http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2014/images/prabhat_patnaik.jpgCapitalism in societies like ours therefore does not enact the same scenario as got enacted in the metropolis. Its so-called "revolutionary" role in destroying the old social structure remains constricted. . . . The capitalism developing in societies like ours not only does not destroy the old social structure and thereby obliterate caste consciousness and caste contradictions, but it actually has a tendency to strengthen them to the detriment of the socially oppressed, whence I use the term "social counter-revolution". . . . But with the advent of neo-liberalism which unleashes once again the "spontaneous tendencies" of capitalism within the specific environment in which it operates, the social counter-revolution gathers momentum. . . . Growth under a neo-liberal regime depends essentially upon the formation of "bubbles" in asset prices. When such bubbles get formed, especially in the economy of the United States, which is the leading capitalist power in the world, the entire world capitalist system, and with it Indian capitalism as well, experiences high growth. In addition, there may be domestic bubbles which also add to the growth performance based upon world capitalist booms. But when such bubbles collapse, growth also collapses and stagnation sets in until a new bubble gets formed, which is exactly what the current experience of the world economy, and of the Indian economy too, demonstrates. Whenever crisis and stagnation set in, the need for the system to manage politically the contradictions they generate becomes acute. And such political management is effected typically by pitting the middle classes against the poor, the intermediate castes against the oppressed castes, and the majority religious community against the minority community. All these stratagems seek to divide the potential opponents of the hegemony of the corporate-financial oligarchy that constitutes the dominant force in a neo-liberal regime. . . . But it is not a matter of political management alone. To the extent that the challenge to the hegemony of the corporate-financial oligarchy is warded off, and on the contrary the need to boost their "animal spirits" is presented as being essential for overcoming the crisis, and to the extent that "populist pampering" of the poor is presented as a cause of the crisis, it becomes easier to push the corporate agenda even more ruthlessly. The process of dispossession of the tribal population in the name of locating "development projects" in areas inhabited by them becomes easier; the process of restricting trade unions in the name of the resumption of "development" becomes easier. In short, the "development" agenda, which is a pro-corporate agenda, gets further boosted through the ushering in of the social counter-revolution. The crisis becomes the occasion for heightened caste antagonism and a means of exacerbating socio-economic inequality. . . . The very disillusionment with the political forces that promised "development" but did not achieve it would make these forces resort to even more divisive and hence socially counter-revolutionary measures. In other words, "false consciousness" when it is demonstrated to be "false" does not spontaneously reverse itself; it does not spontaneously lead to the achievement of "true" consciousness. It gets manipulated so that it persists and is further exacerbated. What is required therefore is an alternative agenda for struggling against this "false" consciousness. What would be the components of such an agenda? Since I have been arguing that capitalist development in societies like ours, especially in its neo-liberal incarnation, leads to a social counter-revolution, the conclusion must be that a reversal of this counter-revolution requires a transcendence of neo-liberal capitalism. And since neo-liberal capitalism is the shape that contemporary capitalism takes, and represents the highest form of the development of capitalism to date, it must mean a transition towards a social formation transcending capitalism itself. I certainly hold this view, but I do not invite agreement on it from others. Let me confine myself to a set of minimum steps on which I would invite general agreement that must be taken to reverse this tendency towards a social counter-revolution. . . .

More... (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2014/patnaik211114.html)

Good article, this tidbit universal:


This has two important consequences: first, the two armies, the active army and the reserve army, do not remain as two distinct and separate entities. Rather, there is a proliferation of "part-time", "casual", "informal" and "intermittent" employment, which basically means that "employment rationing" does not take the form of some workers being fully employed but not others (as in the standard picture of two armies), but of most workers being semi-employed. This reduces the scope for trade union activity, keeps the workers in a state of abject subjugation, and restricts the possibility of radical politics.

This almost precisely describes the current methods and standards practiced by capital in the US, and, I suppose, everywhere else. I need to read this article carefully...