Imperialism And The Big Bourgeois Of The Third World
Has the character of imperialism undergone a change during this period of globalization or has it remained same as it was during the sixties and seventies after the Second World War? Has there been a change in the method of imperialist oppression? If so, then what is it? Have the big bourgeois of 'third world countries' like India remained the same or have they also undergone a transformation? How should we view the relationship between imperialist capital and big bourgeoisie of 'third world countries'? How should the communists consider the question of national liberation? A separate attempt was made to discuss many such questions in a compilation titled 'Imperialism and national liberation'.The compilation was published in the month of May, 2022. However, thearticles of this compilation are English translations of some articlespublished in Hindi 'Lal Salaam' magazine, which were published way backbetween 2003 and 2005. The way 'Lal Salam' magazine tried to approachthe questions in a new way by going beyond the old traditional thinkingis really commendable. Through this collection, they have indeed openedavenues for a deeper discussion on these matters. We are trying to makean initial attempt to play a role in that process through the presentarticle. There is one problem, however. The original articles werewritten about twenty years ago. So is a discussion regarding theirstatements irrelevant at this time? We didn't think that as thecompilation of English translation was published only one year ago. Forthat reason it can be assumed that the statements published in thearticles are still considered equally relevant by them. Moreover, theyhave presented some general analysis or statements on several issues,which also need to be judged.
The writings in this compilation express their views on varioussubjects. It is not possible to discuss all the views in one text.That's why we will try to discuss only a few issues. We hope thisarticle will pave the way for a wider and more comprehensivediscussion.
'Economic Neo-Colonialism'
Most of the 'Third World' countries, including India, have beenreferred to in this compilation as 'economic neo-colonies' [note 1]. Thename of the very first article in the compilation is 'ImperialismToday'. At the very beginning of that writing, the present world hasbeen termed as an 'economic neo-colonial world'. The essay begins bysaying, ?In totality, the main features of the economic neo-colonialworld that has come into being in the last two decades are as follows?(Ref. 1). It then divides the countries oppressed by imperialism intotwo, saying, ?Contradiction between imperialism and the oppressednations/countries also has two parts. First are those countries thathave entered the phase of economic neo-colonialism. Second are those whoare still the victims of neo-colonial oppression. . . . The second kindof countries are few in number and small. Most countries belong to thefirst category? (Ref. 2). Another article clarifies which category Indiafalls into, saying, ?Countries like India, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil fall inthis category and correct term for them is economic neo-colony? (Ref.3).
We have not seen the use of such terms as 'economic neo-colony' or'economic neo-colonialism' in Marxist-Leninist literature before. Wehave previously seen countries oppressed by imperialism referred to ascolonies and dependent countries (as in Article 3 of Lenin's DraftResolution on the National and Colonial Question for the SecondConference of the Communist International in 1920) (Ref. 4). We arefamiliar with the terms colony, semi-colony or even neo-colony. But, wehave never come across the term 'economic neo-colony' in theMarxist-Leninist literature. Of course, it is not supposed to be there.Because, Lal Salam's article clearly states that, "The economicneo-colonial world that has come into being in the last two decades. . ." (Ref. 1). Since the articles were written in between 2003-05, it meansthat this phase of their 'economic neo-colonialism' has been developedsince the 1980s. How, then, would this term exist in classicalMarxist-Leninist literature?
Of course, just because the phrase was not used before inMarxist-Leninist literature is no argument that it will not be now. Ifindeed a new phase of imperialism begins and the countries oppressed byimperialism at that time cannot be properly identified within the oldcategories, new terminology may have to be used. However, since thisphrase is new, it is important to understand what they mean by the term,'economic neo-colony', and what changes have taken place in theimperialist world that has necessitated the use of this new term.
What is 'economic neo-colony'?
What do they mean by economic neo-colony? An answer to that questioncan be found in the characteristics described in the first article ofthe compilation. As the first characteristic there they state, ?Most ofthe third world countries are politically independent. Thoughimperialists continually put pressure on their political independence,but this basically stands?. As a second feature, they say, ?To loot themand earn super-profits from here, the main means employed by imperialismare not direct political rule (colony) or indirect politicalcontrol (semi or neo-colony) but economic? (Ref. 1, bold letterours). A very important thing they have stated here.
What meaning may be derived from their words? Imperialism isprimarily plundering or exploiting these countries through economicmeans, rather than its political rule or control, which is the mostimportant difference that distinguishes this stage of imperialism fromearlier stages and that is why they think that this stage should becalled 'economic neo-colonialism'. To put it more clearly, forimperialism in the phase before globalization, political rule or controlwas the main means of exploitation or plunder, and in the phase ofglobalization, the main means of exploitation is economic ? that's theiropinion. The comrades of Lal Salam may say that, even at the presentphase, they have not excluded the political control of imperialism. Itis correct. Discussing the characteristics, they said after that, ?Inspite of the form of exploitation being basically economic, imperialismcontinuously tries to use political and military means against the ThirdWorld countries. Especially when someone openly tries to flout itssystem, it acts at once and decisively ? (Ref. 1). Or in the quote wegave earlier about India, Brazil, etc. , they also said, ?Imperialismtries to control them by economic instruments mainly economic weapons.At the same time it also continuously tries to increase their diplomaticisolation and to give them political orders. It succeeds also to someextent in these? (Ref. 3). That is, they want to say that although theeconomic system is the main one, imperialism has not given up theattempt of political control.
