¹ Materialy XXII S'ezda KPSS [Proceedings of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU] (Moscow: Izd. Politicheskoi Literatury, 1961), 352Google Scholar. All translations are by the author of this article.

² For analysis of earlier evidence of plurality see Thornton, Thomas P., ed., The Third World in Soviet Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; , Valkenier, “Recent Soviet Research on the Developing Countries,” World Politics, xx (July 1968), 644-59Google Scholar; and the reporting by The Mizan Newsletter (London) on Soviet publications.

³ Razvivayushchiesta strany: zakonomernosti, tendentsii, perspektivy (Moscow: Mysl', 1974)Google Scholar; Zarubezhnyi Vostok i sovremennost’ (Moscow: Nauka, 1974)Google Scholar. Klassy i klassovaya bor'ba v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh, 3 vols. (Moscow: Mysl', 1967–1968)Google Scholar; Natsional' no-osvoboditel' noe dvizhenie v Azii i Afrike, 3 vols. (Moscow: Nauka, 1967–1968)Google Scholar.

⁴ Razvivayushchiesia strany (fn. 3), 133. Zarubezhnyi Vostok (fn. 3), 256, also called for detailed statistical studies of different regions and separate countries to introduce greater precision.

⁵ Tipologiya nesotsialisticheskikh stran (opyt mnogomernogo statisticheskogo analiza narodnykh khoziaistv) [Typology of the Non-Socialist Countries (an Attempt at Multidimensional Statistical Analysis of National Economies)] (Moscow: Nauka, 1976)Google Scholar. It was more than six years in the making. See the first discussion of this collective undertaking by V. Tiagunenko, L. Gordon, and L. Fridman in Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [hereafter cited as MEMO], Nos. 11 and 12 (November and December 1970), 151-57, 142-49.

⁶ See reviews by Ye. A. Bragina and V. I. Liubchenko in Narody Azii i Afriky, No. 1 (January-February 1979), 198-202; V. Sheinis and N. Shustova in MEMO, No. 3 (March 1978). 144-47.

⁷ However, the objective economic typology is not accepted by the entire academic community. Among fairly typical reservations, see Professor L. Klochkovsky's statement in the course of a discussion of the levels of capitalist development in Latin America. He held that the purely quantitative approach lost sight of the qualitative analysis that would indicate not only the levels of development but also the degree of persisting or increasing exploitation on the part of monopoly capital or the multinationals. “Kak otsenivat' osobennosti i uroven' razvitiya kapitalizma v Latinskoi Amerike” [How to Interpret the Traits and Level of Capitalist Development in Latin America], Latinskaya Amerika, No. 1 (January-February 1979), 56-58.

⁸ Another dispute is brewing about monopoly capitalism in the Third World, which, according to strict Marxist-Leninist definition, would put countries where it prevails on a par with states that are designated as imperialist. Also, there is no agreement on whether Third-World capitalism will repeat the classical pattern.

⁹ There are many contributions to this dispute. The concept was outlined by V. Sheinis in “Strany srednego kapitalizma” [Countries of Middle-level Capitalist Development], MEMO, No. 9 (September 1977), 105-24. It was subjected to public discussion and criticism at an academic conference in June 1978, “Kak otsenivat' . . .” (fn. 7), 53-100. V. Davydov, “O stepeni zrelosti i osobennostiakh kapitalizma ‘latinsko-amerikanskogo’ tipa” [On the Maturity and Peculiarities of the ‘Latin American’ Type of Capitalism], MEMO, No. 3 (March 1979), 116-29, provided a good summary of various positions and tried to pour oil on troubled waters by maintaining that the concept of dependence and development are by no means mutually exclusive.

¹⁰ Obminsky, E. Ya., Razvivayushchiesia strany i mezhdunarodnoe razdelenie truda [The Developing Countries and the International Division of Labor] (Moscow: Mezhdunarodyne otnosheniya, 1974)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Mezhdunarodnoe razdelenie truda i razvivayushchiesia strany [International Division of Labor and the Developing Countries] (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 9–10Google Scholar.

