> -I would say that both India and China are truly independent countries,
> since
> -they were able to keep their industries and natural resources in hands of
> -local owners (or the state) instead of foreign corporations. I think both
> -countries has relatively small external debt as % of GDP and both
countries
> -have strong armies which force foreign powers to think twice before
> embarking
> -in military adventures.
Both China and India have nuclear weapons which gives them greater autonomy.
> Technological dependency would be a fourth
variable
> -and neither of those countries has a full respect for intelectual
property,
> -which make you less dependent on foreign technology (how India managed to
> -build its impresssive pharmaceutical industry?).
It is important to climb up on a "technological ladder" all the time, so that you reduce the technological gap and achieve greater autonomy. India can design, fabricate and commission complex systems like supercomputers, satellites, rockets, nuclear reactors, large ship (containers with 100,000 tonne capacity), software systems etc.. This wasn't possible 50 years ago.
> It´s not for coincidence
> -that both countries are those who most took benefit from the so called
> -globalization, since they benefited from increased exports, while made
> -relatively small opening of their markets. When you exclude China
> -you realize that poverty in the Third World sufered impressive increase
> -in the 90´s (the increase will be probably even more dramatic if you
> -exclude India too)
If we consider a longer perspective, South East Asia can be seen to have achieved a great reduction in poverty.
>But your argument assumes a sharp divide
> between the "national bourgeoisie" and "imperialist bourgeoisie". Is this
a
> relevant distinction today?
>
> -If you are able to put effective control over capital flight it makes
> -a huge difference, since national owned enterprises are much easier to
> -be controlled by means of state policies.
The flight of productive capital takes place over a longer period. "Hot money" is very mobile. How is capital accumulation financed in Brazil? Foreign savings account for about 10% of the total accumulation in Indian economy every year. That's not excessive. The problem is that even "national capital" is no less prone to capital flight. Swiss banks and various tax havens are being used.
> Foreign corporations not
> -only are difficult to be controlled but have an unending appetite
> -for state subsidies and tax exemptions. Have you already heard about
> -the "fiscal war" in Brazil?
No. What is this "fiscal war" in Brazil? Again, the problem is that Indian domestic businesses also have an unending appetite for state subsidies and tax exmeptions.
>>There is no guarantee, however, that this relative autonomy will be (or
>>will not >>be) maintained for next 50 years.
> -That´s the trouble. As you start to open the economy, obey international
> -rules for intelectual property and trade (eg, enter in the WHO)and allow
> -the denationalization of your economy, you will lose your autonomy.
It's possible to build globally competitive plants and enterprises, if a) domestic market is large enough to support large capacities. e.g. Asia's largest petroleum refinery is in India. (capacity 27 million tonnes p.a.), and b) if there is access to developed country markets. US has a trade deficit of $500 bn. China has benefited from access to US and Japanese markets.
IPR is not everything and economy is not everything. There are political and cultural traditions. Indian culture would not be worth preserving, if it were so brittle that Coke and Pepsi could destroy it,
>It´s -naive to think the national states are being weakened by
globalization.
> -Weak states become weaker and strong ones become stronger. Surrender the
> -right to make your own economic policies and your country become a
> -colony in all but name....
Even capitalism in one country in impossible. I don't think socialism in one country makes sense today. Not that it made any in sense in 1920s.
Ulhas