emerge not from without but from within. Chibber argued that the labour movements in the North must place the demand for reallocation of budgets on their agenda and ally with the labour movements in the South in their combined struggle against American hegemony.

The Nature of the Crisis

The historical orientation of the rst panel was replaced with a focus on economic analysis in the session titled The Global Economic Crisis and Its Implications which had three economics professors Anwar Shaikh (from New School, New York), and Deepak Nayyar and Jayati Ghosh (from Jawaharlal Nehru Univer sity, New Delhi). Anwar Shaikh, who labels the recession of 2008-09 as The rst great depression of the 21st century, argued that the current crisis was similar to the past ones of the 1830s, 1880s, 1930s and 1970s. Though the immediate cause of the current crisis was the creation of huge credit bubbles, it was largely a reection of the recurrent pattern of structural crisis that characterises capitalism. Shaikh produced data on the rate of prot that showed the cyclical movement of what he called long booms and long downturns in capitalism. He e xplained the long boom of 1982-2007 in terms of the suppression of wages well below productivity gains and hence high prots, which more than covered the costs of interest rate payments, thereby enabling the prots of enterprise to rise. The recent mortgage crisis has marked the onset of a long downturn. Shaikh observed

that any shift in hegemony would not change the intrinsic nature of capitalism. Deepak Nayyar argued that despite the severe impact of the crisis, some states i ncluding India weathered the crisis better because of some favourable conditions; the chief among them being restraint in nancial liberalisation, provision of stimulus packages and safety nets for the poor and the relatively large domestic market and consumption. Perhaps, Nayyars most valuable contribution was his explanation of why China could not be the new driver of global growth. Unlike the US, he a rgued, China cannot play the role of consumer of last resort, let alone of rst resort. While Nayyar viewed greater d omestic consumption as a countervailing force, Jayati Ghosh observed that every state was seeking increase in exports as the way out of the current crisis. However, it is impractical to imagine that every state will become an export addict precisely because the adjustment in foreign exchange rates and the consequent appreciation and depreciation of currencies to manage the crisis, reduce export advantages for at least some states. As Charles Kindleberger had stated in the context of the depression of 1930s, the crisis becomes more serious in the absence of a leader that could perform three essential functions to overcome the crisis providing discounts, o ffering markets for those who generate surplus and initiating counter-cyclical moves. Since the US can no longer perform all these functions, todays world remains a leaderless one. Ghosh asked, Is the failure of the US to perform leadership roles terrible news or good news? She concluded by stating that though the crisis creates i nstabilities that are unpleasant in many ways, it allows for a break in the existing pattern of division of labour. The peculiar feature of the current crisis is that capital, goods and labour are being exported from the South to the North. The North is still thriving upon its intellectual property. The South must break the Norths mono poly over knowledge.

The Rising Powers The morning session of the second day asked the question, Emerging Powers: A llies or Rivals? to understand the politicoeconomic scenario of the three emerging powers Russia, China and India.

Boris Kagarlitsky, Russian Marxist and political dissident in Soviet as well as postSoviet times, stated that Russia adopted Keynesian tools to achieve neoliberal goals. Privatisation, foreign investment and propaganda constituted the main strategies of the Russian government. He argued that the weakness of global powers like the EU, Russia, China and India are also challenges to US hegemony for their fall will transform and destabilise the existing hegemonic o rder. Therefore, their weakness must be considered as a strength. The disagreements between the US and Europe are i ncreasingly evident. In line with Lenins belief, Kagarlitsky asserted that the division of the elites must be seen as a sign of forthcoming transformation. While Kagarlitsky exposed the failure of the Russian government to address the issue of destitution in Russia, Chaohua Wang, the Chinese Marxist who participated in the 1989 Tiananmen movement, discussed the condition of the Chinese poor through four governmental policies that break myths about China: (i) the conversion of social goods (like health and education) into commercial goods, (ii) the exploitation of labourers in companies like Foxconn that are major revenue contributors to the government, (iii) the disappearance of collective ownership of land, and (iv) the absence of anti-foreign nationalism, as foreign companies remain crucial for the Chinese economy. She argued that the reliance of Chinese economy on foreign sources and the fragmentation of Chinese labour are major problem areas. Moving from the initial, pre-revolution slogan of Socialism can save China to the later slogan, post-1989, that China can save Socialism, China has nally arrived at a juncture where the question now is, Can China save Capitalism?. Commenting on the controversial s trategic shift of India, Anand Swaroop Verma, editor of Samkaleen Tisri Duniya, discussed how the tendency of the Indian government towards greater cooperation with the US has aggravated the hardships of the masses. Lamenting the absence of an independent agenda for uplifting the south Asian region, Verma criticised the aggressive interference of the Indian government in Myanmar, Bhutan and Nepal. Rather than being a challenger to the US hege mony,