¹² S. Tiul'panov, “Poiskovaya teoreticheskaya rabota” [An Innovative Theoretical Work], MEMO, No. 5 (May 1977), 143-46.

¹³ Sovremennye problemy Azii i Afriki [Present-day Problems of Asia and Africa] (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 230Google Scholar.

¹⁴ This was Tiagunenko's line. It is also observable in Rymalov's, V.Strukturnye izmeneniya v mirovom kapitalisticheskom khoziaistve [Structural Changes in the World Capitalist Economy] (Moscow: Mysl', 1978)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Levkovsky, A. I., “Nekotorye problemy izucheniya inostrannogo predprinimatel' stva v stranakh Vostoka” [Some Problems in Researching Foreign Enterprise in the Countries of the East], in , Levkovsky, ed., Inostrannyi kapital i inostrannoe predprinimatel'stvo v stranakh Azii i Severnoi Afriki [Foreign Capital and Foreign Enterprise in the Countries of Asia and North Africa] (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), 17Google Scholar.

¹⁶ “Sotsializm, kapitalizm, razvivayushchiesia strany. Diskussiya” [Sozialism, Capitalism, the Developing Countries. A Discussion], MEMO, Nos. 4 and 6 (April and June 1964), 116-31, 62-81.

¹⁷ The expression is a composite of two words mnogo (many) and uklady (structures). The English translation of uklad (singular of uklady) presents problems. Being part of Marxist theory, its meaning cannot be adequately rendered by one word. To put it simply, uklady are the various types of production relations that make up a country's economy. In a fully mature society they coalesce into a formation—feudal, capitalist, or socialist. But until that is achieved, they constitute separate, interacting, and ever-evolving structures or components.

¹⁸ S. Tiul'panov, “Obshchestvo perekhodnogo tipa” [Transitional Society], MEMO, No. 1 (January 1979), 144-46.

¹⁹ For Levkovsky's early formulation, consult Tret'ii mir v sovremennom mire [The Third World in the Contemporary World] (Moscow: Nauka, 1970)Google Scholar; for the latest, Sotsial'naya struktura razvivayushchikhsia stran [Social Structur e of the Developing Countries] (Moscow: Mysl', 1978)Google Scholar.

²⁰ A. U. Roslavlev, “Eshche raz o teorii ‘mnogoukladnosti’ v stranakh ‘tret'ego mira’” [Once Again About the Multisectoral Theory in the Countries of the Third World], Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, No. 1 (January-February 1977), 136-45, is an excellent expression of the conservatives' opinions and objections.

²¹ V. Maksimenko's untitled review of A. Levkovsky's Sotsial'naya struktura . . . , in Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 1 (January-February 1979), 208-14.

²² See the discussion between the two Institutes, “Natsional'no-osvoboditel'noe dvizhenie: nekotorye voprosy differentsiatsii” [The National Liberation Movement: Some Problems of Differentiation], Aziya i Africa segodnia, No. 6 (June 1978), 28-35.

²³ , Simoniya, Strany Vostoka: puti razvitiya [Countries of the East: Paths of Development] (Moscow: Nauka, 1975)Google Scholar.

²⁴ “Obsuzhdenie knigi N. Simoniya, ‘Strany Vostoka: puti razvitiya’” [Debate on N. Simoniya's book, Countries of the East], in Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 3 (May-June 1977), 54-65.

²⁵ “Metodologicheskie problemy analiza ekonomicheskogo razvitiya v osvobodivshikhsia stranakh” [Methodological Problems of Economic Development Analysis in the Liberated Countries], in Reisner, L. I., ed., Ekonomika razvivayushchikhsia stran. Teorii i melody issledovaniya [The Economy of the Developing Countries. Theory and Method of Research] (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), 186–210Google Scholar.

