It’s definitely hit and miss in terms of analysis, but I do think India has ambitions beyond simply being a vassal of the US. And that is where the tension is now growing. I personally don’t expect that pattern to change going forward. The US will keep putting higher pressure on India, and that will force India to integrate further with the BRICS. India might be reactionary, but they are smart enough to understand that they don’t want to end up like the EU, Japan, or occupied Korea.
It might be reactionary, but they are smart enough to understand that they don’t want to end up like the EU, Japan, or occupied Korea.
I’m not so sure at present. There is a reason why Fair and Lovely is still a billion dollar industry.
force India to integrate further with the BRICS
I have a tendancy to credit Russia and China here.
I do think you are right that the overall drift for India to face East/South is true especially as the consumer and import market there will be an increasing share of global demand relative to the declining West.
We already have evidence of this when the US put pressure on India to stop trading Russian oil. India is not willing to sacrifice lucrative trade to appease the US, and the US is not in the habit of letting countries pursue their national interest. Hence there’s going to be increasing friction going forward. As the US power declines, they will be putting increasing pressure on their vassals to ratchet up extraction. Unlike the Europeans and American vassals in Asia, India has options precisely because it is part of BRICS.
Haha I guess it is a question of dialectics whether we “credit” India or whether we say her hand is forced with the tide of geopolitics swayed significantly by the R and the C.
I would strongly consider how white supremacism and colourism is deeply ingrained into the upper classes of India, and the material conditions, ie the relationships these classes have with western nations and non-western nations, that affords them this.
India since independance has long history (and I would say even before Independance when Gandhi suggested that India remain a protectorate of the British Empire) of knee bending to the West despite any rhetoric (egregious example: Indira Gandhi despite all her western interviews and erudite anti-western rhetoric was more than happy to engage CIA help to topple home grown communist movements), and it is difficult to imagine a present timeline where India would have apparently chosen their own sovereignity without Chinese and Russians showing a backbone.
I mean we already have concrete evidence, as I noted earlier, with the Russian oil trade. You have to apply material thinking to the situation. Trade with BRICS is creating a lot of wealth for the oligarchs in India, and they’re becoming a powerful political force in turn. Meanwhile, as the US economy continues to decline, the oligarchs invested in the US are starting to find that they’re not getting the returns they used to get. So, the economic gravity necessarily shifts away from the US and towards BRICS where development opportunities are. Russia and China created the economic niche with BRICS, but now that it exists, India is pulled towards it.
I fail to see in each of the examples you have highlighted that if it weren’t for the Russians and Chinese what internal mechanisms (sincerely asking; happy to be enlightened here) within India would have got them to actively invest money in developing the trade they now have, especially at the risk of irking Western Ire. It was way easier for Indian oligarchs when presented the option of easy money from Russian oil, and USAmerican vassals willing to purchase this Indian processed oil, to then continue with that development when faced with a declining West.
Where was, for example, the 5 or 10 year Indian plans on significant diversification of Indian economy away from the West before the Ukraine War or even Chinese ASEAN trade agreements?
You can see why I am reluctant to “credit” India on their new found soverignity when their hands was forced by others. They just didn’t have the privileged ignorance (read NATO and US intelligence integration) of Expected White Solidarity of the Europeans to engage in that level of economic suicde, and it was not for lack of trying as displayed by Modi’s subservience when interacting with the West.
I’m not arguing that Russia and China aren’t the principal architects of BRICS. What I’m saying that Indian leadership had the brains to take advantage of trading with BRICS which gave India options that vassals like the EU don’t have today. India would prefer to stay in the western camp, but since the US is putting unacceptable demands on India, they’re able to pivot towards their other option.
Nowhere am I arguing that India is in some way principled. They’re simply being opportunistic, but that’s precisely where the tension with the US emerges. And that’s why I expect the split between the west and India to continue to grow.
I’m not so sure at present. There is a reason why Fair and Lovely is still a billion dollar industry.
I have to say that this is a really idealistic and frankly dumb comment. The actions taken by the ruling class of a nation depend on the class situation and economy. And India is too big as a single political entity to just remain as a vasal/dickriders in the long term to the US. As Indian capital accumulates, the national bourgeoise of India will not be content with being mere subordinates.
The situation is different with Japan, south Korea, and the EU. The former 2 were directly militarily occupied by the US. The latter is highly divided, and its members were also militarily occupied by the US during WW2 and the cold war.
I have to say that this is a really idealistic and frankly dumb comment. The actions taken by the ruling class of a nation depend on the class situation and economy.
It was a nod to white supremacism. We have to consider marxism is not a theory of anti-elitism. The reactionary masses who hold political power is not limited to the richest few.
The rest of your comment does not appear too much in disagreement with the rest of the comments I have made on this post.
The Indian ruling class has colorist and pro-western brainworms, but using the ideas of white-supremacy to say anything about the decisions they will make in the long-run just boils down to a form of idealism.
