[PEN-L:11170] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Craven:
> Interestingly, since the late
>1960s, the notion of the USSR as a "Social Imperialist" formation has
>been very widespread in India and many Indians denounced the
>relations with the USSR as being equivalent in nature and impact as
>those with the British in the past and Americans and others in the
>present.

Louis P:
What does this mean other than there is a large Maoist contingent in India?
Rakesh raised the question of Soviet "exploitation" of India over on the
Spoons list in a "state capitalism" thread, but could provide no numbers
only a reference to a book that did. Does anybody believe that the Soviet
Union had the same kind of bloodsucking relationship to India that England
did? England owned tea plantations. What did the USSR own?

Craven:
 The arming of Pakistan and so-many other
>machinations in the region (divide-and-rule donations to
>various political parties, arming groups like the Tamil
>Tigers, social systems engineering through culture/technology
>transfers etc) suggest that India- - like Vietnam-- is regarded still
>as an enemy and potential threat from the "demonstration effect"
>point of view.
>

Louis P:
Vietnam on the US enemy's list? Where has Jim been for the last 5 years or
so? Poor Vietnam is under the US's thumb, as recent Doonesbury cartoons
decrying the coolie labor conditions of Nike factories there dramatizes. As
far as India is concerned, isn't it the case that it is privatizing like
mad and considered the next big "capitalist miracle" about to explode?