The EU question (Response to Louis - II)

Ulhas Joglekar uvj at SPAMvsnl.com
Thu May 3 11:57:24 MDT 2001


Greg Schofield:
> Are you saying that left alone India would have created an indigenous form
> of capitalism?
> Or,
> Are you saying simply that how India was treated by capitalism negated
this
> potential?
>
> Both seem ahistoric, perhaps you mean that specific acts by Britain, which
> in other circumstances they would have done differently, distorted the
> otherwise "normal" development of capitalism in the sub-continent?
>
> This doesn't seem to fix the problem either. I am sorry I am a loss with
this.

I appreciate questions asked by Greg Schofield. There is great deal of
speculation on this list about the if and buts of eighteenth century Indian
history. This is interesting, but the point is: Marxists who can not see and
acknowledge the existence of 'indigeous' capitalism in contemporary India
are absolutely certain about the possibility 'indigeous' Indian capitalism
150-200 years ago. The main question relevant to the contemporary Marxist
Left and the mass of poor in India is about contemporary Indian capitalism.
There has been sustained and considerable growth of capitalism in India in
last 50 years and it is possible (though not certain) that this will
continue.
Indian capitalism could grow at a faster rate, but constraints on the growth
of contemporary Indian capitalism are largely internal to Indian capitalism
(and
by that I don't mean the existence of precapitalists relations etc.).

Ulhas







More information about the Marxism mailing list