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 and education). 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.

Have you tried leaving home and touching grass? Because everything you‘ve wrote doesn’t make any sense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Much to India's detriment, I might add.

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.

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.

> South Asia was captured by the East India Company

Funny, they chose to call the company "East India company", instead of "South Asian company" :)

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.

Quite the opposite. It is due to the shift away from socialism (after the USSR fell) that many of these things are possible.

Racism and capitalism are two entirely different things

> 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.

I think you need to get more educated friends.

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.

> she has a Masters in French

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.

> Masters in French Lit

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.

Still this assertion goes much too far

>I couldn't be anti-racist if I wasn't anti-capitalist

Maybe flip it around and ask her why she hates the global poor so much

It’s not India, but Vietnam has one of the highest supports for capitalism of any country.

Not surprising considering the terrible conditions under the communist economic policy and then the shift to capitalism in the 80’s.

It’s easy to criticize capitalism if you’ve never lived under the alternatives I guess.

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.