[PEN-L:11184] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)

["Anthony P D'Costa" <ecsadc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Louis Proyect wrote:

> 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?
>

It was the CPI (ML) (take your pick for the faction) who perceived the
Soviet relationship as exploitative.  The reasons were simple although
necessarily eqivalent to the British colonialism.  One must remember that
the CPI (Mao-Lenin) was a breakaway group from the Communist Party of
India (siding with the Soviet Union and following the stagist approach of
social change) and the CPI (M), which was more critical of the CPI's
siding with the national bourgeois party.  Naturally, CPI (ML) saw the
Soviet Union siding with the national bourg, treating the India as
capitalist, whereas the CPI (ML) saw India still as semi-feudal.  These
interpretations of realiy were the sources for the split and the CPI
(ML)'s characterization of the exploitative relationships.

As for the relationship itself, it was ambiguous.  The Sov Union did not
own any assets but the pattern of trade was the classic colonial type:
exports of tea (largest buyer), coffee, and other natural resources, some
labor-intensive manufactures (garments), India's imports were heavy
machinery, armaments, and some oil.  It is true that the
political relationship was strong enough not to characterize it as
exploitative.  But the Sov Rouble was overvalued, and even though India's
Rupee was overvalued, the exchange rate was not in India's favor.
Fortunately, since both countries were short of foreign exchange barter
trade was resorted and under the global circumstances India's relationship
with the Soviet Union was useful to India.  The Sov Union has always
supported in times of regional hostilities, in which predictably the US
always sided with India's enemies.  This relationship of course had a
price as we all know now, given India's technological and economic
infrstaructures.  But that could change.


> 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?
>
India will never be a capitalist miracle.  It has a certain rhythym (take
your pick of the institutional matrix governing Indian capitalism) that
does not allow the massive expansion.  That does not mean that growth
rates stuck at the "Hindu rate".  Far from it in the 1980s India's growth
was very respectable, 6-8% pa.  As for privatization, yes but not
wholesale, in bits and pieces, and in ad hoc ways.  My own feeling toward
the state sector in India is that it should reorganize/restructure.
Except for a few firms they are classic white elephants, especially
manufacturing ones and extremely inefficient.  Try Indian banks for
service or for that matter any government agency.  On the other hand
India's political climate (particularly organized TUs) and left political
parties (rightly so) will not allow the unchecked neo-liberal policies
toward labor.  Privatization will come about by letting the state sector
die a natural death, by not expanding the state sector and by allowing the
private sector to increase their holdings of assets in sectors
perviously banned.  A few sectors like media, insurance, banking, airlines
are areas of strong nationalist sentiments.  But I feel this is simply a
bogeyman.

Cheers,  Anthony D'Costa