Skip to main content

The Debate on the Neo-Marxist Approach to Development

  • Chapter
Modern Greece
  • 67 Accesses

Abstract

An area where Marxist interpretations and tools of analysis seem gradually to be replacing the Parsonian functionalist paradigm is the sociology of development. In fact, Marxist methodology, in the wider sense of the word, has been so successful in this field of study that few serious students, whether Marxists or not, are very much concerned with the sort of functionalist/neo-evolutionist theories which were fashionable in the fifties and early sixties (for instance the work of Hagen, McLeland, Rostow, Lerner, Smelser, Eisenstadt).1 At present, interesting debates on such problems take place within Marxism as various theorists start taking a critical look at what has been called the neo-Marxist approach to development. Some of these critics pay attention mainly to the methodological shortcomings of neo-Marxist writers, others contest their substantive findings and conclusions. In this chapter I shall try to analyse and assess both types of critique (paying greater attention to the former)2 in the light of developments in Greece — a country whose economic trajectory portrays characteristics pertinent to the above debates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. E. E. Hagen, On The theory of social change, Dorsey Press, Homewood, III., 1962;

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. C. McLeland, The achieving society, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N. J., 1961;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. W. W Rostow, The stages of economic growth, Cambridge University Press 1962;

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Lerner, The passing of traditional societies, Glencoe, III., 1958;

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eisenstadt, Modernisation: protest and change, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1965;

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. Smelser, Social change in the Industrial Revolution, Routledge, London 1959;

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1966;

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Bellah, Tokugawa Religion, Free Press, Chicago, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For introductory works in this area of study, cf. L. Rhodes (ed.), Imperialism and underdevelopment: A reader, Monthly Review, New York 1970;

    Google Scholar 

  10. and Anouar Abdel-Malek (ed.), Sociologie de l’impérialisme, Anthropos, Paris 1971;

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. J. Owen and R. B. Sutcliffe (eds), Studies in the theory of imperialism, Longman, London 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For a theory which explicitly ascribes more weight to external factors of underdevelopment, cf. T. Szentes, The political economy of underdevelopment, Budapest 1971;

    Google Scholar 

  13. see also the influential work of A. Emmanuel, Unequal exchange, New Left Books, London 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  14. For an excellent work which focuses more on the relationship between underdevelopment and internal class relationships, see G. Arrighi, The political economy of Rhodesia, Mouton, The Hague 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  15. On this point see D. Psilos, Capital market in Greece, Centre of Economic Research, Athens 1964, pp. 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  16. For a detailed analysis of this growth see Vernicos, op. cit., vol. I; and E. Kartakis, Le Développement industriel de la Grèce, Lausanne 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf. for instance B. Warren, ‘Imperialism and capitalist industrialisation’, New Left Review, no. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  18. For Marx’s position on this issue, cf. S. Avineri, K. Marx on colonialism and modernisation, Doubleday, New York 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cited in G. Photopoulos, ‘The Dependence of the Greek economy on foreign capital’ (in Greek), Economicos Tahidromos, no. 1107, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For a systematic analysis of such mechanisms linking Greek agriculture to the capitalist-industrial sector, cf. C. Vergopoulos, The agrarian problem in Greece: The issue of the social incorporation of agriculture (in Greek), Athens 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cf. L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453 New York 1958, pp. 413 ff.; cf. also Berend and Ranki, op. cit., pp. 105 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf. E. J. Tsouderos, Le Rélèvement économique de la Grèce Berger-Levrault, Paris 1920.

    Google Scholar 

  23. For an account of Greece’s financial position in the nineteenth century, cf. A. Levandis, The Greek foreign debt and the Great Powers 1821–1898 New York 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See for instance R. Stavenhagen, ‘Seven erroneous theses about Latin America’, in L. H. Horowitz et al., Latin American radicalism, Vintage Books, New York 1969, pp. 102–17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cf. Amin, op. cit.; see also his more recent work Le Développement inégal, Minuit, Paris 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  26. E. Laclau, ‘Feudalism and capitalism in Latin America’, New Left Review no. 67, May–June 1971. For a convenient summary of criticisms of Frank’s theories, cf. D. Booth, ‘André Gunder Frank: an introduction and appreciation’, in Beyond the sociology of development op. cit., pp. 50–86; and also N. Long, ‘Structural dependency, modes of production and economic brokerage in rural Peru’, in Beyond the sociology of development op. cit., pp. 253–82.

    Google Scholar 

  27. L. Lublinskaya, French absolutism: the crucial hase: 1620–1629, Cambridge University Press, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  28. C. D. Scott, ‘Peasants, proleterianisation and the articulation of modes of production’, in Jrnl of Peasant Studies, Apr 1976, p. 323.

    Google Scholar 

  29. N. Poulantzas, La crise des dictatures: Portugal, Grèce, Espagne, Maspèro Paris 1975, p. 15; and C. Vergopoulos, op. cit., introduction.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cf. L. Althusser and E. Balibar, op. cit., pp. 178 ff; cf. also Sereni, op. cit.; C. Luporini, ‘Reality and historicity: economy and dialectics in Marxism’, Economy and Society vol. IV, no. 2, pp. 206–31;M. Godelier, Rationalité et irrationalité en économie Maspèro, Paris 1966, part II.

    Google Scholar 

  31. K. Marx, Pre-capitalist economic formations, Lawrence (and) Wishart, London 1964; for a collection of texts by Marx, Engels and Lenin on the subject, cf. Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Marxistes, Sur les sociétés précapitalistes, Editions Sociales, Paris 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cf. N. Mouzelis and M. Attalides, ‘Greece’, in M. Scotford Archer and S. Giner (eds), Contemporary Europe Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London 1973, part I.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cf. P. Streeten, ‘The use and abuse of models of development planning’, in K. Martin and J. Knapp (eds), The teaching of development economics, Frank Cass, London 1966.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 1978 Nicos P. Mouzelis

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mouzelis, N.P. (1978). The Debate on the Neo-Marxist Approach to Development. In: Modern Greece. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05006-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics