Forwarded from Jurriaan
uvj at SPAMvsnl.com
Sun Jun 3 20:45:16 MDT 2001
From: jenyan1 <jenyan1 at uic.edu>
> Though a small minority of humans has perhaps grown fat on its spoils,
> those from the Third World would be able to tell you that imperialism is
> by far the greatest impediment to the social and economic progress of the
> majority of human kind. In this sense it is completely reactionary, not
> progressive as you and your imagined Marx seem to believe.
That imperialism is the greatest impediment to progress, that imperialism
does not allow this and that, is no doubt true in a limited way. Imperialism
is powerful, but its power is relative and not absolute. Imperialism did not
want India to be independent, but imperialism had to withdraw. Imperialism
did not want India to develop industry in metallergy, engineering,
pharmaceuticals, oil exploration and refining etc., India approached the
Soviet Union to develop these industries. Partly it is a question of
subjective factor, partly the existence of a superpower like the Soviet
Union. Once it was clear to Imperialism that its monopoly on technolgy was
broken (that if imperialism refused, India could obtain what it wanted
elsewhere), imperialism did not see much point in denying technology to
India. Why should they lose profits? When India built the first steel plant
with the Soviet help, Germany and UK offered technolgy to build more steel
plants. The next two steel plants were built with German and British
assistance. The fourth one was built with the Soviet assistance! Further,
there are conflicts among multinationals. French don't always toe the US
line. If US denies you something, you look elsewhere, France for instance.
Imperialism, IMO, is not a monolith. Imperialist policies also change, first
they may repress you. If they fail, they change the tack and work with you.
This is Indian experience.
More information about the Marxism