Economic & Political Weekly EPW december 18, 2010 vol xlv no 51

23

COMMENTARY

India has become a junior partner in pushing the US agenda in south Asia. The afternoon session discussed the long history of conict in west and c entral Asia with Michael Warschawski, Israeli anti-Zionist and Marxist activist, Praful Bidwai, anti-nuclear activist and journalist and Anuradha Chenoy, professor at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi as speakers. Warschawski argued that the post1945 politics in west Asia was an attempt towards re-colonisation through a nonpre-emptive never-ending war. Barack Obamas election as US president has renewed the emphasis on the peace-process in west Asia. In his Cairo speech, Obama declared that no US hegemony was possible without stabilising west Asia and that could be done only after neutralising the Palestinian issue. However, any serious intent to promote peace in west Asia potentially involves a confrontation with Israel. This limits the extent to which the Washington administration will push matters as well as ensuring that any possible peace settlement would be on Israeli terms. The bombing of Gaza in December 2008 was aimed at sending a forceful message to Obama about Israels opposition to any attempt by Washington to try and change the rules of the game in any way that might discomfort Israel. He concluded by pointing out that though Israel is trying to assert its power, the growing BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) movement in the US and elsewhere demonstrates that Israel is receiving increasing international disapproval and provoking stronger resistances in global civil s ociety, if not necessarily to an equivalent degree among states. Bidwai elaborated on how interventions by global powers had aggravated the internal ethnic complexities in A fghanistan and had now become a threat for global peace. Chenoy used H J Mackinders Imperial Geopolitics to argue that c entral Asia had become the heartland of the world where multiple major and minor hegemons were ghting for control.

speakers were Michael Lowy, French Brazillian Marxist and Achin Vanaik, professor of International Relations at Delhi University. Leaving aside Colombia which is closely aligned with the US, Lowy bifurcated the Latin American states into those that believe in Social Liberalism and those that aim at promoting the Socialism of the 21st Century. The former, which comprise Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, El Salvador, Paraguay and Argentina are slightly autonomous of US foreign policy, follow the Washington Consensus but also frame policies for popular welfare. The states in the second category, that are in direct confrontation with US imperial interests and their programmes for popular welfare are based on democratic organisation from below are Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. Others, like Nicaragua, fall somewhere in between while Cuba r emains distinctive. Lowy said that Socialism of the 21st Century has a dual connotation. It is a discourse where the enemy is not just imperialism but also capitalism. Second, it is not just a chronological term but a critical rupture from the previous socialist experiences of the 20th century. It encompasses feminist, ecologist and other indigenous movements. It is a project and not a socioeconomic reality, except in Cuba. While discussing the European experience, Lowy observed that the recent global

conomic crisis has been more favourable e to the right than the left in Europe as the racist and xenophobic parties are on the rise in Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Holland. Some traces of the radical left can be found in Portugal, Germany and France. The left parties in these states face the dilemma of joining or not joining a coalition government of, in mainstream bourgeois terms, the centre-left. This is the crucial strategic decision that anticapitalist parties and the radical left in Europe have to make with real c onsequences on their possible future evolution. One positive development of recent times is the formation of a central forum that coordinates the moves of the European Left, namely, the Conference of the E uropean Anti-Capitalist Parties. Vanaik observed that the last 20 years have seen a worldwide decline in the left movements. States like South Africa, N epal, the Philippines and India are exceptions wherein forces deriving from the traditions of Maoism and Stalinism have remained relatively stable or even growing. India is where both Stalinism and Maoism have for long prospered and this can be put down to a distinctive Indian dualism. India is a stable bourgeoisie democracy at the macro level, but it faces brutal, violent and deeply undemocratic realities at the meso and micro levels. Similarly, the extremes of prosperity and poverty are

Faculty Positions at Institute for Human Development

The Institute for Human Development (IHD) is a leading research Institute specializing in the areas related to labour, employment, human development and development evaluation. The Institute invites applications for Faculty positions at various levels (Associate Fellow, Fellow, Senior Lecturer and Professor) in the grades of UGC Scales for Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor respectively. The candidates should have requisite qualifications in Social Sciences/Statistics as are normally required for the above positions. They should also have multidisciplinary perspective of social sciences with experience of conducting independent research and publications in reputed journals. Interested candidates may apply in full confidence to appointment@ ihdindia.org by 31st of December 2010.