It would be no different from me saying that the Americans wouldn’t mind becoming Ukraine 2.0 because America has a lot of nazis.
The Indian ruling class has colorist and pro-western brainworms, but using the ideas of white-supremacy to say anything about the decisions they will make in the long-run just boils down to a form of idealism.
White supremacy is an ideal based on material conditions, we have to consider what those material conditions are that amplify this. It’s those material conditions that help explain the decisions that people make whether long or short term. But I didn’t use it as a reason why India may or may not become number 2. In fact I think it is inevitable given enough time and what we know currently they will become number 2.
It would be no different from me saying that the Americans wouldn’t mind becoming Ukraine 2.0 because America has a lot of nazis.
This bit I don’t understand. White supremacism does not necessarily mean the richest see themselves subservient; in this context the Indian elite act like Honorary Aryans, they would like to be the top “Whites” so exceeding the US would not be outside of their class paradigms.
in this context the Indian elite act like Honorary Aryans, they would like to be the top “Whites” so exceeding the US would not be outside of their class paradigms.
Increasing wealth and accumulating value are fundamental drives of capitalism. White or not, the desire to be seen as Honorary aryans has little to do with it. And it’s not as if they can’t keep acting white while the nation itself pursues a nationalist capitalist development path (look at Russian liberals)
Someone can drive the car without understanding how the engine works. Russian capitalists hands were forced as they were denied the oppurtunity in sharing Western Imperialism and military hegemony (NATO). But I don’t believe in economic determinism; the Russians grew a spine against Western Hegemony and no doubt the legacy of Soviet history and foundations helped.
The query was whether Indian capital as a class has self awareness at present to not end up like EU, South Korea or Japan - I argue I’m not sure they do at this stage - and their relation with White Supremacism is partly the reason why; an idea that the Westerners ultimately have got it right but just may be Indian capital could have a bigger piece of that pie.
Now India may never end up like the three aforementioned countries/regions because their decolonial history combined with their population/resource size while kowtowing as a counterweight (so far, but not for long maybe) to China in Western Eyes meant they did not need to concede territory directly to US military (though they did indirectly with Pakistan).
It is idealistic to consider domestic cultures do not have a dialectic relationship with its international relationships; we often hear liberals claim that western countries foreign policy is separate to their domestic policy.
India’s relationship with its colourism is not separate to its international relations, they are intimately linked.
Domestic policy is always linked to foreign policy (no marxist-leninist should ever deny this), but we’ll have to “agree to disagree” about how much causal weight colorism specifically should be given here. Not that capitalism is a linear system to begin with assignable weights to causal inputs.
It’s definitely hit and miss in terms of analysis, but I do think India has ambitions beyond simply being a vassal of the US. And that is where the tension is now growing. I personally don’t expect that pattern to change going forward. The US will keep putting higher pressure on India, and that will force India to integrate further with the BRICS. India might be reactionary, but they are smart enough to understand that they don’t want to end up like the EU, Japan, or occupied Korea.
I’m not so sure at present. There is a reason why Fair and Lovely is still a billion dollar industry.
I have a tendancy to credit Russia and China here.
I do think you are right that the overall drift for India to face East/South is true especially as the consumer and import market there will be an increasing share of global demand relative to the declining West.
We already have evidence of this when the US put pressure on India to stop trading Russian oil. India is not willing to sacrifice lucrative trade to appease the US, and the US is not in the habit of letting countries pursue their national interest. Hence there’s going to be increasing friction going forward. As the US power declines, they will be putting increasing pressure on their vassals to ratchet up extraction. Unlike the Europeans and American vassals in Asia, India has options precisely because it is part of BRICS.
Haha I guess it is a question of dialectics whether we “credit” India or whether we say her hand is forced with the tide of geopolitics swayed significantly by the R and the C.
Their hand is being forced, but they do get credit for actually having the brains to leave themselves with some options.
I agree. They were forced to make a choice, just like Europe was. India chose sovereignty. Europe chose subjugation.
Exactly, Europe put all their eggs in the imperial basket, while India kept their options open.
I would strongly consider how white supremacism and colourism is deeply ingrained into the upper classes of India, and the material conditions, ie the relationships these classes have with western nations and non-western nations, that affords them this.
India since independance has long history (and I would say even before Independance when Gandhi suggested that India remain a protectorate of the British Empire) of knee bending to the West despite any rhetoric (egregious example: Indira Gandhi despite all her western interviews and erudite anti-western rhetoric was more than happy to engage CIA help to topple home grown communist movements), and it is difficult to imagine a present timeline where India would have apparently chosen their own sovereignity without Chinese and Russians showing a backbone.
