Forwarded from Jurriaan (Mark Jones)

Ulhas Joglekar uvj at
Wed Jun 6 11:48:20 MDT 2001

Mark Jones:
> Of course it exists, and there is an Indian national bourgeiosie, but so
> what? The Indian bourgeiosie has no programme for future development which
> is going to bring it into conflict with international finance capital or
> with US imperialism.

There are signs in last one year that Indo-US goverment to government
relations are improving. But this must seen against the background of the
conflict between the Indian state and the US for almost 50 years, though
civilian contact and business relations between US and Indian business have
always existed. Kashmir, Afghanistan, Pakistan's membership of Baghdad Pact,
emergence of Banglaesh, India's nuclear weapons programme, Sino-US alliance
were some of issue on which India and US were in conflict.  US, Britain (and
China) consistently supported Pakistan's claims on Kashmir and Soviet Union
supported Indian position. It was expected that Pakistani Kashmir would be
used as a military base by the US against the Soviets. The principal factors
in Indo-US conflict were political, Mark's arguments about circuits of
finance and productive
capital are besides the point.

> It has no programme for the future of India, including
> *its own* future, in other words.

What kind programme Indian capitalism ought to have for its own future?

>It is in the interests of US imperialism
> that large client states like India should have their own domestic process
> of capital formation, why not? It is a huge anchor wedding India to world
> capitalism.

You mean if India has her own domestic process of capital formation, its
because it is allowed by US in the interest of US capitalism? Perhaps
British imperialism should also allowed domestic capital accumulation in
India in Britain's own interest.

> But what little I do know does not suggest to me that India
> has somehow escaped the universal fate of the neocolonial, dependent
> peripheries: states like India may have escaped European colonialism and
> have won formal political freedom, but the price they paid was to become
> colonial subjects of an even worse and more ruthless, more dangerous
> imperialism.

You mean India was better off under British rule? It would be the most
peculiar position for a British Marxist to take.

> China was already effectively an American ally in the 'containment' of the
> Soviet Union. This was because the USA continued to the end to see the
> Soviet Union, not China, as its main Cold War enemy.

Both US and China saw India as a Soviet puppet. For Indian Maoists, India
was a semicolony of Soviet Social Imperialism.


More information about the Marxism mailing list