A Socialist Alternative
The theme for the concluding session of the conference was Towards a Socialist Alternative: Reorienting the Left. The

24

december 18, 2010 vol xlv no 51 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

paralleled by the extremes of institutionalised deference and powerful social exclusion based on caste system. Thus Stalinist and Maoist notions of socialist developmentalism continue to have a wide appeal. This dualism has pushed the Indian left in opposite directions. The left parties in I ndia the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) have been co-opted into the bourgeoisie democratic system. They have lost the c apacity and willingness to carry out mass mobilisations beyond the standard forms of trade union economism. Armed Maoism which has grown has moved in the opposite direction of eschewing electoralism and parliamentarism pursuing instead the classical strategy of countryside surrounding the c ities and

the establishment of liberated zones, albeit mobile. Vanaik argued that in their attempt to crush the armed insurgency, even the weaker states like Sri L anka have ultimately succeeded despite the insurgents having their own navy and armed forces. The long-term strategy of armed Maoism cannot hope to defeat an Indian state far more powerful than that of Sri Lanka, nor is this Maoism prepared to recognise the key strategic problem of how best to address the reality of an existing and stable capitalist bourgeois democracy. The bankruptcy of the existing Indian left requires a process of recomposition that will involve splits and fusions as well accretions from unexpected sources. V anaik argued that this will be based on a political-theoretical foundation that

n egates Stalinism and Maoism, practising a socialist demo cracy far superior to what currently exists. The success of the conference was ref lected in the massive presence and lively participation in the discussions that followed the presentations, from an audience primarily comprising university s tudents and young activists. For many of them, it was a rare occasion to engage with anti-Stalinist radical Marxist perspectives. It was altogether tting that amidst the great media hype about Obama and the India-US relationship, a far more critical perspective about what was happening around the world and of how we need to orient ourselves to future change of a much more humane and decent kind, was also made available.

B K Keayla: A Personal Reminiscence

Amit Sen Gupta

Bal Krishan Keayla, a key gure in the National Working Group on Patent Law and an indefatigable campaigner for two decades against the GATT/WTO agreement on intellectual property,died on 27November. A colleague in the working group reminisces.

This being a personal reminiscence, readers may pardon the author for some lapses in facts, sequence and names mentioned. Amit Sen Gupta (mail.dsf@gmail.com) is associated with the Delhi Science Forum, the Jan Swas Abhiyaan, the All India Peoples S cience Network and is based in New Delhi.

wenty-two years ago, but the day is still fresh in my mind. We (Amitava Guha of the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and myself) had, with hesitant steps, made our way into the corporate ofce of Ranbaxy in Nehru Place. We were curious why a director in Ranbaxy would want to meet two anti-corporate activists. That is how I rst met B K Keayla, then director, corporate environment, in Ranbaxy. We had gone prepared for a 15-minute meeting and left after two hours. Keaylaji (as he was soon known in our circles) captivated us with his thorough knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, and his deep commitment towards the need to sustain the domestic generic industry. We came away with sheaves of data on multinational corporations operating in India, their sins of omission and commission, but more than that a feeling that we had met someone who we wanted to meet again and again. Later, we pieced together Keaylajis history. Keaylaji had spent much of his life in the government and had retired as commissioner of payments. He had been

associated with the Hathi Committee in 1974 which had charted the path for the development of the generic industry in India. We kept going back to him, because he always had some new insight to offer about the pharmaceutical industry. We developed a relationship that is hard to dene that of very dear friends though Keaylaji was a year older than my father. He was a mentor, a colleague and above all a marvellous h uman being. When we rst met him Keaylaji was nearing 70, but had the energy and patience that all of us envied. Those were the heady days when self-reliance was not a bad word even within government and I ndia was battling it out in the negotiations in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Dinesh Abrol, my colleague in Delhi Science Forum, mentioned the issue one day. Keaylaji had broached the idea of setting up a working group to discuss the issue of patents and the negotiations in the Uruguay Round on a proposed agreement on intellectual property rights. He proposed a group that would include civil society organisations such as ours, the generic i ndustry, lawyers, academics, and trade unions in the pharma industry. The idea was novel our rst experience of Keaylajis ability to think out of the box. For some of us it was perhaps too novel to start with. We had never worked with the industry and saw them as uncompromising

Economic & Political Weekly EPW december 18, 2010 vol xlv no 51

25