Marxism: Interpretation of a political and social model
Introduction
The Marxist Development theory affirms that in the capitalist system of one or another there will always be a concentration of power, the conception of a new socialist system that is characterized by the abolition of the current system of the current system ofBurgués property that not due to the abolition of property itself, this prevents it from detaching itself from inequality and poverty worldwide.
According to this conception, beyond a certain level of production the systems are blocked and only a social revolution allows to eliminate the old production relations perpetuate this inequality and poverty. Within these relationships, the theoretical distinction between center states (system core), semiperipheral states and peripheral states (Third World) (Third World) must be indicated. Within the current capitalist system, developed countries would initially avoid underdeveloped to reach development based on their interests.
Developing
This theorization should be put in relation to the Marxist theory of dependence (TMD);that exposes how the expansion and growth of capitalism has the generation of a constant dependence, which within the central-periphery scheme described above, in the field not only economic, also political, technological and military. This theory became quite important in the 60s and 70s, however with the takeoff from Southeast Asia would be partly refuted.
This fact would be a weak point within Marxist theory because it fails to give a solid explanation. Many countries have been involved in what Gramsci describes as a passive revolution, in it, a great local economic development is a reflection of international developments that after all transmit their ideologies to the periphery, but do not bloom within societysame, these ideologies are simply transferred and can be more or less successful.
It is important to talk about the concept of hegemony (understood as domination in the sense of power or as an extension of the conception of imperialism): using it in the temporal panorama, there are hegemonic times (1845-875) and non-hegemonic times (1875-1945). This concept is not only articulated in interstate conflicts, but also within a global civil society, this generates a production model that extends internationally generating links between the social classes of the countries.
Individuals who stand out on the periphery are in the end assimilated by the system, thus becomes less possible that a historical and hegemonic block emerges that changes the system. Hegemony is reflected in global norms, institutions and mechanisms that constrain to some extent the states. This partly to support the dominant production model. All this allows the nucleus to decentralize its production towards the periphery, the countries in which the standard of living is lower and therefore we could consider underdeveloped or poor.
conclusion
They have a series of dependencies in relation to the central states (political, military, economic). In short, the capitalist countries of the center of the system progressed and grew leaving aside those of the periphery (represented in imperialism), premeditatedly preventing the growth of the periphery, in order to perpetuate their well -being and the levels of consumption at the expense at the expenseOf the countries that integrate it, generating a circle of poverty and inequality in which although the actors can exchange positions over time, its operation is described here is perpetuated.
Leave feedback