I mean we already have concrete evidence, as I noted earlier, with the Russian oil trade. You have to apply material thinking to the situation. Trade with BRICS is creating a lot of wealth for the oligarchs in India, and they’re becoming a powerful political force in turn. Meanwhile, as the US economy continues to decline, the oligarchs invested in the US are starting to find that they’re not getting the returns they used to get. So, the economic gravity necessarily shifts away from the US and towards BRICS where development opportunities are. Russia and China created the economic niche with BRICS, but now that it exists, India is pulled towards it.
I fail to see in each of the examples you have highlighted that if it weren’t for the Russians and Chinese what internal mechanisms (sincerely asking; happy to be enlightened here) within India would have got them to actively invest money in developing the trade they now have, especially at the risk of irking Western Ire. It was way easier for Indian oligarchs when presented the option of easy money from Russian oil, and USAmerican vassals willing to purchase this Indian processed oil, to then continue with that development when faced with a declining West.
Where was, for example, the 5 or 10 year Indian plans on significant diversification of Indian economy away from the West before the Ukraine War or even Chinese ASEAN trade agreements?
You can see why I am reluctant to “credit” India on their new found soverignity when their hands was forced by others. They just didn’t have the privileged ignorance (read NATO and US intelligence integration) of Expected White Solidarity of the Europeans to engage in that level of economic suicde, and it was not for lack of trying as displayed by Modi’s subservience when interacting with the West.
I’m not arguing that Russia and China aren’t the principal architects of BRICS. What I’m saying that Indian leadership had the brains to take advantage of trading with BRICS which gave India options that vassals like the EU don’t have today. India would prefer to stay in the western camp, but since the US is putting unacceptable demands on India, they’re able to pivot towards their other option.
Nowhere am I arguing that India is in some way principled. They’re simply being opportunistic, but that’s precisely where the tension with the US emerges. And that’s why I expect the split between the west and India to continue to grow.
I have to say that this is a really idealistic and frankly dumb comment. The actions taken by the ruling class of a nation depend on the class situation and economy. And India is too big as a single political entity to just remain as a vasal/dickriders in the long term to the US. As Indian capital accumulates, the national bourgeoise of India will not be content with being mere subordinates.
The situation is different with Japan, south Korea, and the EU. The former 2 were directly militarily occupied by the US. The latter is highly divided, and its members were also militarily occupied by the US during WW2 and the cold war.
It was a nod to white supremacism. We have to consider marxism is not a theory of anti-elitism. The reactionary masses who hold political power is not limited to the richest few.
The rest of your comment does not appear too much in disagreement with the rest of the comments I have made on this post.
The Indian ruling class has colorist and pro-western brainworms, but using the ideas of white-supremacy to say anything about the decisions they will make in the long-run just boils down to a form of idealism.
It would be no different from me saying that the Americans wouldn’t mind becoming Ukraine 2.0 because America has a lot of nazis.
White supremacy is an ideal based on material conditions, we have to consider what those material conditions are that amplify this. It’s those material conditions that help explain the decisions that people make whether long or short term. But I didn’t use it as a reason why India may or may not become number 2. In fact I think it is inevitable given enough time and what we know currently they will become number 2.
This bit I don’t understand. White supremacism does not necessarily mean the richest see themselves subservient; in this context the Indian elite act like Honorary Aryans, they would like to be the top “Whites” so exceeding the US would not be outside of their class paradigms.
What it comes down to is this part
Increasing wealth and accumulating value are fundamental drives of capitalism. White or not, the desire to be seen as Honorary aryans has little to do with it. And it’s not as if they can’t keep acting white while the nation itself pursues a nationalist capitalist development path (look at Russian liberals)
Someone can drive the car without understanding how the engine works. Russian capitalists hands were forced as they were denied the oppurtunity in sharing Western Imperialism and military hegemony (NATO). But I don’t believe in economic determinism; the Russians grew a spine against Western Hegemony and no doubt the legacy of Soviet history and foundations helped.
The query was whether Indian capital as a class has self awareness at present to not end up like EU, South Korea or Japan - I argue I’m not sure they do at this stage - and their relation with White Supremacism is partly the reason why; an idea that the Westerners ultimately have got it right but just may be Indian capital could have a bigger piece of that pie.
Now India may never end up like the three aforementioned countries/regions because their decolonial history combined with their population/resource size while kowtowing as a counterweight (so far, but not for long maybe) to China in Western Eyes meant they did not need to concede territory directly to US military (though they did indirectly with Pakistan).
It is idealistic to consider domestic cultures do not have a dialectic relationship with its international relationships; we often hear liberals claim that western countries foreign policy is separate to their domestic policy.
India’s relationship with its colourism is not separate to its international relations, they are intimately linked.
Domestic policy is always linked to foreign policy (no marxist-leninist should ever deny this), but we’ll have to “agree to disagree” about how much causal weight colorism specifically should be given here. Not that capitalism is a linear system to begin with assignable weights to causal inputs.