I think you meant to say, "But India has never been merely a formally independent country. India has been a truly independent country since 1947."
At 7:25 PM +0530 1/11/03, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>The problem with the marxist theories is that they are rarely
>applied to "marxist" regimes to draw appropriate conclusions.
The problems of what may be called "socialist dependency" became obvious, especially after the USSR dissolved, in severe difficulties that Cuba and North Korea underwent. The problems of uneven development became manifest in, for instance, Kosovo vs. the rest of Yugoslavia (later mainly Serbia) and Chechnya vs. the rest of the USSR (later mainly Russsia). It is certainly possible, no even advisable, to employ historical materialist theory to analyze the above and other problems. What are the appropriate political conclusions to be drawn from such analyses is not very clear, though.
At 7:25 PM +0530 1/11/03, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
> > 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".
Which actor most decisively shapes national politics and economic development -- the popular masses (peasants, wage workers, petty traders in the informal sector, etc.), the local and national power elites, or the international power elites (especially former colonizers or the American Empire or both)? Examining each nation's history according to this question, we can probably see gradations -- some nations' popular masses have more control over their nations' politics and economy; we will also see historical changes in degrees of control that each sector exercises over a given nation's politics and economy,
> >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?
That depends. The "national bourgeoisie" aren't homogeneous. Some factions of them may be more interested in local, national, and regional economic development than others; some may be so situated that their prosperity hardly depends upon the development of the home market. Besides, in some nations, there is no "national bourgeoisie" -- e.g., Afghanistan.
That said, your remarks imply that it is more desirable that India is among the less indebted nations and its natural resources and infrastructure are not owned by foreign capital, both of which entail more relative autonomy for India than for many other former colonies. In a way, you answered your question yourself: it matters whether resources and infrastructure are owned by local or national bourgeoisie; local or national governments; or foreign capital. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>