Question for Ulhas on the Indian Bourgeoisie

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thu May 31 23:41:44 MDT 2001


----------
> From: Ulhas Joglekar <uvj at vsnl.com>
> To: Marxism List <marxism at lists.panix.com>
> Subject: Re: Question for Ulhas on the Indian Bourgeoisie
> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:25 PM

>During liberalisation years, Indian capitalism has grown, it is
> more confident than ever before and it is brimming with optimism. The
broad
> objective of liberalisation was to make Indian capitalism globally
> competitive.

What social data and evidence does Ulhas suggest for the growing "optimism"
with the liberalization of the Indian economy? how does this liberalization
affect class relations in terms of the social costs it has generated? Is an
average Indian worker/peasant optimistic about the state of capitalism in
India?

> Removal of barriers on foreign investment have certainly
> weakened some Indian business groups, but others have managed to adapt to
> the domestic as well as international competition.

Different fractions Indian capital will ally with different fractions of
foreign capital due to their common class position.Adaptibility to foreign
competition, however,  is a different issue that needs a cost-benefit
analysis. The last time I had visited Turkey, I was shocked by the massive
mushrooming of Macdonalds in Istanbul, which drove traditional food
restaurants out of business, including the  relatively affordable food
places serving lower middle class and working classes. If this is what you
mean by "removal of barriers" on foreign investment, it is actually taking
place, with some people paying the price.


> Despite liberalisation,
> India has not attracted foreign investment in significant quantities.
During
> the previous decade, India has received $ 30 billion in foreign capital,
20
> billion in FDI and 10 billion in portfolio investment. China has received
$
> 300 billion! Vietnam probably gets more FDI than India. On average India
> receives about 1 to 2 percent of the total annual global FDI flows to the
> developing nations.

What is the reason for not attracting foreign investment despite
liberalization? the rationale behind your argument implies that India would
be better off with foreign investment, and there are barriers that need to
be eliminated to attract capital.

>Foreign capital is
> not an obstacle to the process of capital accumulation in China and
India,
> since this is subordinated to the domestic capital accumulation.) MNCs
> complain about slow and bureaucratic Indian rules and procedures,

This is outrageous. You are making a case for typical "Oriental despotism"
argument-- sluggish bureaucracy/crony states blocking foreign capital
investment or making it more difficult for capitalism to take root. I was
assuming we were talking in the third world _enough capitalism
(liberalization)_ NOT  absence of it_.


---
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222



>
>
>
>
>
>





More information about the Marxism mailing list