{"title":"Marxism, development and under-development","authors":"R. Munck","doi":"10.1080/23792949.2022.2127415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article follows the substantial shift in the position of Karl Marx from a somewhat evolutionist conception of development to one that aligns more with our understanding of combined and uneven development. Lenin’s epistemological break from an orthodox or evolutionist view of development to a view of the global economy via the hinge of imperialism then ushers in a new view of capitalism as non-homogenous, where part of the world develops and another ‘under-develops’. Does the later neo-Marxist conception of ‘under-development’ represent a continuation of Marx’s concept of capitalist development, or does it represent something completely different? My argument is that we need a return to Marx despite the ambiguities in his own analysis to obtain a useful guide to development in the 21st century.","PeriodicalId":31513,"journal":{"name":"Area Development and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Area Development and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2022.2127415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article follows the substantial shift in the position of Karl Marx from a somewhat evolutionist conception of development to one that aligns more with our understanding of combined and uneven development. Lenin’s epistemological break from an orthodox or evolutionist view of development to a view of the global economy via the hinge of imperialism then ushers in a new view of capitalism as non-homogenous, where part of the world develops and another ‘under-develops’. Does the later neo-Marxist conception of ‘under-development’ represent a continuation of Marx’s concept of capitalist development, or does it represent something completely different? My argument is that we need a return to Marx despite the ambiguities in his own analysis to obtain a useful guide to development in the 21st century.