ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
-A A +A

Remembering Samir Amin (1931–2018)

Murzban Jal (murzbanjal@hotmail.com) is with the Centre for Educational Studies, Indian Institute of Education, Pune.

Samir Amin was a committed philosopher of social movements in the era of what he called “collective imperialism,” and a radical critic of contemporary bourgeois times. His imprints on radical politics, Marxist studies and the social sciences, his articulation of a new type of internationalism, or “alternative globalisation” and “global socialism” as he called it, alongside his revolutionary critique of Eurocentrism and the formulation of the waves of the humanist concept of universalism, will forever be remembered.

For that reason I am an internationalist. I have always thought that since capitalism is a global system—and not simply juxtaposition of nationalist capitalist systems—political and social struggles should, to be efficient, be conducted simultaneously within the national space ... and at the global level.

—Samir Amin,
From Capitalism to Civilization

In the age that celebrates capitalist development, we remember Samir Amin in an age that can be defined in multifarious ways: the age of barbaric genocide, liberal virus, curious schizophrenia and collective imperialism. These terms belong to the repertoire of Amin. While remembering him, three important questions crop up.

First, do we remember him most for advancing the cause of Marxism in terms of development of Karl Marx’s theory of value to understand global capitalism in the 20th and 21st centuries—as the law of worldwide value, or law of globalised value—where the major contribution to the critique of political economy was the understanding of:

the passage from the law of value to the law of globalised value, based on the hierarchical structure … of the prices of labour-power around its value? (Amin 2011: 11)

Second, was he, in refusing a Marxist exegesis (as he always said) and insisting on applying the fundamentals of historical materialism onto concrete reality, then becoming a revolutionary, or was there fear that he was lapsing into revisionism? Would Amin be remembered as a Vladimir Lenin or an Eduard Bernstein? And third, in contrast to the last assertion, if Lenin expanded Marx’s analysis of capital accumulation into the stage of imperialism, can we then say that Amin expanded the Marxist repertoire into the phase of what he insisted on calling “collective imperialism?”

Amin, who passed away on 12 August 2018, was born in Cairo on 13 September 1931 to a French mother and Egyptian father. This amalgam of Asia and Europe would serve him in developing a revolutionary framework that would escape the Eurocentric flaws that Marxism, since the Second International, had fallen to. He was a real theoretician and practitioner of radical politics of what we know, since him, as the “South” or the “Third World.” His revolutionary Franco–Egyptian upbringing propelled him into being a “communist already at secondary school,” as he told Leo Zeilig in an interview in 2017. It was this Franco–Egyptian upbringing that led him to be critical of theory that was loaded with Eurocentric presuppositions, critical of the “myth of Greece” said to be the “ancestor of the West” (Amin 2008: VIII). He literally invented the term “Eurocentrism.”

Amin’s communist activism was present throughout his life: from the 1950s when he was active in Nasser’s Egypt, to when he was one of the leading figures in the Monthly Review, culminating in the formation of the World Social Forum. He worked in both the Egyptian Communist Party and the French Communist Party.

Economist and Philosopher

Amin’s works have to be seen in continuity, where he combines the critique of political economy beginning with Accumulation on a World Scale with his specific and unique idea of history that he outlined in Capitalism in the Age of Globalization and Eurocentrism (Amin 1974, 1997, 2008). His articulation of revolutions in what he calls the “periphery” of capitalism has to be seen both in the specific epistemological sites of underconsumption and underdevelopment. Critiques of Amin have to be placed in rigorous scientific and philosophical perspectives. Why he placed Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong alongside Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin (Amin 2016), and why he refused to see the crimes of Stalin are indeed perplexing questions that need scientific answers.

One needs to see both the scientific and philosophical parts of his argument. By and large, we are brought up in the false idea that revolutions were theorised by Marx as occurring only in the West and the world had to follow these European revolutions. While Lenin and Trotsky worked on breaking the chain at the weakest link, thus heralding the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution—destabilising the Eurocentric theory made fashionable by the Second International of revolutions starting only in the centre of capital accumulation (that is, in Europe) —Amin, while talking of the importance of the Bolshevik Revolution, also includes a critique of Leninist theory of revolution, as also Lenin’s and Bukharin’s theories of imperialism. In a way he posits an epistemological break with them. His theory of “collective imperialism,” which he outlines in Obsolescent Capitalism and Beyond US Hegemony, is of crucial importance for chalking the paths of revolutions post 1945. Marx’s theory of alienation which takes shape in his theory of “economic alienation” is central to Amin (2004: 10, 2010: 5).