Exactly so. But, that does not change their point that imperialismused to make super-profits mainly through political means and now mainlythrough economic means. And, this is where a doubt is raised. How canpolitical control and economic exploitation be compared as two methodsof achieving super-profits? Isn't this a comparison between weight andlength? Is it not that two qualitatively different things are beingcompared? It might have been different if the plundering by thedeveloped countries during the colonial period and the imperialistexploitation in the phase of imperialism were compared. They didn't dothat. They compared political control with economic exploitation. Doubtoccurs exactly here.
Let's explain it step by step. We know that modern imperialism, whichLenin termed as the ?highest stage of capitalism?, has come in course ofthe development of capitalism itself. Modern imperialism, unlike the oldcolonial era, has not only plundered raw materials from these countries.As one of the main differences between pre-imperialist capitalism andthe imperialist stage, Lenin pointed out, ?the export of capital asdistinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptionalimportance.?(Ref. 4). That means, imperialism exploits countries mainlyby exporting capital and investing that capital in colonial,semi-colonial or dependent countries. Why were the capitalists ofdeveloped countries forced to export capital at that time? Explainingsufficiently the process of the origin of imperialism, Lenin showed thatin the early 20th century capitalism passed from its stage of freecompetition to the stage of monopoly. These monopolies could not find away to profitably invest the huge amount of surplus capital accumulatedin their hands as a result of monopoly profits. That is why from thattime the monopolistic capitalist companies of these developed capitalistcountries found ways to invest their surplus capital in theunderdeveloped countries. As a result, the competition began between theadvanced capitalist countries of Europe to export capital to variousunderdeveloped countries outside Europe. There was already a competitionbetween them for plundering the raw materials of the underdevelopedcountries and for exporting the commodities produced by the imperialistsin their own countries. Now, making profit by exporting capital isadded. This can be said to be the foundation of modern imperialism. Forthat, they divide the whole world among themselves. In short, the basicmethod of exploitation of the imperialist countries has been to makeprofit by exploiting the cheap labour power of the workers ofunderdeveloped countries by investing capital in those countries.
Besides that, didn't they make a profit in any other way? Of coursethey did. In addition to this, capitalist organizations of theimperialist countries have also made super-profit from these countriesby selling commodities produced in their countries at a higher pricethan their value by taking advantage of monopoly control over themarket, and looting the countries' natural resources at almost no price.But the principal way, of course, was to extract surplus value byinvesting capital. This method of economic exploitation is stillfundamentally the same today, i. e. extracting surplus value byexploiting the workers of the country by investing capital, is still thebasic method of imperialist exploitation, although some importantchanges have taken place in the phase of globalization.
But the point is that exploiting the cheap labor power ofunderdeveloped countries by exporting capital is the basic form ofexploitation of imperialism, which was, and still is. Earlier it wasexploitation by political system, now it is exploitation by economicsystem, is a completely wrong statement.
In this case, what is the role of political control? Politicalcontrol over these countries is not an independent method ofexploitation; political control is necessary to protect their economicexploitation and profits from the resistance of the people of thesecountries on the one hand and the competition of other imperialistcountries on the other. That is, the methods of political control andeconomic exploitation are two separate ? and also complementary ?things. A system of political control is needed to protect one's owninvested capital and its exploitation, or to optimize the field ofexploitation. Therefore one cannot be compared with the other. Forexample, different capitalist countries may have different regimes.Somewhere there may be a parliamentary democracy, somewhere else theremay be an autocratic regime, somewhere the regime may take a fascistform. But, exploitation is always capitalist exploitation, which meansextracting surplus value by exploiting the labor power of workers. Itwould therefore be very wrong to say that exploitation is taking placein an autocratic method or in a bourgeois democratic method. It is thesame with imperialism. Whatever the method of rule, be it throughcolonization or exploitation of the people of 'free' countries, theprincipal means of exploitation is the export of capital. Colonizationwas the best way for the imperialist countries to maintain theirpolitical control over the exploited and oppressed countries during thepre-World War II period. Later they took or were forced to take otherways due to various reasons. But, the method of exploitation has notchanged fundamentally.
It must be clearly understood that economic exploitation andpolitical control are two integral aspects of imperialist exploitationand oppression. Neither one exists without the other. In the case ofimperialism, modern-day imperialism is based on the development ofcapitalism, the road to super-profits where they invest capital isalways economic exploitation. There cannot be imperialist exploitationwith only political control. And, economic exploitation is not possiblewithout political control. Political control and economic exploitation ?both are parts of imperialism. That is why it does not make any sense tosay that political control is the main factor at one stage ofimperialism and economic exploitation is the main factor at the otherstage.
Is the disparity in productive forces the root cause ofimperialist exploitation?
They also mentioned another feature of 'Economic Neo-colony'. What isthat? They say that, at present, ?imperialism exploits them (theoppressed countries-present writer) through the enormous gap between itsown productive forces and theirs. This is how it earns super profits?.(Ref. 1). Perhaps because of that, they felt that the need for politicalcontrol became secondary to imperialism.
This is very important and also serious--"Imperialism exploits themthrough the enormous gap between its own productive forces and theirs.".The first thing that comes to mind here is, wasn't there an enormous gapin productive forces of the imperialist countries and the oppressedcountries before? It is quite easily visible to the naked eye that atthe beginning of the 19th century, when capitalism entered the stage ofmodern imperialism, the colonies and dependent countries, in short, theoppressed countries, were far behind in the development of productiveforces. In each of the colonies and dependent countries, feudalrelations of production were almost completely dominant, capitalistindustrial production was absent or in an embryonic or very rudimentarystate. Compared to that, the countries of the 'Third World' are now muchmore developed than before. The authors of Lal Salam also said thatthose countries have become capitalist countries and the bourgeoisie ofthese countries have also become junior partners of imperialist capital.However, there is enormous gap between the development of the productiveforces of these countries and that of the imperialist countries. Thatis, this disparity existed before and still exists ? where is thedifference now?
