The State, Industrialisation and Class Formations in India: A Neo-Marxist Perspective on Colonialism, Underdevolpment and Development

Abstract

<p>This thesis is a theoretical and empirical analysis of the state and its relationship to the evolution of the social economy. The study is based on a concrete examination of a particular social formation, namely that of India. The thesis argues that the state in India, because of the nature of the mode of production, has been able to play an autonomous role vis-a-vis the social classes. This contention is contrary to the traditional Marxist class theory of the state which maintains the state is always a means of class hegemony, except in transitional social formations. It has also been argued that once the state attains a definite form, it reacts on the evolution of a social formation and, in turn, is determined by its changing nature. On the basis of a concrete study of the evolution of the social formation of India, it is shown that the autonomy of the state which resulted from the Asiatic mode of production obstructed India's transition to capitalism, and thus undermined its economic development and led to colonisation. It is then explained how continuation of the state's autonomy vis-a-vis the indigenous social classes during the colonial period resulted from a social formation which was partIy Asiatic partly feudaI and partly capitalist, as well as from the colonial state's subservience to the metropolitan bourgeoisie. This conjuncture enabled the state to make considerable resource bourgeoisie. This conjuncture enabled the state to make considerable resource transfers from India to the metropolitan centres, thus leading to India's underdevelopment and low labour productivity. The subsequent attempt on the part of the post-independent state in India to maintain its autonomy, which is derived from much the same social formation inherited from the colonial period, has resulted in the extensive state control measures of the private corporate sector. This attempt has also given rise to the concentration of basic industries in the hands of the state, the sustenance and encouragement of the artisan an petty industries as a counterweight to the private corporate industries and the failure of the bourgeoisie to transform agriculture into a capitalist sector. Finally, it is argued that these measures, in turn, have led to a skewed development of the economy in which the condition of the masses and direct producers has gradually deteriorated, and consequently the economy Is threatened with an uncertain future.</p>