Amin, however, refused to be a slave to texts; he refused to become a “Marxologist.” He said that while one should not become a theoretical populist like Karl Kautsky, one does not have to involve oneself into exegesis. What was important for him was to be a Marxist, where one had to have, as he said in Class and Nation, “concrete analysis of the situation of the third world countries” whereby a theory of capital accumulation on a world scale and a scientific interpretation of historical materialism could be rendered possible (Amin 1980: vii).

While theorising on the uneven development of capitalism, one should not forget Amin’s ability to combine epistemic unevenness. For instance, look at the way he analyses political Islam both in Obsolescent Capitalism and The Reawakening of the Arab World (Amin 2004, 2017). And, considering that both imperialism and the comprador theologians (for Amin, the Muslim brotherhood) in the third world postulate political Islam either as the devil incarnate or as radical anti-imperialist (depending on which geo-political part of the ideological globe one is in), Amin insists that political Islam does not have to be seen as anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist. The “anti-Europe” politics of the political theologians in West Asia is thus nothing but a sham and veil to hide their own anti-democratic and anti-modernist ways. Consider Amin (2004: 192): “To the Eurocentrism of Westerners, contemporary Islam opposes only an inverted Eurocentrism.”

Amin thus searches for a radical geopolitical space that can critique the geo-ideological and geopolitical space of imperialism. This imperialism—or to be precise this collective imperialism led by the triad: the United States (US), Europe and Japan, along with Israel, the Arab compradors, New Zealand and Australia—is a concrete reality; “the project of the American ruling classes: extension of the Monroe doctrine to the rest of the world” (Amin 2006: 9–14).

This geopolitical space of imperialism is victorious only by a deep-seated ideology called “Eurocentrism” that is constructed, an ideology that involves the construction and dissemination of

a prejudice that only the West can invent modernity, whereas the Muslim peoples have been shut up within an immutable tradition that makes them incapable of grasping the scale of what needs to change. (Amin 2004: 192)

While political Islamists are seen as fighting the US military in many parts of West Asia, they are always, as Amin (2009: 83–105) says in The World We Wish to See, in “the service of imperialism.” Their criticism of secularism—the separation of religion and the state—said to be “distinctive of Christianity” is actually false, because these political Islamists are in actuality but repeaters “word for word, what European reactionaries at the beginning of the 19th century (such as de Bonald and de Maistre) said of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution …” (Amin 2009: 83). The Islamists return to “culture” (recall also the Hindutvawadis) is merely a “conventional affirmation of belonging to a particular religion.” For political Islam, what is important is only “the ritual assertion of membership in the community” (Amin 2009).

An extension of the uneven development theory leads him to the critique of the positivist theory of “iron laws of history.” The fundamental question for him was: Why did Asia, whose economies far outpaced that of Europe till 1500 CE, not develop capitalism and why and how did the capitalist Big Bang take place in Europe? Looking into the Marxist classics he found that

Marxism has not produced a theory of the political for precapitalist societies (or, indeed, a general theory of the political) as it has developed a theory of the capitalist economy. (Amin 2008: 5)

Rethinking ‘Development’

“To be a ‘Marxist’ is to continue,” as Amin once said, “the work that Marx merely began, even though that beginning was of unequal power. It is not to stop at Marx, but to start with him” (Amin 2011: 9–10). Startings are of course very difficult in the domain of the sciences. How to have a scientific “beginning,” so Marx (1974: 100–08) said in the Grundrisse, is of critical importance. Marx begins with the commodity, to be precise, the phantasmagorical and fetishistic character of the commodity, and then articulates how the commodity has metamorphosised into capital, via value, exchange value and money. We see now that capital has metamorphosised into a barbarian where, to recall a phrase of Marx (1983: 712), “capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”

It is in this very Marxist context that the options open to humanity—as Amin (2000a) after Rosa Luxemburg pointed out—are, many a time, simple: “socialism or barbarism.” The critique of the barbaric character of capitalism stands at the heart of Amin’s Marxist critique of political economy. The manner this critique adapts to changing epochs, and the manner in which it takes scientific forms: from analysis of class struggles, world systems, accumulation on the world scale, to theories of underdevelopment, uneven development and dependency theory is of great importance.