The second question is, whether before or now, does imperialismreally exploit other countries through 'enormous gap' in productiveforces? Or, they get the force to exploit from somewhere else? There isa disparity in productive forces, of course. That is why the imperialistcountries are able to become imperialist and the underdevelopedcountries are backward and weak compared to them. Otherwise, how willthey exploit and oppress? The strong oppresses the weak. But, it is notcorrect to say that they exploit through huge differences inproductivity.
Well, let's break it down a little more to understand. What might theauthors of Lal Salam be trying to imply by exploiting the vastdisparities in productive forces? Their argument may be that imperialistcapital exploits those countries by using their advanced productiveforces to capture the market by selling better and cheaper commodities.No doubt it is a way of their profit. That was before capitalism hadturned into imperialism (Ref. 5). But, that was the capitalism of freecompetition period. At that time due to the competition among thecapitalists, every capitalist had to try to improve the quality of hiscommodity and lower the price so that he could survive the competition.It required the development of productive forces. But, imperialism meanscapitalism has turned into monopoly capital. And, monopoly capital meansworking against competition. Monopoly capital profits in other waysbesides the development of productive forces. It includes using itsmonopoly over the market to make excessive profits by raising the priceof the commodity above its value. But, greater than that is makingprofit through investing capital in various ways. Several such methodswere mentioned by Lenin early in the last century in his book'Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism', which are still usedtoday by monopoly capital in its pursuit of super-profits. Themonopolies of this era not only refined those methods, but continue toinvent new ways of making extra profits besides developing productiveforces. [Note 2]
Method of imperialist exploitation
Were we talking without any relevance to the present context? No.Since monopoly capital is the main characteristic of imperialism, thecontent of imperialist exploitation or profit-making cannot beunderstood excluding the characteristics of monopoly profit-making. Thatis why we needed the above discussion.
Now, let's examine the methods of imperialist exploitation and seewhether the imperialists are exploiting the oppressed countries throughthe disparity in the development of productive forces. Let's look at theways in which the imperialists exploit different countries.
One. It seems that the imperialist countries exploit the people ofthese countries by exporting commodities made in their countries tothese countries. But, in this case, we must remember the main point ofcapital that capitalists' profits come not from selling commodities, butfrom extracting surplus value from the labor of the workers who producedthose commodities. The capitalist realizes that surplus value by sellingthe commodities. That is, here the capitalist is exploiting in realsense not the people of the country where the commodities are beingsold, but the worker of the country where the commodities are beingproduced. It is because if the commodity is sold at its value, the buyerof the country where the commodity is being sold is getting the value ofhis money. Hence, there is no question of exploitation here.Exploitation can take place here too, but, it can only happen if thecommodity is sold at a higher price than its value. Then there will beprofit from where the commodity is sold and that is super-profit. But,when can commodities be sold at a higher price than their value? Thatcan only be possible if the capitalist has a monopoly over the market.That is, the difference in productive forces is not important here, thereal issue is monopoly over the market. Only by monopolizing the marketcan imperialist capital raise the prices of goods to profit fromoppressed countries and exploit their people. Otherwise, all they can dois selling the commodities to realize the surplus value created in theirfactories.
Two. The essence of imperialism is the export of capital. The waycapital that is invested in industry makes profit is by exploiting thelabor power of the oppressed countries. What matters here is capital,not the development of productive forces. And other methods ofexploitation include investing capital, profiting through speculation inthe stock market, and lending and profiting from the interest on thatloan. Obviously none of this has anything to do with disparity in thedevelopment of productive forces.
Period of Globalization ? Is the disparity of productiveforces the cause of imperialist exploitation?
So, is imperialist capital gaining super profits in dependentcountries through the disparity in the development of productive forcesin this phase of globalization? Imperialism's method of earningsuper-profit remains the same in this phase of globalization. That is,on the one hand by selling goods at prices above value, whichimperialist capital can do by virtue of its monopoly over the market andon the other hand, the basic method of earning super-profit is as beforeto exploit cheap labor power by investing capital. Here they earnsuper-profit due to cheap labor power. It is true that the reason behindcheap labor force in these countries is widespread poverty andunemployment due to under-development of the productive forces of thesecountries. Thus the disparity in the development of productive forcescan be indirectly posited as a cause of super-profit. But, that reasonexisted even before globalization. And the other methods of imperialismfor making profit are speculation by the investment companies throughinvesting capital in the stock market and extorting money from theinterest from huge amount of loans. Thus it is unnecessary to furtherelaborate that there is no reason of disparity in the development of theproductive forces behind earning profit by investing the capital in thestock market or by investing the capital elsewhere, or by making aprofit from the interest on the loan. Such exploitation requires thepower of capital which imperialist capital possesses in greatmeasure.
In the period of globalization, imperialism has taken a new path ofexploitation in which they do not even need direct capital investment.It may sound strange, but this path is becoming increasingly important.That approach is far more profitable and hassle-free for imperialistmultinationals. That method is to have the domestic companies producethe commodities for them in the manner prescribed by them. As thesecompanies are not owned by the multinationals, the multinationals arenot obliged to pay any minimum wages, or any PF, gratuity, accidentcompensation etc. The prices they pay for the commodities are so lowthat local companies are forced to pay extremely low wages to theworkers. But, the multinationals sell that commodity in their market ata much higher price. Although the price is much lower than thecommodities produced in their own country. An example can be given.Swedish retailer Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) gets T-shirtsmanufactured from Bangladesh and sells them in Germany. They sell eachshirt for 4.95 Euros. Of that, T-shirt manufacturing companies inBangladesh get 1.35 Euros. The rest is entirely received by the foreignselling company. 40 cents of the 1.35 Euros received by Bangladeshiproducers goes to raw materials (1 Euro equal to 100 cents). Theremaining 95 cents are shared between the owners of Bangladeshimanufacturing firms, workers, Bangladesh government taxes, and othersuppliers. Each worker earns 1. 35 Euros for 10-12 hours of work and forthat they have to produce 250 T-shirts per hour (Ref. 6). This way theyare making huge profits, but they don't have to invest the same amountof capital that they would have to invest in starting their own company.Its profitable from both sides, capital investment is less, but profitsare increasing. Thus the estimate of the exploitation of imperialistcapital being done through this method cannot be found in capitalinvestment. What is the power behind the exploitation by themultinational corporations in this way? That power is their monopolycontrol on the market. In the case of countries oppressed byimperialism, it can be seen that due to the lack of radical land reformand the continuation of imperialist exploitation, their per capitaincome is very low and their domestic markets are therefore very small.That is why the capitalists of these countries are forced to producetheir commodities at the price set by the multinationals. However, thisopportunity has been given by the country's government taking away therights of the workers so that the capitalists can get the workers towork at a much lower cost. Now there is a competition among theoppressed countries to see which country can procure such work ordersfrom the imperialist. An economist has named this competition as, 'therace to the bottom'. The ruling class of every country is trying to getsuch work orders by lowering the wages of the workmen. If wages of theChinese workers rise, multinationals run to Bangladesh or Vietnam orsometimes to India. The capitalists of all these countries are takingthe orders, but they are not suffering, rather they are making profitsby increasing the intensity of exploitation of the workers. Deprived oftheir rights, they are forced to do these jobs for low wages. What ismore interesting is that this kind of work that multinationals aregetting done is low-skilled work like making ready-made clothes, makingshoes etc. Even in the case of phones, low-skilled work is being done inthese countries. (Incidentally, outsourcing is happening not only here,but also in Indian companies run by imperialist capital. Not only in thecase of arms length companies, the same things are also happening in thecase of in house companies. For example, Maruti Suzuki makes nothing butengines and power trains. All other parts are outsourced. Some are doneby Belsonica, some by Munjal. Workers' wages are also much lower inBelsonica or Munjal than in Maruti Suzuki. ) However, even here theargument of disparity in productivity development does not stand.
Did the beginning of globalization happen only by virtue ofeconomic power?
So, did imperialist capital enter the oppressed countries and begantheir operation by virtue of the gap in the development of productiveforces? That also cannot be said. First, the imperialists were able toincrease exports in this period because those countries lowered importtaxes. As a result, those countries began to be flooded with foreigncommodities. Second, the essence of imperialism is the export ofcapital. So far we see export of capital through three main methods ?Foreign Direct Investment or FDI, Foreign Portfolio Investment FPI andForeign Debt. It cannot be said at all that the export of capital hasincreased in the period of globalization following the normal rules ofthe economy. Like the restrictions on commodity imports, in post-WWIIperiod, India and other newly liberated countries also imposed variousrestrictions on foreign capital investment to develop indigenous capitalof their countries. These restrictions began to be withdrawn from theearly nineties. As a result, it is unlikely that there is currently anyarea where significant or important barriers to foreign capitalinvestment still exist. That is why the penetration of imperialistcapital in India increased enormously at this stage. Similarly, it hasincreased in other countries.
Why did barriers to foreign capital investment and import of foreigncommodities in the countries of Asia and Africa including India wereremoved almost simultaneously in the '90s? At that time, these stepswere not taken by one country, but by all so-called third worldcountries. Does that mean that the ruling classes of all those countriessimultaneously felt that it would be good for them to open the door toforeign goods and foreign capital, and they all willingly opened thedoor at the same time, and imperialist capital found the door open andpoured in?
It is well known that the steps of globalization were taken under thepressure of the Western imperialist countries led by the US imperialismand as dictated by the IMF and the World Bank which are actuallycontrolled by the imperialists. Better to say, they forced the countriesof the 'Third World' to open their doors. Imperialism took this route toincrease their falling rate of profit. At that time, the collapse of theso-called socialist camp created favorable conditions for the Westernimperialist camp led by US imperialism. Due to the disorganized anddisarrayed condition of the working class as a result of the defeat, itwas not possible for them to resist the onslaught of imperialistglobalisation. In such a situation, imperialism began to export capitalto these countries in the name of globalization. That is, mainly, thedrive behind globalization was the interests of imperialism and aimed atmaking profits using the cheap labor of those countries and therebyincreasing the falling rate of profit of the imperialist countries.
