Rosa Luxemburg and the Theory of Underdevelopment

Abstract

Rosa Luxemburg's theory of capital accumulation can be regarded as having initiated the systematic study by Marxists of underdeveloped regions. From the standpoint of these regions, however, her analysis of the capitalist and non-capitalist realms has certain deficiencies. For example, it does not reflect the logical necessity of unequal exchange between capitalist and non-capitalist areas, and discussion of non-capitalist social initiatives remains absent. Luxemburg's views have some similarities with Dependency Theory and World–System Theory. But the latter differ from her analyses in terms of their background, perspective and theoretical dynamics.

Keywords:

• Rosa Luxemburg
• capital accumulation
• underdeveloped
• Dependency Theory
• World–System Theory

Acknowledgements

This paper is supported by the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Project No. 11YJC720049) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Project No. 2722013JC003).

Notes on Contributor

Xiong Min is an associate professor in the School of Marxism at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, China. Her publications include The Logic and History of Capitalist Globalization: Research on Rosa Luxemburg's Theory of Capital Accumulation, published by Beijing People's Publishing House; “A Reconsideration of Rosa Luxemburg's Theory of Capital Accumulation in the Globalized Era” in Hebei Academic Journal; “Luxemburg's Philosophy of Politics and Its Historical Effects” in Philosophical Researches; “The Theoretical Horizons of Rosa Luxemburg's Political Philosophy” and “Henryk Grossmann's Interpretation of the Marxist View of Nature” in Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy and Social Sciences); “Rosa Luxemburg and Western Marxism” in Rosa Luxemburg's Thought and Its Contemporary Value, etc.

Notes

¹Although the Dependency School and the World–System School have certain differences in their theoretical perspectives, that does not stop us from considering them together in the context of this paper. After all, the two have more similarities than differences. Both originated from criticism of the modernization theory that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, and they share the approach of comparing the underdevelopment of third-world countries with the development found in the advanced world. Accordingly, their theories analyze various structural binary oppositions from different viewpoints. Examples are the opposition between the metropolis and the satellite city in politics, between the core country and peripheral countries in geopolitics, and between developed and underdeveloped states in economics.