[lbo-talk] Is India Exploited by imperialism?

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Alexandre:
> -Not a regime I would like to live under, would you? By contrast, the
> Japanese colonialism in Korea and Taiwan, brutal as it was, seem to
have
> resulted in some improvements in the economy. The same thing could be
> said about the Russia empire, where the periphery in some cases had
> better living standards than the Russians themselves.

That seem to suggest that the form of colonialism does matter.  The
British rule tended to be indirect, relying on local elites for control
and exploitation of the local population, whereas other powers - France,
Japan, Germany (in Tanganyika) or Russia relied more on direct measures.
The net effect of these differences is that the British-style colonial
rule could strengthen landed elites whereas the direct rule weakened the
local elites, landed or otherwise.  

Since the landed elites are almost invariably the major obstacle to
industrialization, breaking their backbone is the key to the
development.  That can be demonstrated by contrasting Taiwan and S.
Korea (landed elites gotten rid off) and Latin America (landed elites in
power).  I think that may be also true to some extent in India, but
another factor is the enormous diversity ethnic/linguistic/political
diversity that dampens the power of central government (another
pre-requisite for a successful development).  

The bottom line that what really matters is the internal power structure
in a country.  External influences matter only inasmuch as they are
exercised though those internal power structures, aiding some and
undercutting other.  That is true even in case of direct occupation.

Wojtek