Question for Ulhas on the Indian Bourgeoisie

Saul Thomas stthomas at SPAMuchicago.edu
Thu May 31 13:30:53 MDT 2001


Ulhas,

What have been the effects of the economic "liberalization" policies
instituted in India since the early 1990s on the health and independence of
the Indian bourgeoisie? Has the removal of barriers to foreign investment
and control had much of an effect of the ability of Indian-owned industry
to compete?

Has the Indian bourgeoisie been partly spared because of Western capital's
relative lack of interest in India? Do you have any idea why Western
capital doesn't mythologize and try to capture "the India market" as it has
fantasized about and longed to capture "the China market" since the last
century?

I suppose that the biggest Indian conglomerates will be able to maintain
their competitiveness on the global market in the future, although they may
have a difficult time competing with well-known foreign brands, whose names
now seem to be as valuable as the commodities they produce. But what is the
future for smaller Indian industry in the face of foreign competition?

Thanks,

Saul



>My view of India in brief.: Indian state is a bourgeois state. India is free
>not only in formal sense, but also in real sense of the term. Indian
>bourgeoisie is not a bourgeoisie of comprador type. Drive for capital
>accumulation is internal to Indian capitalism, it is not derived from North
>America or Japan. Indian capitalism has generated substantial growth in
>previous 50 years. India's GDP (at constant prices) in year 2000 was seven
>times that 50 years ago and in the 1990s India was the second fastest
>growing economy in world, China being the fastest. I hope this is adequate.
>
>Ulhas







More information about the Marxism mailing list