Marxist theories are developmental theories based on the logic that the development of a country is measured against that of the already developed ones, in the current case, majority of the European North American countries (Laqueur, 2013). These theories have been relied upon for the longest time by development researchers, and have been used to distinguish between the third world countries, which are considered less developed, and the first world countries, those having the developed economies. The basis of distinguishing between these two categories of countries is usually the level of industrialization (Willis, n.d). On the backdrop of the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, industrialization prospered in the European countries and spread to America, while countries in most of Africa and Asia depended largely on agriculture and did not have well-structured governments. Additionally, most raw materials for the industries were getting sourced from these continents, stripping them of a significant portion of their wealth, and contributing to their subsequent misfortunes in later years. This eventually led to Europe and North America being significantly more developed, which gave rise to the Marxist forms of classification of countries. According to these theories, the measure of how much a country had developed was how close it had gotten to replicating the European and American industrialization.
Neo Marxism challenges this notion, that the development of a nation cannot be pegged to a single other nation or region, which do not necessarily share the same process of progress or development. Neo Marxism ideas borrowed from the Marxist ideas, but applied it to the prevailing conditions in the mid twentieth century, the reason for its name “Neo-Marxism”. Structuralists argue that the development of a country isn’t entirely dependent on the level of urbanization, or number of industries, which are usually the go to factors for modernists in classifying a country as developed. Instead, they argued that the development path followed by the less developed countries currently ought to be totally different from that which Eurocentrics usually approve (Darnell, 2015). This is because the global environment was entirely different from the times European countries took the helm in the times of the industrial revolution. Most countries, for instance, those in Latin America, have their economic development hampered by the push for free trade by modernists, even though such a measure is usually viewed as being favorable for international relations and easy trade (Darnell, 2015). In the times of the industrial revolution, free trade was absent, ravaged by constant breakouts of war between countries that weakened ties. What this meant was that industrialization and the consequent trading of goods was greatly favored towards the more developed countries, or those with more colonies under them. Such conditions led to the rapid growth of their industrialization, hence putting them at a pedestal when it comes to development. Such conditions don’t exist in the current times, hence the expectations of a country to become developed to the same extent using similar methods are nearly impossible to actualize.
Neo-Marxism has led to the diversification of various economies across the world, as governments come to the realization that development can be achieved in more ways than those showcased by the European countries. Industrialization no longer gets fronted as the catalyst for development, but other sectors of economy are coming into play (Kraidy, 2002). Tourism and agriculture are being maximized in many countries for the sourcing of revenue and increase in urbanization.
Such mindsets have led to the almost total neglect of industrialization in the development blue print of most under-developed countries, leading to over-exploitation of their resources and raw materials by more developed countries. Lack of industries has also had a toll on the job-market of such countries, leading to a significant portion of the population ending up unemployed and in poverty. As a result of these adverse effects, I believe Neo-Marxism has no place in the current society as, just like its predecessor, it was made at a different time and in different circumstances compared to now, hence is not relevant to the current global system.
References
Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in Cultural Globalization. Communication Theory, 12 (3), 316-339.
Laqueur, W. (2013). The Many Faces of Neo-Marxism. The National Interest, (125), 88-96. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42896517
Darnell, S. C., & Millington, R. (2015). Modernization, neoliberalism, and sports mega-events: Evolving discourses in Latin America. In Mega-Events and Globalization (pp. 77-92). Routledge.
Willis, K. (n.d). Development Studies as a Subject Area, (pp 3-55).