From: "jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Railways in India
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:04:35 +0100


So what are you saying Louis ?  That the Indian people would have been
better off without railways, or that the railways should never have been
built ?  Or that progress is not without its social costs ?  Or is this
related to the story of British imperialism and the cotton trade ?  My
guess is that Indian people today would be rather happy to have their
railways, and would prefer railways to no railways.

Louis says "it does not follow that the establishment of communications
> networks must *inevitably* lead to industrialization.
> In certain cases it may even retard balanced growth, as both India, China
> and certain parts of Africa and Latin America have demonstrated."

True, although communications infrastructure does provide a basis for
industrialisation. But the point is, was here anything like "balanced
growth" in India anyway at the time ?  Didn't India have a caste system,
malnutrition and high infant mortality rates anyway in those days ?

I am trying to get the drift of this discussion.  Is Louis now trying to
discover a sort of Marxist hypocrisy in approving of technological
developments by imperialist powers in the past while being hostile to
imperialism in the present ?

Maybe I'm getting a bit foggy.  Weather is still cold in Amsterdam although
things warmed up a fraction with St Nicolas day. Must go for a walk.

Cheers  

Jurriaan



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---