²⁶ “Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie i politicheskie posledstviya differentsiatsii razvivayushchikhsia stran” [Socio-economic and Political Consequences of the Differentiation among the Developing Countries], MEMO, No . 10 (October), 1977, p. 128.

²⁷ “Kak otsenivat’ . . .” (fn. 7) , 72.

²⁸ Reisner, L. I., Razvivayushchiesia strany: ocherk teorii ekonomicheskogo rosta [The Developing Countries: Outline of the Economic Growth Theory] (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 51–72Google Scholar, 321. In 1975, Simoniya also discussed the applicability of the NEP, though in more general terms (fn. 23). That book's thesis holds that the Soviet experience of the early 1920s offers the LDCs the example of how a socialist government was strengthened by resorting to economic policies arising out of the preceding economic formation.

²⁹ Dinkevich, A. I., “O strategii ekonomicheskogo razvitiya osvobodivshikhsia stran” [About the Development Strategy of the Liberated Countries], in , Dinkevich, ed., Razvivayushchiesia strany: nakoplenie i ekonomicheskii rost [The Developing Countries: Accumulation and Growth] (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), 23Google Scholar.

³⁰ Razvivayushchiesia strany (fn. 3), 321.

³¹ Pokataeva, T. S., Razvivayushchiesia strany: problemy urbanizatsii [The Developing Countries: Urbanization Problems] (Moscow: Mysl', 1977)Google Scholar.

³² For a favorable assessment of the changes introduced in Indian development policies, see Ye. Bragina, “Osnovnye napravleniya vnutrennei ekonomicheskoi politiki Indii” [Basic Direction of Indian Domestic Economic Policy], MEMO, No. 2 (February 1979), 134-42. However, there are indications that the egalitarian ideal and measures are beginning to get a sympathetic hearing. See the report on a round-table conference, “Klassovya bor'ba i kontseptsiya egalitarizma v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh” [Class Struggle and the Concept of Egalitarianism in the Developing Countries], Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 6 (November-December 1978), 3-19.

³³ V. G. Khoros, “Problema ‘narodnichestva’ kak internatsional'noi modeli ideologii razvivayushchikhsia stran” [Populism as an International Model of the Ideology of the Developing Countries], Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 2 (March-April 1973), and “Udzhamaa: opyt nekapitalisticheskogo razvitiya” [Ujamaa: An Experiment in Noncapitalist Development], Ibid., No. 5 (September-October 1977), 199-210; L. Aleksandrovskaya, “Ekonomicheskie polozhenie stran Afriki” [The Economic Conditions of African Countries], Aziya i Afrika segodnia, No. 5 (May 1978), 5-9; I. A. Svanidze, “Razvitie kapitalizma v sel'skom khoziaistve Berega Slonovoi Kosti” [The Development of Capitalism in the Agriculture of the Ivory Coast], Ibid., No. 2 (February 1979), 56-58; Elianov, A. Ya., Razvivayushchiesia strany: problemy ekonomicheskogo rosta i rynok [The Developing Countries: Economic Growth and the Market] (Moscow: Mysl', 1976), 198Google Scholar; Svanidze, I. A., Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i agrarnyi stroi Tropicheskoi Afriki [Agriculture and the Agrarian System in Tropical Africa] (Moscow: Nauka, 1977)Google Scholar.

³⁴ V. Krylov, “Osobennosti razvitiya proizvoditel'nykh sil i vosproizvoditel'-nogo protsessa v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh” [The Peculiarities of the Development of the Production Forces and Process in the Developing Countries], in Reisner (fn. 25), 183. See also M. A. Cheshkov, “Metodologicheskie problemy analiza gosuklada” [The Methodological Problems in the Analysis of the State Sector], Ibid., 324-51.

