[PEN-L:11177] India (II)

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim C. writes: >> The so-called "planning" in India is like the "planning"
one finds in the U.S. The State "plans" and "manages"--even
"constrains"--certain inter-capitalist rivalries in the interest expanded
reproduction of the system as a whole. The "State-owned/controlled" sectors
and enterprises always represented essentially "socialization of costs"
necessary for returns that are increasingly privatized and concentrated;<<

I wasn't saying that India was socialist, i.e., with a government
controlled by workers and peasants. The planning instead indicated the
relative independence of the Indian ruling class from the U.S.

>>the Government of India did exercise some "independence" and they
gravitated toward forming and building the movement partly as a result of
their experiences with not only the U.S. and Britain, but also as a result
of their experiences with
the USSR. <<

Right. So, I agree that >>I think actually we are not far off here. <<


in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jim_devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.