It is also true that the ruling big capitalists in all thesecountries followed this path dictated by the imperialism more or lesswillingly. It cannot be denied that the phase of globalization did notbegin due to the difference in the development of productive forces, butbegan with the intrigues of imperialism, their power, their strength.And even after that, throughout the entire phase of globalization,imperialism, especially US imperialism, has been carrying out a campaignof 'economic reform programs' through political influence, bossingaround and through intimidation in various countries, which are just afew steps to intensify the exploitation of imperialist capital anddomestic big capital. In the period of globalization, this bossingaround and high-handedness of imperialism is increasing more and more.Behind the governments and bourgeois parties of every country, behindthe media, there are various imperialist influences and machinationsfrom behind. Even the role of imperialists, especially US imperialists,in the formation of governments of different countries is quite wellknown. And if they refuse to obey their instructions, then the proof ofwhat can be the result is seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries.Imperialist interests are also involved in the recent Ukraine war. In2014, during the movement that changed the ruler of Ukraine, the famousphone conversation between the US Assistant Secretary of State VictoriaNuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, where Nuland decided who wouldbe the next ruler of Ukraine. (Ref. 7) Even during the Arab Spring, wesaw that the US imperialists used manipulative methods in Egypt'sstudent-youth protests to put someone in power who will serve theirinterests. In India also, we can see many such incidents of control ofimperialism. During Iraq war, though India did not participate in directwar operations with the joint forces of the western imperialist power,it was forced to work in their favour. In 2008, nuclear treaty with USAwas another example of compromise under the pressure of US imperialism.Another example is backing out of India from oil pipleline project withIran under the pressure of US imperialism.
The European Union or other powers are no less manipulative. Anincident in Bangladesh in 2007 is an example of this. A state ofemergency was declared in Bangladesh in January 2007. The day before theannouncement, the European Union's Election Observation Commissionwithdrew its mission. They said that it is not possible to organizeelections in Bangladesh. What is the cause of European Union's headacheabout whether it is possible to hold elections in Bangladesh? Moreinterestingly, a caretaker government was then installed through a coupwith the support of the army. The person who was appointed as the headof that government had been associated with the World Bank for twentyyears. In 2012, in an international law journal article, it was writtenabout the incident, " The regime also received the support of Westerndiplomats, which some claimed were instrumental in the coup, and themilitary-backed government leaders remained in sustained consultationwith them throughout its tenure. Western diplomats reportedly saw themilitary as ?a last resort and necessary evil? to take on the corruptionof the political parties and bureaucracy. As a result, the UnitedKingdom, the United States, and other Western countries and developmentagencies largely condoned the takeover" (Ref. 8). Why this attention ofthe European Union to Bangladesh? Why or from where they have gained theauthority so that they can interfere with the internal affairs ofBangladesh? The answer may be in the fact that an important part of theeconomy of Bangladesh is its ready-made garment industry, which mainlysupplies multinational companies of the European Union. In each case,behind this high-handedness of imperialism can be traced their interestof maintaining military influence to maintain their economic interest oroverall economic interest. Russia's Nord Stream gas line runs throughUkraine, which, if opened, would make Western Europe less dependent onAmerica for its fuel, so it should be shut down ? isn't that a bigreason for manipulations for US imperialism in Ukraine?
We can understand two points from here.
First, imperialism exploits these countries not through differencesin the development of productive forces. It may be reiterated that isnot the gap in the development of productive forces a reason? Of courseit is a reason. Because imperialist countries are ahead in thedevelopment of productive forces, they have capital reserves which theycan export to other countries. They are ahead economically andmilitarily because of the gap in the development of productive forces,with the strength of which they can show dominance, keep others undertheir feet. But, they do not exploit by virtue of development ofproductive forces or their disparities. They do this by exploitinglabour power through exporting capital, using monopoly control to sellcommodities at higher prices to make super-profits, speculating oninvestment capital in the stock market, investing capital in varioussectors of the economy and collecting dividends from it or frominterests on loans. For this they do not mainly require the power ofdevelopment of productive forces, what is needed is the power ofcapital.
Second, the political control of imperialism played no small role inthe growth of imperialist exploitation in this period of globalization.The political control, influence, high-handedness of imperialism is notless than its earlier phase (i.e., the post-World War II phase), but hasgradually increased or is increasing. It may be more or less indifferent countries, but in every oppressed country, the influence,control and dictates of imperialism has increased in this phase. If onedoes not keep one's eyes shut, it can be seen how the political controlof imperialism and attack is constantly increasing in the period ofglobalization. Like many other countries, the toiling people of India,including the working class, are not only subjected to increasingimperialist exploitation, but the limited political freedom that Indiahad is also shrinking and being curtailed. By calling it 'economicneo-colony', will not the danger of political control andhigh-handedness of imperialism be underestimated?
Condition of imperialist exploitation and control in India asper Lal Salam
What is more surprising is that the comrades of Lal Salam cannot seethat the exploitation of imperialist capital and its overall dominanceand control have increased in the period of globalization. They feelthat the grip of the Indian bourgeoisie on the domestic market hasloosened somewhat, but the Indian capitalists still hold the majority ofthe domestic market. Let's say in their own language, "grip of Indianbourgeoisie on its home market has loosened somewhat, its market sharehas undoubtedly decreased, but it has not been displaced form[sic] its home market. Even after eight years of establishmentof WTO, major portion of home market is in the hands of nativebourgeoisie. Or, in other words, at least in Indian market nativebourgeoisie has been able to withstand against imperialism? (Ref. 9).Inter alia, it should be noted that their article from which we havequoted was originally written in January 2003, exactly 20 years ago.That's why the information may be out of date. But, it seems that theydid not feel that any requirement to change general conclusion. Becausethe present compilation of translated articles was published in May 2022and at that time they did not mention anything otherwise.
Not only in terms of market of commodities, but also in terms ofcapital investment, they felt that the presence of foreign capital inIndia is much less than that of domestic capital. ?We find that evenafter a decade of globalization in the partnership in the overallexploitation of the labour power of the Indian working class and toilingmasses, the Indian bourgeoisie is still senior partner whileimperialists are junior partners. If context not limited to Indianeconomy but is extended to entire world we find opposite situation. Herebourgeoisie of Third World is junior partner, while imperialists aresenior partner? (Ref. 10).