³⁵ Shpirt, A. Yu., Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya revoliutsiya i razvivayushchiesia strany [The Scientific-Technological Revolution and the Developing Countries] (Moscow: Nauka, 1970)Google Scholar. The Conference was reported in the June, July, and August 1971 issues of MEMO and led to the publication of ‘Tret'ii Mir’ i nauchno-tekhnicheskii progress [The “Third World” and Scientific-Technical Progress] (Moscow: Nauka, 1974)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Razvivayushchiesia strany: obrazovanie, zaniatost’, ekonomicheskii rost [The Developing Countries: Education, Employment, Economic Growth] (Moscow: Nauka, 1971)Google Scholar; , Skorov, ed., Razvivayushchiesia strany: nauka, tekhnika, ekonomicheskii rost [The Developing Countries: Science, Technology, Economic Growth] Moscow: Mysl', 1975)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Razvivayushchiesia strany: nauchno-tekhnologicheskaya revoliutsiya i problema nezavisimosti [The Developing Countries: The Scientific-Technological Revolution and the Problem of Independence] (Moscow: Mysl', 1976)Google Scholar.

³⁸ See the contributions of L. I. Reisner and V. G. Khoros to the round-table discussion on egalitarianism, in Narody Azii i Ajriki, No. 6 (November-December 1978), 10-12, 12-14.

³⁹ Gafurov, B. G., Aktual'nye problemy sovremennogo natsiona'no-osvoboditel'nogo dvizheniya [Topical Problems of the Contemporary National Liberation Movement] (Moscow: Nauka, 1976)Google Scholar, and “Velikii katalizator natsional'no osvoboditel'noi bor'by” [The Great Catalyst of the National Liberation Struggle], MEMO, No. 7 (July 1977), 23-36.

⁴⁰ The discussion, “Neo-Colonialism—a New System of Dependence and Enslavement?” in International Affairs, No. II (November 1978), 65-93, from which this quote is taken (at 66), is a good example of this type of analysis.

⁴¹ Gavrilov, L. V., Export kapitala v razvivayushchiesia strany Afriki [The Export of Capital into the Developing Countries of Africa] (Moscow: Nauka, 1976)Google Scholar, was among the first works to be written in this spirit. While most books tend to be factual, A. I. Levkovsky raises the discussion to a theoretical level (fn. 15).

⁴² Medovoi, A. I. and Yashkin, V. A., “Krizis kapitalisticheskoi formatsii” [Crisis of the Capitalist Formation], in Dinkevich, A. I., ed., Razvivayushchiesia strany: problemy ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [“The Developing Countries: Problems of Economic Development] (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 28Google Scholar; A. Kodachenko, S., Vneshne-ekonomicheskaya politika imperializma v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh [The Foreign Economic Policy of Imperialism in the Developing Countries] (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), 26–51Google Scholar.

⁴³ This view is specifically defined and defended by Levkovsky in the introduction to the book he edited in 1977 (fn. 15). Simoniya (fn. 25) expresses it in more general terms.

⁴⁴ Levkovsky has even written about the “dying out “(ugasanie) of the foreign capitalist enterprise—to the horror of Roslavlev, the leading critic of the concept of mnogoukladnost’ (fn. 20), 144-45.

⁴⁵ N. A. Sergeev, “Razvivayushchiesia strany protiv neo-kolonializma sverkhmonopolii” [The Developing Countries against the Neocolonialism of the Multinationals], Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 5 (September-October 1977), 83-96, presents a fairly typical argument.

⁴⁶ R. A. Ulianovsky, “Ekonomicheskii front bor'by protiv neokolonializma” [Economic Front of the Struggle against Neocolonialism], MEMO, No. 4 (April 1978), 3-7.

⁴⁷ “Vozmozhnosti tekhnologicheskogo transfera v eksportnye otrasli razvivayushchikhsia stran” [The Possibility of Technical Transfer to the Export Sector of the Developing Countries], in Reisner (fn. 25), 7-21.

