> -According to the marxist theory of imperialism, you can have imperialism
> -withouth colonies, since a country can get effective control over a
> -(formally independent) countries
Yes, I know. But India has never been a formally independent country. India has been a independent country, both formally and truly, since 1947. The problem with the marxist theories is that they are rarely applied to "marxist" regimes to draw appropriate conclusions.
> by owning his natural resources and
> -infrastructure, or by menas of international borrowings (see Rosa
> -Luxembourg- Capital accumulation).
Is China a formally independent country? One must be able offer principles (or criteria) to determine what is a "formally independent country" and what is a "truly independent".
>This laready happens in my country,
> -where 50% of our industry is foreing owned. It will happen with your too
> -as the opening of Indian economy goes on.
It may happen, it may not happen. Neither natural resources nor infrastructure in India is owned by foreign capital. India is among the less indebted countries in the world. But your argument assumes a sharp divide between the "national bourgeoisie" and "imperialist bourgeoisie". Is this a relevant distinction today?
> By accepting this, we are
> -effectively surrendering our sovereignity, as decisions concerning
> -our economic development took part outside our frontiers.
Indian state has constantly sought to retain (and widen) its relative autonomy for 50 years and has managed to preserve it. Indian state was never an ally of the US during the Cold War period. There is no guarantee, however, that this relative autonomy will be (or will not be) maintained for next 50 years.
Ulhas