While the question whether Amin was a dependency theorist, along with Andre Gunder Frank throughout his life, or whether he shifted his position to a form of “established Marxism” is of great
importance, the core of his critique of capitalism as a barbaric enterprise remains for posterity.

So, what is the barbarism of capitalism and how does this barbarism remain central to Marxist understanding? According to Marx and Engels (1975: 40):

Society finds itself back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industries and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.

Seems prophetic, does it not that Marx and Engels’ statements in the late 1840s are more relevant than ever? The crises located in The C0mmunist Manifesto are the crises of overproduction. It is when one locates Marx’s original idea of the crisis of overproduction that the understanding of the theories of underconsumption and underdevelopment are rendered possible. For the founders of scientific communism, capitalism, which has

conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the netherworld whom he has called up by his spells. (Marx and Engels 1975)

And in the age that wants to celebrate “development,” what is needed is what Amin in the Liberal Virus called a “superior rationality” that counters the “developmental” logic of capitalism. Capitalism “has not only become barbaric, directly calling for genocide,” it is also senile, since it has now entered its “declining senile phase” (Amin 2003: 34)

If in 1847–48 the founders of scientific communism talked of “momentary barbarism,” now in 2018, it is time to talk of “permanent barbarism.” To counter this, one needs a permanent revolution. But, this revolution requires a revolution in theory itself, a revolution that has to concretely theorise on Asia, Latin America and Africa. Amin was this theoretician of rethinking development with a superior rationality.

But, if capitalism is barbaric and senile, it is also arrogant and racist. For capitalism, the story of humanity is written as the story of the “white man.” While granting the space to Edward Said’s critique of orientalism that exposed the boasting of the superiority of this fictitious “white man,” Amin moves beyond him, into the critique of the political economy of orientalism. One must, as Amin (2008: ix) said in Eurocentrism, “situate the phenomenon within the overall ideological construct of capitalism.” But Eurocentrism does not merely say that Europe is the sole reality and the rest of the world is a mere shadow of Europe, destined to follow it, albeit belatedly. When Eurocentrism says that nothing is possible outside Europe, it actually means that nothing can be rendered possible outside capitalism. The result is that:

The modernist elites of the periphery also believed then that nothing could be imagined outside the dominant logic of capitalism. (Amin 2000a: 2515)

The ideology that was formed was the ideology of liberalism. Liberalism is not about liberty, tolerance and other commodities sold on the market of late imperialism in permanent crisis. Liberalism is what Amin calls the “unilateral domination of capital” (Amin 2000a: 2515). In this sense, an ideological cage was constructed which was to control all possible imagination. The Yankee capitalists were the painters. The painting was this Eurocentric or better Americocentric model of development.

So what do we learn from this Americocentric model of development? We learn that everyone wants to be “developed.” The final picture is that of “capitalist-utopian nonsense” (Amin 2000a: 2516). That is why Amin says that development as capitalist development is always nonsensical. And because, now, the proponents of developmental logic say that a strong Indian nation state is necessary, we see also the reverse side. In his chapter “India, a Great Power?” from Beyond US Hegemony? Amin (2006: 83) says:

Submitting to demands to subscribe to the expansion of global capitalism reinforces centrifugal tendencies, for this submission accentuates the “regional” inequalities of development. Do we not already hear the “privileged classes” of Bangalore (who have benefited from the expansion of new technologies) say that an independent Karnataka would profit more from current globalisation than the Indian state of Karnataka?

