Do millennial and gen-z Indians have a similarly skeptical view towards capitalism held by so many young people in NA and the EU?
I had a friend tell me the other day that I couldn't be anti-racist if I wasn't anti-capitalist, because capitalism is by inherently racist. Ever since 2018 or so it seems as if anti-capitalism has become part of the mainstream progressive Western viewpoint, while I don't remember that being the case in the 2000s. Are these views held around the world, or do I just have a very well-selected sample?
It’s easy to criticize capitalism if you’ve never lived under the alternatives I guess.
The entrepreneurial spirit is really impressive. You can call up some store and say “can you have someone bring the clothes to my home to try on?” and they’ll say “no problem”. They’re dynamic, resourceful and willing be flexible.
People start companies all the time. Of course the lack of paperwork and regulations (they exist, but mostly ignored) helps immensely.
South Asia was captured by the East India Company, and the wealth of its people systematically extracted over centuries. This is different from the many other local wars and invasions that happened in India before and during this time, where either the invaders left after stealing wealth once, or they stayed and generally tried to improve the area they captured. Systematic extraction of wealth was only a feature of capitalist firm made of people who said they were distinct from you, and superior (please note 'race' was invented by Europeans).
So, hate for capitalism is pretty old in certain parts of the world.
> hate for capitalism is pretty old in certain parts of the world.
I would like to have a different take. India has a strong merchant class since aeons and market economy was never a taboo culturally. You can see that in the entrepreneurs like Bansals, Agrawals, Shahs that are at the helm of Indian Unicorns. So yes, there is a skepticism about 'western' capitalism, but not for market economics.
This strong merchant class is also a strong minority. Ever since India became a nation it has staunchly stood against free-market policies and its popular vote overwhelmingly supports policies of regulation, subsidies and handouts as against privatization.
> Ever since India became a nation it has staunchly stood against free-market policies and its popular vote overwhelmingly supports policies of regulation, subsidies and handouts as against privatization.
I don't see how we disagree. I am aware that capitalism and market based economies are not one-to-one. The share-holder system is what results in massive exploitation in capitalism. Market economies can also exploit but not in the same dispassionate way that share-holders do.
Markets can exist in non-capitalist societies. Markets exist to use money as a medium to convert one form of goods/labour into a different form of goods/labour. Capitalism meanwhile uses goods/labour as a medium to convert money into more money.
Which is exactly the reason why communism could never rise the way it did in China and Soviet union. I mean most of the population accepted their 'fate' in the feudal systems.
No. Indians are very pro capitalism. Especially since the 90s reforms which are largely the precursor to Indias growth.
However, Indians don’t have an ideological attachment to capitalism. It’s looked upon as the best way to grow and improve things in most, but not all, avenues. So Indians are still in favor of socialist policies where they are working well. So, Indians probably would not be in favor of privatizing Indian Railways, or eliminating the many subsidies and free supplies given to the poorest, or eliminating the 50% foreign investment cap in many industries.
No. Liberalization of the economy is either what made all of this possible or in any case is what preceded this. An anti-capitalist viewpoint is associated with kids of rich parents who study what are generally viewed as non-productive subjects. The general view is that winning means getting your kids on the next step of the ladder in a profession that will move them upward in socioeconomic status.
Most young 'anti-capitalists' in the West are still generally capitalists who prefer socialization for certain essential industries like healthcare or are disillusioned by the gerontocracy trading the future of the young to further maximize their own comforts (see: housing, education, anything to do with green energy or big tech). The kinds of people you're talking about are fringe extremists.
I think India is already quite socialist to begin with so anti-capitalism isn't a very strong sentiment there. There's also a lot less centralization and fewer monopolies. I probably shopped at my local small business much more often than I went to a big box store in India whereas in the US, I can't remember the last time I was able to conveniently do business at a small business.
FWIW, she has a Masters in French Lit from one of our relatively well-respected schools, but obviously I completely disagree with her on most political topics. These kinds of stances are more common than you'd think in Canadian academic circles.
I think people have different definitions of what "educated" means. The average social studies grad has zero grasp of basic economic concepts, but a lot of them feel confident comparing economic philosophies.
Like I said, get educated friends, not friends who think reading some poetry is education. This isn't England in the middle ages where that would have been considered an education.
I think this is a kneejerk take -- the study of literature generally encompasses an intersection of the study of the society, culture, economy, history that produced that literature. In other words, if you study Medieval English Literature, you also study the historical context that surrounds that subject.
My opinion: I would consider his friend well-educated and curious enough about the world that she got a Masters degree in a specialized field.
PPl should stick to their fields of "professionalism" and and let people who know economics to deal with economic problem. Because her statement is factually incorrect.
I don’t think they had Masters degrees in the Middle Ages, but I somewhat understand the point you’re very awkwardly trying to make.
Yes I agree, a Masters in literature doesn’t teach you much about the ‘real world’, but if you don’t think there are plenty of CS and engineering students with the exact same type of perspective, you need to expand your social circles.
If you find yourself agreeing with everything your friends say, I’d actually say it’s you who needs to find friends with different educational backgrounds than your own.
Which part, specifically, confused you? Was it 'well-selected sample'? Was it the notion of anti-racism? Neither of these are terms I coined, but they're fairly well defined in my social groups. I'm happy to clarify any topics you're unfamiliar with.
I had a friend tell me the other day that I couldn't be anti-racist if I wasn't anti-capitalist, because capitalism is by inherently racist. Ever since 2018 or so it seems as if anti-capitalism has become part of the mainstream progressive Western viewpoint, while I don't remember that being the case in the 2000s. Are these views held around the world, or do I just have a very well-selected sample?