>Hari: >iii) Finally, I use this post to raise a matter re Project's article. To >Project, I would simply say that the whole problem of >the comprador- national-bourgeoisie divergence is ignored by him - >probably for profound ideological reasons. However I >suspect that no sense can be made of the post-1945 Indian sub-continent >till that is taken into account.
Huh? >iv) Again arising form Project's note (Fuller reply to follow), could I >ask the list as to whether there has been in there >view a sea change in imperialism in this sense: Previously the >imperialists tried to stop industrialization in the developing >countries. However even in INdia- a bunch of industrialists wanted to >start industrializing in "their colonies". In the 19th century, imperialism definitely tried to stop industrialization. When Egypt's Mohammad Ali tried to foster the growth of textile mills, it led to armed intervention by the British. In the 20th century, the policy has evolved according to a new set of circumstances based on the reality of 1917. It became necessary to allow a native bourgeoisie to develop a certain amount of clout as a kind of alternative to proletarian dictatorship. This explains the willingness to put up with the Congress Party even though it has often acted against imperialism's wishes. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been obvious moves to turn back the clock to pre-1917. In any case, the issue does not seem whether Indonesia, China or India cannot embark on a rapid industrialization path. It is rather whether they can ever deliver first world living standards to their populations. Everything suggests that with the breakdown of the agrarian economy, there will be a huge surplus population wandering the countryside like the vagabonds of 16th century England. Unlike England, however, these people will never end up as wage laborers. They will remain in the informal economy or worse.
