Forwarded from Jurriaan
jones118 at SPAMlineone.net
Tue Jun 5 12:21:30 MDT 2001
> > > Imperialism did not want India to be independent, but imperialism
> > > had to withdraw.
> > Eh? When did that happen?
Ulhas, I think you assume what needs to be proven. The idea that imperialism
came to an end in 1947 is surely wrong. The Raj ended but imperialism did
not withdraw. The British empire was dismantled in common with all European
empires and the baton was handed to a new hegemon which regulated the world
differently. But far from coming to an end, imperialism only gathered new
strength and ushered a whole new epoch of neocolonialism. India was part of
that world and was and is completely subordinated to the imperialist
world-system. Indian capitalism is not independent of the imperialist
world-system; it is completely overdetermined by the context of so-called
"development" in the Indian subcontinent, which has taken the characteristic
form of "development" everywhere else in the postwar neocolonial world:
unconstrained looting of human and natural resources for the benefit of
imperialist metropoles, and a catastrophic inability to plan social
development within a capitalist world market which is inimical to planning.
Indian capitalism is a byproduct of this world process, inflected by the
dynamics of Indian society but never escaping imperialist tutelage. Indian
capitalism offers nothing to the people of India except more of the same:
deepening despoliation of the environment, increasing immiseration of the
masses, growing injustice and inequality and no pathway to the future.
More information about the Marxism