Utopias, or what Amin (2000a: 2515, 2000b) calls “belle époque myths,” need to be exposed. They were exposed; 1917 happened. It was “hoped in vain that the revolution would become global.” But it was “forced to fall back on its own forces” (Amin 2000b). Stalin appeared and with him, the planned economy. However,

Centrally planned accumulation was, of course, managed by a despotic state, regardless of the social populism that characterised its policies. But then neither German unity nor Japanese modernisation had been the work of democrats. (Amin 2000b)

Transition to Socialism

So who was this despot heading this despotic state and what was the counterrevolutionary Thermidor that Trotsky had warned of? Would there have been an alternative to Stalinism? For Amin (2015a), “Trotsky would not have done any better [than Stalin].” Further:

In my opinion, Trotsky would certainly not have done better. His attitude towards the rebellion of the Kronstadt sailors and his later equivocations demonstrate that he was no different than the other Bolshevik leaders in government. But, after 1927, living in exile and no longer having responsibility for managing the Soviet state, he could delight in endlessly repeating the sacred principles of socialism. He became like many academic Marxists who have the luxury of asserting their attachment to principles without having to be concerned about effectiveness in transforming reality. (Amin 2015a)

For Amin (2015a), the “restoration,” that is, the capitalist restoration began with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. In his Empire of Chaos, the collapse of the Soviet Union was “brewing since the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956” (Amin 2007: 56). In Russia and the Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, he points to the emergence of a ruling class that was bourgeois (Amin 2016: 46). He holds Stalin responsible for the project of forced collectivisation in 1930 that broke the worker–peasant alliance of 1917 and which reinforced the state’s autocratic apparatus and developed a “new class,” the Soviet state bourgeoisie (Amin 2016: 47). Yet, he refused to describe the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as capitalist. He refused to use the terms “state capitalism” and “state monopoly capitalism,” instead using the term “Soviet mode of production” (Amin 2016: 46).

Here, he completely departs from the analysis of thinkers like Raya Dunayevskaya (1992). In this sense, there is a wide rift between Amin’s idea of socialism and the articulations of Marx in theCritique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx (1975a: 319) says that

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as the labour employed on the products appear here as value …

A similar rift is observed between Amin and Engels, who in Anti-Dühring, said that “people will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted ‘value’ ” (Engels 1978: 375). In this sense, Amin’s articulation departs from Marx’s original views on the alternative to capitalism.

Clearly, Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR and Mao’s Critique of Soviet Economics are revisionist texts that led not merely to the consolidation of state capitalism in the USSR and China, but the destruction of the very revolutions that they claimed to stand for. Mao’s words, “In a capitalist context it is capitalist commodity production. In a socialist context it is socialist commodity production,” are reflections of theoretical revisionism done in the 20th century (Zedong 1977: 144).

These issues are not merely of technical importance, but stand at the heart of Marxism itself. After all, what would post-capitalist society be like? Now we know since Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme that there are two “phases” of communism, the “lower” one and the “higher” one (Marx 1975a: 320–21). But in neither stage would commodity production or value exist. Trotsky (2006: 63) in his The Revolution Betrayed said that the Soviet Union was not a socialist regime, but a “preparatory regime transition from capitalism to socialism.” Amin (2016: 52) called this preparatory regime “primitive socialism.”

So, if there exist two phases (in classical Marxism), then there is another phase or “stage” preceding the first one. Charles Bettelheim (1971: 15–24), for instance, talked of “the transition between capitalism and socialism.” It is this very important space that one needs to critically and scientifically analyse, the space of the transition to socialism and the concrete steps taken by respective societies to achieve this transition. There is a stress that has to be located as the conflict between the systems of market relations (Trotsky’s “preparatory regimes” and Amin’s “primitive socialism”) and the post-market system. Sweezy (1972), in a way sums up the issue which has been a paradox for 20th-century Marxism:

The view that I do hold is that market relationships (which of course imply money and prices) are inevitable under socialism for a, long time, but that they constitute a standing danger to the system and unless strictly hedged in and controlled will lead to degeneration and retrogression.