⁴⁸ Maksimova, M., SSSR i mezhdunarodnoe ekonomicheskoe sotrudnichestvo [The U.S.S.R. and International Economic Cooperation] (Moscow: Mysl', 1977Google Scholar), 35; E. Kirichenko, “Evoliutsiya upravleniya zagranichnoi deyatel'nostiu amerikanskikh kompanii” [The Evolution of Management of American Companies' Foreign Operations], MEMO, No. 12 (December 1978), 33-43; A. Porokhovsky, “Kapitalisticheskie monopolii i nauchno-tekhnicheskaya revoliutsiya” [The Capitalist Monopolies and the Scientific-Technological Revolution], Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 7 (July 1978), 141-47.

⁴⁹ “Nekotorye problemy razvivayushchikhsia stran” [Some Problems of the Developing Countries], Kommunist, No. 11 (July 1978), 81-91.

³⁰ “Nekotorye aspekty deyatel'nosti mnogonatsional'nykh korporatsii v razvivayu-shchikhsia stranakh” [Some Aspects of the Activities of the Multinationals in the Developing Countries], in Levkovsky (fn. 15), 52-65.

⁵¹ “Multinationals: What Kind of a ‘New World’,” World Marxist Review, No. 7 (July 1978), 124.

⁵² Compare R. Ulianovsky's “The Developing Countries: Economic Front,” New Times, No. 34 (August 1976), 12-20, with N. Simoniya's “Syr'evaya problema sovremennogo kapitalizma” [The Raw-Material Problem of Contemporary Capitalism], MEMO, No. 3 (March 1978), 85-100.

⁵³ This view is well summarized by G. Smirnov, “O sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi sushchnosti gosudarstvennogo sektora v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh” [On the Socio-Economic Essence of the State Sector in the Developing Countries], Aziya i Afrika segodnia, No. 5 (May 1979), 34-37. Smirnov headed the joint Soviet-East European team of economists who produced Planning in Developing Countries: Theory and Methodology for UNITAR in 1978. While the volume is still under review at the U.N., it has been published in Russian in Moscow.

⁵⁴ Razvivayushchiesia strany: gosudarstvennaya politika i promyshlennost' [The Developing Countries: State Policy and Industry] (Moscow: Mysl', 1977)Google Scholar. The book has been criticized for taking a “narrow economic view of development problems” in MEMO, No. 2 (February 1978), 148-49.

⁵⁵ Razvivayushchiesia strany: problemy ekonomicheskogo razvitiya i rynok [The Developing Countries: Problems of Economic Growth and the Market] (Moscow: Mys’, 1976)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Levkovsky, 1978 (fn. 19), 148-73. Cheshkov (fn. 34); see also his “Biurokratiya i ‘etakratiya’ v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh” [Bureaucracy and “Etatism” in the Developing Countries], in Obshchestvo, elity i biurokratiya v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh Vostoka (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), 3–29Google Scholar. Yashkin, V., “Gosudarstvennyi uklad v mnogoukladnoi ekonomike” [The State Sector in a Multisectora! Economy], Aziya i Afrika segodnia, No. 3 (March 1979), 40-44Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Tiagunenko, V., Problemy sovremennykh natsional'no osvoboditel'nykh revoliutsii [Problems of Present-Day National Liberation Revolutions] (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), 187-88Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Solodovnikov, V., “Elimination of the Colonial System, an Expression of the General Crisis of Capitalism,” International Affairs, No. 8 (August 1976), 24Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ “The Revolutionary Process in the Socialism-Oriented Countries of Africa,” World Marxist Review, No. 1 (January 1978), 92.

⁶⁰ Kiva, A. V., Strany sotsialisticheskoi orientatsii, Osnovnye tendentsii razvitiya [Countries of Socialist Orientation. Basic Development Tendencies] (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 176-87Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Starushenko, G. B., Sotsiahsticheskaya orientatsiya v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh [Socialist Orientation in the Developing Countries] Moscow: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1977), 51–52Google Scholar.

⁶² Yashkin (fn. 56), 41.

⁶³ Kiva (fn. 60), 28.

⁶⁴ Starushenko (fn. 61), 51.

⁶⁵ “Kak otsenivat’ . . .” (fn. 7), 69-70.

⁶⁶ Reisner (fn. 25), 6.