A self-contradiction
In view of their statement, the first question that arises is howIndia then becomes an 'economic neo-colony'? Even to become an economiccolony, from the economic point of view, imperialism has to take therole of controller or dominant force, right? They say that the Indiancapitalists are in a dominant position, either in terms of marketcapture, or in terms of capital investment. So, how do they call Indiaan economic neo-colony? Are they not contradicting their ownposition?
The question of dominance of imperialist capital in Indianeconomy
Now let's judge by the main aspect of their argument. Can it reallybe said that indigenous capital is still the senior partner in Indiacompared to imperialism? They state that ?domestic bourgeoisie is stillin possession of majority of the Indian market (more than four-fifths)?(Ref. 9). It is not known on the basis of which primary data, they havecome to this conclusion. But, the data they cited in support of thisconclusion is a bit surprising. They said, ?Import was 8.2% of GDP in1990-91. It increased to 10.5% by 2001-02? (previous Ref.). If we alsotake the import as compared to GDP, we will see that the import comparedto GDP has gradually increased and it has not stuck in that 10%.According to World Bank data, imports are currently 23.9% (2021) oftotal GDP, which once increased to 31.3% (2012) (Ref. 11). But, that'snot a big deal either. Can the extent of the control of foreigncompanies on the country's market be understood with the import dataonly? Imports only account for the commodities of foreign capitalistfirms which they produce abroad and sell in this country. But, theaccount of the commodities they are producing in this country andselling in the country market cannot be found in the import data. Isthat also not the control of foreign commodities on the country'smarket? All companies in which foreign capital is 100 percent,commodities of all those companies are completely products of foreigncapital. Even, wherever domestic and foreign capital is together, isn'tforeign capital controlling the country's market? It is very difficultto make a clear quantitative calculation of this, but, taking intoaccount the imports and the foreign capital flowing into the country,would it not be appropriate to say that foreign capital has alreadyestablished a control over a large part, if not the majority, of theimportant section of the country's market?
Let's talk about capital investment. As they say that domesticcapital is still in the main position in the country? They gave thefollowing information, ?Total capital investment every year in theIndian economy is around $95-100 billion. Despite concessions overallforeign capital investment in any year has not been more than $6billion.? (Ref.10). It is not known where they got this informationfrom, because they did not provide any source of information. Even ifthat is true, can the impact of foreign capital on the Indian economy beunderstood only with that information? Control of foreign capital cannotbe understood only by calculating the percentage of investment.Currently, the ownership structure of monopolies is such thatcapitalists control the firms and become effective owners, usually byowning minority shares only. That is why in the pre-1991 stage,imperialist capital controlled various monopolies despite not having theopportunity to capture majority ownership.
Moreover, almost every industrial sector has seen huge foreigncapital investment in the last 30 years. Compared to the pre-1991 phasewhere foreign investment in no firm was more than 50 per cent, oftenmuch lower, many firms are now fully controlled by foreign capital andnot only that, there are now many industrial firms that are wholly ownedby foreign capital. There is no sector of industry where foreign capitalhas not entered. It is clearly seen that automobile sector, banking,product sector of mobile phone, TV, washing machine etc. , large retailcompanies, computer and many other sectors are almost completely undertheir control. Although domestic companies work in various fields liketelecommunication, power generation, mining industry etc., thosedomestic companies are completely dependent on foreign companies fortechnology. In fact any advanced factory machinery is manufactured byforeign imperialist firms.
Now, we have wholly foreign owned companies because now 100% FDI ispermitted Along with we have companies that are joint ventures withIndian capital and FDI. Many of the joint ventures that were establishedin the 1990s have now gone into full foreign ownership. Only the oldname may remain on the signboard. The most prominent of these is MarutiSuzuki in which the Indian promoter has no stake. Suzuki has a share of56.37% and foreign investment organization (Foreign institution) has ashare of 21.48%, together the percentage of foreign capital working hereis 78.58% (Ref. 12). Besides, many Indian companies have indirectforeign capital. Apparently they seem or they are known as completelyIndian companies, but foreign capital is also involved, and it is notunreasonable to fear that they also have control over the management ofthe company. Let us take the case of Tata Motors Company. Tata Group'sstake in Tata Motors Company is 46.39%, but foreign investors also havea stake of 18.15%. (Ref.13). The condition of Mahindra and Mahindra ismore significant. There, promoters' capital is 18.84% and foreigninstitutions' capital is 38.15%, twice the share of promoters (Ref.14).Thus the foreign capital is well entrenched in India's industrial andfinancial institutions.
Besides, another major aspect of imperialist control is the borrowingfrom various imperialist-controlled financial institutions, which is ineffect another form of imperialist capital. One role of this loan is toexploit the country by collecting interest through the loan. But, thereis another important aspect of this borrowing which we saw during the1991 IMF loan. Through these loans, the imperialist countries try tocontrol the politics and economy of the debtor countries.
Thus, can we really think that even after thirty years of opening thedoor to foreign capital through globalization, imperialist capital isnot in a controlling position in this country?
Is India becoming equal with the imperialistcountries?
India's ruling class, especially the current government, isvehemently promoting that India is now about to take its seat among thedeveloped countries of the world. The CEOs of many of the world'slargest multinational corporations are now of Indian origin. Even nowthe Prime Minister of Britain is of Indian origin and so is the VicePresident of the United States. Those who revel about it do notunderstand that no matter how much they are of Indian origin, they arecitizens of those imperialist countries and they look after theinterests of imperialist capital by virtue of being in the top positionsof those countries or the monopolistic capitalist organizations of thosecountries.