Amin, like Bettelheim (1971: 16), recognised that a “new bourgeoisie” was formed and the revisionist leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was their instrument. For him, the Russian and Chinese revolutions opened a “long transition, the outcome of which will never be known.” Consequently:

The dynamic of their evolution may lead to central or peripheral capitalism, and both within the society and on a world scale it may encourage progress towards socialism. What is important is to analyse the objective direction of the advance towards socialism. (Amin 2016: 47)

Conclusions

While Amin will be remembered for his analysis of the economies on the periphery of capital accumulation and his articulation of the reactionary pro-imperialist politics of political Islam, in the effort to concretely analyse the new dynamics of the 20th- and 21st-century capitalism, he departs from Marx’s original repertoire. True, he does mention the Asiatic mode of production, but only in passing in Class and Nation, and with the same old prejudice that Marx opposed a dynamic Europe to Asiatic stagnancy. What is important, is that Amin sees “an immense variety of social organisations” (Amin 1980: 46). He also questions “the very idea of a bourgeois revolution” (Amin et al 2009: 103). And considering that the comrades in India are seeking an illusory “bourgeois democratic revolution,” sometimes in the garb of the “new democratic revolution,” Amin’s questioning of the very idea of the bourgeois revolution
is important.

True, he was correct in stating that the formula for creating a society based on “the utopia of constructing a capitalism without the capitalists”—the Novosibirsk School which influenced Gorbachev with its imagined “pure and perfect self-regulating market—was nonsensical. This as he rightly said was “the old dream of Saint-Simon” (2016: 56). But Henri de Saint-Simon and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon did not appear only as Gorbachev. Their first appearances, in the form of the realisation of having state capitalism devoid of capitalists, were in the figures of Stalin and company.

True, as he says “the discourse on ‘totalitarianism’ lacks coherence” (Amin 2016: 55). One could ask after Slavoj Žižek, not merely the question, “Did somebody say totalitarianism?” but the questions: “Who is afraid of totalitarianism? and who is talking of totalitarianism?” After all, is not totalitarianism nothing but the “repressed other” of liberalism, in fact liberalism’s true self? This Amin had grasped well. Liberalism is most certainly a virus and a form of schizophrenia (Amin 2009: 7–8). Consequently, if the burden of Stalinism is on us, there is also, what he calls, “the weight of imperialism” (Amin 2006: 167-68) and its associated schizophrenias.

The questions thus posed are: Will the comrades get rid of the burden of Stalinism once and for all? Or will they stubbornly refuse to see reality; refuse to understand that Stalinism meant the capitulation of the revolutionary movement? Amin (2006: 172) mentions how the South African Communist Party in the 1930s enjoyed the support of the African popular classes while the African National Congress (ANC) only had a minuscule following. He mentions that on Moscow’s advice the party wound itself up “and offered the leadership of the national movement to the ANC on a platter, with the consequences we know” (Amin 2006). Stalinism is then indeed to be understood as the spectre haunting the revolutionary movement, a spectre that has to be exorcised.

Despite recent critiques of Amin that his analysis of imperialism was one-sided, namely pro-Russian and pro-Putin (Le Botz 2017), he will be remembered for his analysis of the implosive character of capitalism (Amin 2015b), and his contention that a progressive and democratic new world order is absolutely necessary, and will lead to the reshaping of European politics vis-à-vis American hegemony (Amin 1998; 1999a; 1999b). His three essays on Marx’s theory of value reiterates the importance of the Marxist contribution to this subject (Amin 2013).

In his analysis of racism, he rightly said that the idea of “discrimination” that the elites raised was “meaningless,” and that:

… Governments andNGOs attending the conference were invited to confess their sins in chorus and express regrets about the surviving “vestiges” of discrimination against “indigenous peoples,” “non-Caucasian races” (to use the official parlance of theUS), women and “sexual minorities.” The recommendations that had been prepared in advance were painless and based on the North American faith in legalism, that is, that problems can be solved through legislation. The underlying causes of advance were painless and based on the North American faith in legalism, that is, that problems can be solved through legislation. The underlying causes of the major forms of discrimination, direct results of the social and international inequality produced by the logic of globalised liberal capitalism, were left out of the original draft. (Amin 2001: 4523)

In an 1843 letter to Ludwig Feuerbach, Marx (1975b: 349) mentioned the “Franco–German scientific alliance.” With Amin it was the Franco–Asian alliance, an alliance that went beyond Europe and Asia to embrace not only the peoples of the third world, but the working classes of the globe that would break the hegemony of collective imperialism and the triad—US, Europe and Japan—controlling global capitalism.

