>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.
Imperial or imperialism in its basic meaning in all era of human history is the export of a superior productivity logic. The export of a superior productivity logic ties the "importing area" to the economic infrastructure of the exporting country and this is generally against the Will of the people and classes that are subjugated - in general. Specifically, there is always a politically dominate and active sector of the people being dominated that objects to imperial entrapment for a variety of reasons, that in the last instance express class ideology.
As you suggest, something new is taking place in terms of the "breakdown of the system" and the growth of the superfluous population. In y opinion people will in fact be forever regulated to the informal economy or worse.
"Worse" is understood when it is you.
I of course am not "worse."
Melvin P.