However, the biggest tool of Indian ruling class in this campaign isGDP data. A comparison with GDP may indeed suggest that India has becomeor is about to become at par with developed countries. Because,according to the data of the World Bank, in terms of GDP in 2021, Chinais at the second place and India is at the fifth place. Judging in thisway, it may seem that these two countries have reached a comparableposition with developed countries (Ref. 15). This is what India's rulingclass is constantly trying to convince. And its impact seems to effectthe bourgeois opposition forces of the ruling party as well who feelthat the Indian economy has made a great progress and the Indiancapitalists have also come closer to the imperialist capitalists.
But, if the number of members of one of the two families with monthlyincome of 1 lakh rupees is 2 and the other is 20, then can the status ofthe two families be judged to be equal? Naturally, not. Comparison ofthe economy of countries should not be done with GDP, if GDP is to becompared, it should be done with per capita GDP. Where is the positionof India or China in this regard? In terms of current US dollars, theper capita GDP of the United States is $70,248.6, Germany is $51,203.6,France is $43,659, the United Kingdom is $46,510.3, and Japan is$39,312.7. The average per capita GDP of high-income countries is$48,225.2. Compared to that, India's per capita GDP is 2256.6 $.Compared to that, China's situation is much better, but that too is muchlower than that of high-income countries. China's per capita GDP is12556.3 $. How much India's ruling class may try to show the position ofthe country among the top five economies by GDP, in terms of per capitaGDP, India actually falls in the lower-middle-income group (whoseaverage GDP per capita is US $2,572.7) and China in the upper-middleincome group (average GDP per capita US $10,828.1). (Ref. 16). Thecomparison will be complete with the fact that India ranks 139th in thelist of countries, according to GDP(nominal) per capita, one step belowBangladesh. (Ref.17).
The market for such a low-income population is naturally very narrow.The influence of the big capitalists who depend on this market isnaturally much less. Whether it is even possible for them to becomejunior partners of imperialist capital or not is a question. In fact,the economists who talk about multinational capitalists in 'Third World'countries being the junior partners of imperialism are not talking aboutcapitalists of India, they are talking about capitalists of countrieslike South Korea, Taiwan or China.
Sharing of surplus value
The comrades of 'Lal Salaam' have said something in terms of therelationship between imperialism and their junior partners, which needsto be contradicted. They say in the first article of their compilation,?In this loot of the Third World by imperialism, its capitalists arewith imperialism. They have become the junior partners of imperialismand in their global appropriation of surplus value, they gettheir share according to their capital.? (Ref. 18).
First of all, it is not at all correct to say that the Third Worldcapitalist class is the junior partner of imperialism. It can be statedat the most that the big capitalists or monopoly capitalists of theThird World are the junior partners of imperialist capital. There aredifferent sections within the capitalist class. The capitalists of smalland medium factories also belong to the capitalist class and it is alsotrue that there is no open conflict with imperialist capital at present;they fully support the policies of the ruling class taken in theinterest of imperialism and the big capitalist class. But, they cannotbe called junior partners of imperialist capital.
Second, in the age of monopoly capital, surplus value can never bedivided according to the shares of capital. This means that allcapitalists have the same rate of profit. If so, the tendency tomonopolize would never have developed among capitalists. Monopolycapital exploits or has the ability to exploit at a much higher rate.There are various reasons for this which need separate discussion. But,more importantly, they can exploit at a much higher rate due to theirmonopoly over the market and production. An example can be given. In2010, the Apple company bought an iPhone from China's Foxconn company ata price of 179 dollars, Apple sold them in the American retail marketfor $600 each. Foxconn had a profit of $3. 6 billion on its $78 billionin assets, or a return on assets to the tune of 4.6 percent, whereasApple made a profit of $37 billion on its $207 billion in assets, a rateof 18 percent (Ref.19).
Before we end
Let us briefly state the points that we wanted to highlight in thediscussion so far.
One. What the comrades of Lal Salam say abouteconomic neo-colony is not correct. It is not also correct to say thatimperialism at one time makes super-profit through political control andat other times makes super-profit through economic exploitation.Imperialist exploitation is always an economic process whose essence isthe export of capital. There is also super profit by selling goods at ahigher price than value and profiting by investing capital or takinginterest from loans. Any of these methods may take precedence overothers at some point. But, it cannot be said that the economic method isthe main one or the political method is the main one in the case ofexploitation. Political control and economic exploitation complementeach other - both are parts of imperialism.
Two. It cannot be said in general, especially in theperiod of globalization, that imperialist exploitation is driven by the'enormous gap' in the development of the productive forces of theoppressed countries and the imperialist countries. It is for thedisparity in the development of productive forces that made theimperialist countries more developed than the underdeveloped countries.From this arises the power of its capital and its dominance in terms ofeconomic and military power. But, their exploitation does not take placewith the disparity of the development of the productive forces, themanner in which their exploitation takes place has nothing to do withthe development of productive forces. Rather, imperialism represents adecadent stage in the development of the productive forces, which isreflected in their mode of exploitation. The reign of economicexploitation of imperialism mainly rests on the dominance of politicaland military power.
