INTERVIEW
YOUhavepointedouttheroleof
liberalismin keepingouttheNew
Dealandthesocialdemocratic
idealsof [Bernie]Sandersand
[Jeremy]Corbyn.Andyouwere
highlycriticalof liberalismforthat
reason.Youalsosaidthatliberalism
is ensuringthatnothingin the
politicalarenais conceptually
availablefora fundamental
transformationof society.Butyou
arenot equatingsocialdemocracy
witha fundamentaltransformation
of society,areyou?Weknow,from
yourwritings,thatyoubelievethat
socialdemocracydoesnotamount
to a radicalcritiqueof capitalism.
So,then,canyouexplainwhatyou
havein mindexactly?
Thatraisesa wholerangeof veryfa-
miliarandlong-standingissuesthat
haveafflicted theLeft,leadingto de-
batesin India (andnodoubtin other
placesaswell)betweentheorgan-
isedLeftandwhathascometobe
calledthe“ultra-Left”andtheinsur-
gentLeft.
I thinkthatwhatis trueandwhat
everybodyknowsis thatliberalismin
the20thcenturyhas,as I’veputit in
someofmywriting,“takensocial
democracy in its stride”, that is,
takeninitsstridethesocial-demo-
craticconstraintsthathadbeenput
oncapitalismaftertheendofthe
SecondWorldWar.Butthepointof
theexpression “takeinits stride”
shouldnotbeseenasmerelysaying
thatliberalismis abletoaccommod-
atetheseconstraints in itsdoctrinal
frameworkbecausetheydon’tcon-
stitutea fundamentalcritique of
capitalism.What moreis connoted
by“takein itsstride”is veryimport-
ant,in factabsolutelycrucial,in un-
derstanding capitalism todayand
theideological roleof liberalismand
the exact nature of the
accommodation.So,whatwouldbethis“more”you
wouldaddto thenatureof the
accommodation?
Itis this.Liberalism takessocial
democracyinitsstridenotonlyby
accommodating social democracy
butalsobymaking surethattheac-
commodationis alwaysconstantly
beingundermined,evenas it is al-
lowedto bethere. Inotherwords,
socialdemocracyshouldnotbeal-
lowedanequilibrium(leavealone
strengthening) within its accom-
modated status.Thatis thepoint of
liberalismandit recurs everywhere.
EventheScandinaviancountriesare
subjectto it, though,of course,being
moreperipheralthanthemainbelt
of capitalism,socialdemocracythere
hasnotbeenso recurrentlysubjectto
thisdisequilibriumandinstabilityin
itsstatusas in otherpartsof thecap-
italistworld.So,when onesaysliber-
alism accommodates social
democracy,wemustbeabsolutely
clearthatthat accommodationis‘In India, it’s pathological
InterviewwithAkeelBilgrami.BYJIPSONJOHNANDJITESHP.M.
“Certainly,capitalismandthecrisesit generatesarethe
promptingconditionsforfascism(andotherapproximate
pathologically authoritarian states), butthey donot
suffice to explainit.”
Series Thisisthefi nal
partofa two-partarticle.neverstable andisnevergoingto be
allowedto bestable.
Thoughhedoesnotspeakof the
crucialroleofliberalisminmain-
tainingthisconstantundermining
pressure and disequilibrium,
PrabhatPatnaikhasmadea related
pointabout capitalismtodayina
very sharpand illuminating way.
Whathehassaidis that“thespon-
taneoustendenciesof capitalism”
simplydonotallowconstraintsupon
capitalto bepermanent. I amreally
relyingonthatfundamentalpointhe
makes.I’mtakingit forgranted.
Itisworthgettingclearabout
whatexactlyhemeans.Hereis what
I thinkhehasin mindbythisrather
deeptheoreticalpointin hisanalysis
of capitalism.
Theword“spontaneous”tode-
scribethesetendencies,anexpres-
sionthatPatnaiktakesfrom[the
Polisheconomist]OskarLange,is a
little startling here because it is
standardly used by philosophers
(Immanuel Kant,forinstance)to be
synonymous with “freedom”,
whereasPatnaikis talkingaboutthe
oppositeoffreedom,thedetermin-
istictendenciesofcapital. Butit is
notthathardto sortoutwhatis going
on.What hemeansis thatourfree-