A direct assault on this triad is necessary. But this has to be a thinking Marxist assault, not the pseudo-assaults of the political Islamists and other global political theologians who have always acted on the commands of imperialism. For this, a “delinking,” as Amin called it, from global capital, along with the formation of a new internationalism is necessary. And it is with this delinking and the formation of this new internationalism that the myth that the sun never sets on the bourgeois empire will forever be dispelled. It is with this that we remember Samir Amin.

References

Amin, Samir (1974): Accumulation on a World Scale, New York: Monthly Review Press.

— (1980): Class and Nation: Historically and in the Current Crisis, London: Heinemann.

— (1997): Capitalism in the Age of Globalization. The Management of Contemporary Society, Delhi: Madhyam Books.

— (1998): “Towards a Progressive and Democratic New World Order,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 33, No 23, pp 1385–90.

— (1999a): “Democracy against Hegemony,”Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 34, No 19, pp 1907–98.

— (1999b): “US Hegemony: Need to Reshape European Politics,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 34, No 21, pp 1247–48.

— (2000a): “Choice 2000: Capitalism or Barbarism,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 35, Nos 28 and 29, pp 2515–19.

— (2000b): “The Political Economy of the Twentieth Century,” Monthly Review, Vol 52, No 2.

— (2001): “World Conference on Racism: Asking Real Question,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 36, No 49, pp 4523–24.

— (2003): Liberal Virus: Permanent War and the Americanization of the World, New York: Monthly Review Press.

— (2004): Obsolescent Capitalism, Trans Patrick Camiller, Delhi: Rainbow Publishers.

— (2006): Beyond US Hegemony? Assessing the Prospects for a Multipolar World, Trans Patrick Camiller, Delhi: Daanish Books.

— (2007): Empire of Chaos, Trans W H Locke Anderson, Delhi: Aakar Books.

— (2008): Eurocentrism, Trans Russell Moore, Delhi: Aakar Books.

— (2009): The World We Wish to See: Revolutionary Objectives in the Twenty-first Century, Delhi: Aakar Books.

— (2010): From Capitalism to Civilization: Reconstructing the Socialist Perspective, New Delhi: Tulika Books.

— (2011): The Law of Worldwide Value, Delhi: Aakar Books.

— (2013): Three Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value, New York: Monthly Review Press.

— (2014): Spectres of Capitalism: A Critique of Current Intellectual Fashion, Trans Shane Henry Mage, Delhi: Aakar Books.

— (2015a): “Contemporary Imperialism,” Monthly Review, Vol 67, No 3.

— (2015b): The Implosion of Contemporary Capitalism, Kharagpur: Cornerstone Publications.

— (2016): Russia and the Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, New Delhi: Dev Publishers & Distributors.

— (2017): The Reawakening of the Arab World: Challenge and Change in the Aftermath of the Arab Spring, Delhi: Aakar Books.

Amin, Samir, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (2009): Transforming the Revolution, Delhi: Aakar Books.

— (2010): Dynamics of Global Crisis, Delhi: Aakar Books.

Bettelheim, Charles (1971): “On the Transition between Capitalism and Socialism,” On the Transition to Socialism by Charles Bettelheim and Paul Sweezy New York: Monthly Review Press.

Dunayevskaya, Raya (1992): The Marxist-Humanist Theory of State-Capitalism. Selected Writings, Chicago: News and Letters.

Engels, Frederick (1978): Anti-Dühring, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

La Botz, Dan (2017): “Samir Amin’s Russian Campist Anti-imperialism,” New Politics, Vol 62, Winter, p 142.

Marx, Karl (1974): Grundrisse, trans Martin Nicolaus, New York: Penguin.

— (1975a): “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” Marx–Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers).

— (1975b): “To Ludwig Feuerbach in Bruckberg,” Marx–Engels Selected Works in Three Volumes, Vol 3, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

— (1983): Capital, Vol I, Trans Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels (1975): “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Marx–Engels Selected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Sweezy, Paul (1972): “A Reply,” On the Transition to Socialism, Paul Sweezy and Charles Bettelheim, New York: Monthly Review Press.

Trotsky, Leon (2006): Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is it Going? Delhi: Aakar Books.

Zedong, Mao (1977): Critique of Soviet Economics, New York: Monthly Review Press.

Updated On : 1st Sep, 2018

Comments

(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top