Three. It cannot be said after thirty years ofglobalization that domestic capitalists are basically able to maintaintheir dominance on the domestic market in India. It is true thatdomestic big capital is not comprador capital, but there is no doubtthat the dependence of Indian big capital on imperialist capital hasgreatly increased since the pre-globalization phase. In general,imperialist control over the Indian economy is greater than ever before,and political control has also increased with it. The most importantpoint is the imperialist exploitation of the toiling masses, includingthe workers and peasants, became more intense and widespread. If we arenot conscious of this, we will fail to properly make the vanguard of theworking class and the laboring people aware of the dangers ofimperialism, and we will not be able to take our role as communists.
'Lal Salam' magazine had raised many other questions on which noopinion could be given now. Most importantly, we basically discussedwhere the analysis of 'Lal Salam' magazine is not correct. The questionthat remains is whether imperialism has changed in the face ofglobalization and what indications of further change are given by thecurrent period. We wish to discuss that later.
Notes:
1. These articles repeatedly refer to third world countries. But, thequestion that which countries are being identified as third worldcountries and how is not discussed. The term Third World has been usedin two senses before. It has sometimes been used to contrast the FirstWorld with the imperialist camp led by US imperialism on the one hand,and the Second World with the so-called socialist camp led by SovietRussia with countries such as China on the other, ? the Third World ofunderdeveloped countries in contrast to these two worlds. To regard thethird world in such a way was not right then, now it is irrational tomake a division like this. On the other hand, Mao Zedong made a divisionin this sense ? the First World with the imperialism of America andRussia, the Second World with other advanced capitalist countries andthe Third World with underdeveloped countries, which included China. Isthere any rationale even for such divisions in the present time?Secondly, if today the whole world is divided into three worlds, then itis necessary to clarify which countries are meant by the third world? Atone time, many people used the term third world to refer to countriesoppressed by imperialism, do they mean that? In that case, if thesecountries are to be recognized as being oppressed by imperialism, thenthe extent of political freedom they enjoy comes into question. However,in this article we assumed those countries to be the countries oppressedby imperialism and identified them as such.
2. This tendency was termed by Lenin as the parasitic character ofcapitalism. We all probably remember those words from the bookImperialism ? The Highest Stage of Capitalism, ?the deepest economicfoundation of imperialism is monopoly. This is capitalist monopoly,i.e., monopoly which has grown out of capitalism and which exists in thegeneral environment of capitalism, commodity production and competition,in permanent and insoluble contradiction to this general environment.Nevertheless, like all monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency tostagnation and decay. Since monopoly prices are established, eventemporarily, the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of allother progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economicpossibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progress.?.Certainly, monpoly under capitalism can never completely, and for avery long period of time, eliminate competition in the world market.Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production andincreasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in thedirection of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which ischaracteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branchesof industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gainsthe upper hand.? (Ref. 20).
References
Imperialism today, Imperialism and National liberation,Collection of Essays, Page-1, bold ? present author.
Same as above , page -7 , bold ? present author ? FaraharaPrakashan
Twenty-First century and National Question, Imperialism andNational liberation, Collection of Essays, P-114
?Draft thesis on National Colonial question?, Lenin Collectedworks, Vol-31, P-146
?Imperialism, The highest stage of capitalism?, Lenin Collectedworks , Vol-22, P-266
We have even seen its mention in the Communist Manifesto. ?Thebourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production,by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even themost barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices ofcommodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down allChinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinatehatred of foreigners to capitulate..? Manifesto of the Communist Party,Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 6, P - 488.
The China Price, Tony Norfield, Imperialism in the Twenty-FirstCentury, quoted in John Smith, P- 13).
This incident is available in many news sources. A detaileddescription of the role of the United States and Western imperialistpowers in the events of Ukraine at that time can be found in thefollowing text:
A US-Backed, Far Right?Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us tothe Brink of War
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
When corruption is an emergency: ?Good Governance? Coups andBangladesh, Nick Robinson & Nawreen Sattar, Fordham InternationalLaw Journal, Volume 35, Issue 3 2012, page 750.
Also retrieved from
g on 22.05.2024
On the Character of the Indian Bourgeoisie, Imperialism andNational Emancipation, P-100.
On the Character of the Indian Bourgeoisie, Imperialism andNational Emancipation, P-101.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?locations=INAccessed on March 17, 2023. (It may be mentioned here that the data ofWorld Bank is different from the data given by them. According to thedata of World Bank, the ratio of imports to GDP in 2002 was 15. 2%. Itis quite a bit higher than the data given by them. )
EconomicTimes,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/maruti-suzuki-indialtd/shareholding/companyid-11890. cms
Economic Times,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tata-motors-ltd/shareholding/companyid-12934.cms
Economic Times,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/mahindra-mahindra-ltd/shareholding/companyid-11898.cms
https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/Ny. Gdp. Mktp. Cd?most_recent_value_desc=true
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2022&start=2022&view=map
The data given in the article was taken from this source when it wasaccessed during writing of the article. The corresponding data may havechanged now slightly but that does not alter the general picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capitathe information given in the article has changed somewhat last time whenthe website was accessed, i.e., 22nd May, 2024, but does notchange the general conclusion. Now the position of India in the list is136, 3 places above Bangladesh, which is in 139 position.
Imperialism Today, from Imperialism and National Liberation,Collection of Essays, P- 2, bold by present author
Milberg and Winkler, Outsourcing economics: Global value chainsin capitalist development and secondary data sources: Fortune Global500, 2014. Both facts are from
Lenin's Theory of Imperialism Today:
(The Global Divide between Monopoly and Non-Monopoly Capital, SamuelT. King, p. 192).
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin, CollectedWorks, Vol. 22, P. 276.
Comments:
No Comments for View