Cited by 15Political Economy and MarxismMarxism and Critical TheoryPolitical theory and Gramsci

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 72 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Marx’s critical political economy, ‘Marxist economics’ and actually occurring revolutions against capitalism

Desai, Radhika·2020·Third World Quarterly

Abstract

Most revolutions against capitalism have occurred in ‘backward’ and Third World societies, and they have divided and disarrayed Marxisms in the West. One key reason, this paper argues, is intellectual. When, long ago, Marxists surrendered to the bourgeois challenge to Marx – neoclassical economics – developing, in place of Marx’s critical political economy, a ‘Marxist economics’, they lost touch with Marx’s analysis of capitalism as contradictory value production. That analysis could illuminate how capitalism’s contradictions drive its imperialist expansionism and how and why resistance to it must, equally necessarily, take national forms. As a result, major currents of Marxism in the West either have paid attention to imperialism and anti-imperialist resistance but without Marx’s analysis of capitalism as contradictory value production or have insisted that their (mistaken) conception of Marx’s analysis implies that capitalism has no necessary connection with imperialism. Neither tradition can actually develop Marxism to comprehend the actual historical record of revolutions since Marx’s time. Neither can inform new mobilisations against capitalism, whether in or outside its homelands. It is high time we return to Marx’s analysis of capitalism as value production and develop it.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Desai argues that major Western Marxist currents abandoned Marx’s critical political economy for a “Marxist economics” shaped by neoclassical economics, leaving them unable to theorize imperialism, nations, and actually occurring revolutions against capitalism. She calls for returning to Marx’s analysis of capitalism as contradictory value production to understand anti-imperialist and national struggles.

Key findings

  • The paper contends that neoclassical economics was an apologetic counterrevolution against classical political economy and Marx, listing antitheses such as production versus consumption/exchange, labour value versus utility, historical versus ahistorical method, and society as a whole versus a detached “economy.”
  • It argues that “Marxist economics” emerged through a “policy of theoretical conciliation” associated with Tugan-Baranovsky and adopted false problems: the “transformation problem,” denial of capitalism’s demand problem, and rejection of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF).
  • It distinguishes “Smithian”/Monthly Review eclecticism, which kept imperialism politically important but abandoned Marx’s value analysis, from “Political Marxism”/Ricardian Marxism, which denied any necessary relation between capitalism and imperialism and neglected nations.
  • It claims Lenin’s recognition of national revolutions against imperialism and the 1920 Comintern turn reflected the actual anti-imperialist dynamic, while Western Marxism divided over successful revolutions from Russia and China through Third World national and social revolutions to Venezuela today.

Methods

  • Theoretical and historical essay in critical political economy; no empirical dataset, formal model, or quantitative analysis is presented.
  • The analysis is a conceptual and historiographical critique of Marxist currents and texts, including Marx, classical political economy, neoclassical marginalism, Hilferding, Bukharin, Luxemburg, Lenin, Tugan-Baranovsky, Sweezy, Brenner, Mandel, and the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI).
  • The main argument is developed through textual interpretation and intellectual history, advocating a return to Marx’s value analysis and a geopolitical-economy approach to imperialism and national anti-imperialism.

Limitations

  • The paper states in the acknowledgements that “length limitations prevented me from taking all of them on board” regarding comments from colleagues and referees.
  • It also states that no part of the paper suggests wholesale rejection of the writers criticised; the issue is how neoclassical economics skewed their work.
  • Evident from the text: the argument is an interpretive intellectual history rather than an empirical test, and it relies on selected theorists and currents to make its case.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01436597.2020.1741346

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

65 Sources not found · 63 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given

Show all 53 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 58
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 66
99 of 99

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Anderson Perry., 1968, New Left Review, 50, 3
  2. Anderson Perry., 1990, New Left Review, 180, 42
  3. Anderson Perry., 1990, New Left Review, 182, 85
  4. Blackburn Robin., 1991, New Left Review, 185, 5
  5. Brenner Robert., 1998, New Left Review, 229, 1
  6. Brenner Robert., 1977, New Left Review, 104, 25
  7. Colletti Lucio., 1972, From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology
  8. Cope Zak., 2012, Divided World, Divided Class
  9. Desai Radhika., 2009, Bankruptcies and Bailouts, 123
  10. Desai Radhika., 2009, The Asia-Pacific Journal, 11, 1
  11. 10.1086/ahr/108.3.906 · DOI
  12. Freeman Alan., 2012, Journal of Australian Political Economy, 70, 167
  13. Joll James., 1955, The Second International
  14. Kliman Andrew., 2007, Reclaiming Marx’s Capital: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency
  15. Lenin V. I., 1923, Collected Works, 33, 487
  16. Lewin Moshe., Russia/USSR/Russia: The Drive and Drift of a Superstate
  17. Mandel Ernest., 1978, Capital, 11
  18. Mandel Ernest., 1981, Capital, 9
  19. Mandel Ernest., 1972, Late Capitalism
  20. Marx Karl., Capital
  21. Marx Karl., Capital
  22. Marx Karl., Theories of Surplus Value
  23. Marx Karl., Theories of Surplus Value
  24. Patnaik Prabhat., 2003, Whatever Happened to Imperialsim? in Whatever Happened to Imperialism and Other Essays
  25. Patnaik Utsa., The Pioneers of Development Economics, 31
  26. Patnaik Utsa., 2006, Globalization under Hegemony
  27. Sardoni C., 1997, A ‘Second Edition’ of the General Theory, 261
  28. Sweezy Paul., 1949, Karl Marx and the Close of His System
  29. Tönnies Ferdinand., 1957, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft [Community and Society]
  30. Williams G., 1987, Marx: 100 Years On, 11

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 15

Metadata

Authors
Desai, R.
Affiliations
University of Manitoba (CA)
Corresponding author
Desai, Radhika
Venue
Third World Quarterly
Published
2020-04-18
Volume
41
Issue
8
Pages
1353-1370
ISSN
  • 0143-6597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-2241
OpenAlex
W3017385499
Cited by
14
References
81
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Third World Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Marxism and Critical Theory
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political theory and Gramsci
Keywords
Marxian economics, value production, contradictions of capitalism, imperialism, anti-imperialist struggle, neoclassical economics, Third World revolutions, national resistance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review