(University of California professor) Gregory Clark, in his Oct. 3 article, "Wealth related to the culture of nations" provides a false economic history to justify his strange theory. Massive amounts of money coming to Britain due to colonization of Bengal in 1757, in addition to profits from the slave trade and the sugar plantations in the West Indies, are what provided Britain the much needed capital to start the Industrial Revolution and to defeat France in competition for empires.

India had a very prosperous textile industry before it was colonized by Britain. Even during the early 19th century, Britain used to import massive amounts of textiles (without paying for much of it), but in the late 19th century, India became an importer of textiles from Britain and an exporter of raw cotton because the British destroyed the Indian textile industry in Bengal.

Until 1920, Britain didn't allow India to produce much in the way of manufactured goods. After 1920 India was allowed to manufacture a limited range of products, but Britain did not allow imports into India from the United States, Japan and Germany. Only after 1951, particularly 1955, did India begin rapid industrialization because of the introduction of Five Year Plans and massive technological and financial support from the Soviet Union.

The success of the Scandinavian countries also disproves the Anglo-American theory that a free-market system is needed for industrialization. It was also disproved in the case of Germany and Japan in the 19th century, and Korea, Taiwan and China in the 20th century. In every case, the visible hands of state planners caused rapid industrialization.

Scandinavian countries have the same system as the Soviet Union had -- all basic needs of the people are available either free of charge or at a nominal price amid a more equitable distribution of income. Nevertheless, they have been successful in industrialization. A socialist system can industrialize a country without exploiting others.

dipak basu