Political Economy of Capitalist Development in India

Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Capitalist Economic Development in India
Introduction
In primitive communities, the primary means of exchange was bartering. In the days of scarcity, when there was no concept of profit, folks accumulated objects more for reputation than profit. Gift and service exchanges were a common component of the trading system. The Industrial Revolution then occurred and revolutionized industrial processes. Likewise, mercantilist policies had not improved the welfare of the public. The new theory of laissez-faire was proposed to maximize the creation of public goods (Bhattacharya 318). The concept supported avoiding interference in economic matters. This paper seeks to discuss the political economy surrounding capitalist development in India.
India’s Political Economy of Capitalist Development
The laissez-faire philosophy holds that the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people will result from letting people pursue their interests without interference (Siddiqui 106). Among others, it had the support of Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Spencer, and Sumner. They argued that the government should remove all legal barriers to trade, manufacturing, wealth exchange, and property ownership (Siddiqui 110). Numerous academics contend that class analysis is useless because of India's caste-based culture, or Marxist class analysis falls short of capturing India's particular postcolonial conditions. I argue that one must first understand the conflicting class interests to comprehend India's economy and government.
It is important to note that agrarian neoliberalism is inclusive of neoliberal capitalism. Bernstein (690) explains that new agriculture refers to producing highly valued non-traditional products for the global market. This system is different from traditional agriculture, which focused on crop and livestock production for consumption during colonialism and the immediate postcolonial period in India. The production of goods for export supported by a politically disorganized, low-paid labor force that is losing access to government subsidies is what Friedmann (68) defines as "new agriculture." Aquaculture is a significant new agricultural practice. From the perspective of a class that is concerned with the environment, the production of aquaculture, which is fueled by the global market, is examined.
This viewpoint reveals the existence of a dual "metabolic rift" where capital consumes labor and the environment much more than it produces. It also reveals the fetishism of commodities. The influence of location-specific relations of difference on more general relations of capitalist production social oppression, such as that based on age, gender, and indigenousness, as seen in India, is also made clear.
India Experiencing Neoliberal Capitalism
Why is India's economic growth so slow if it is a capitalist nation? If, as Marx hypothesized, the capitalist class relation revolutionizes the growth of productive forces, but India's level of development remains low, is it possible that India is not primarily a capitalist nation? Therefore, it is essential to theorize capitalism as a social class association in the case of India’s economic development. Marx cites the "subsumption of labor" as one of the numerous manifestations of the social class divisions in India due to capitalism (Guilherme & Bruno 1968). The formal subsumption, characterized by long hours of labor and low wages, is the dominance of capitalism in India, which may hinder technological progress and economic expansion. True subsumption capitalism and localized non-capitalist production relations coexist with this type of capitalism (related to the systematic use of technology to increase per-hour labor productivity). This structure's spatially unequal transition from formal to actual subsumption is enabled by India's power system between labor and capital.
Class Relations In India’s Capitalist State
According to Lerche and Alpa (930), the history of the capitalist class impacts political and economic issues. I make a case for a broad class perspective on the postcolonial state in contrast to the majority of the current discourse on the state, including that of liberals like the Rudolphs from Chicago, post-colonialists, or Marxist experts like economist Pranab Bardhan and sociologist Vivek Chibber. The ruler-subject relationship shapes and is shaped by the class connection within the capitalist system that strongly supports division by social classes. The relationship between class and the state is also influenced by experimentally observable factors, including societal oppression like caste and external pressures like economic globalization. In essence, rural/urban are the cornerstones that support the general capitalist social order. The struggles of the lower classes impact capital and its state's actions, which reflect class conflict at a higher level and have opposing effects on the lives of the lower classes.
Lower-class Struggles
The capitalist political system and the capitalist economy of India have fallen short of satisfying the majority's demands. Union conflicts have occurred outside of urban areas due to this failure. Additionally, it led to the Maoist village conflict, occurring in one-fifth of the nation since the late 1960s (Pattenden 1042). The revolutionary movement has lasted the longest in India's history of peasant resistance. The movement has only minimally benefitted the poor in some locations. The Indian government attempted a harsh crackdown on the movement, killing thousands and proclaiming a "state of exception" in certain places. Anyone accused of having ties to the movement, especially its criminalized aspect, faces imprisonment or the death penalty.
One justification for the state's coercive response is the legitimacy threat, focused on offering people of the lower social class services that the state government does not provide. It has been willing to use force to defend its gains when necessary and practicable, as opposed to the military threat posed by a portion of the Maoist movement: (Verghese & Emmanuel 75). The movement undoubtedly has flaws, such as its two-stage, class-collaborationist revolutionary doctrine that believes the socialist revolution is still a way off. Politically engaged men and women in rural and urban areas must fight against social injustice and class exploitation if they hope to change society in the long run. You cannot create the conditions for such a war by promoting violent tactic...