>>2408050that wall-text is wrong in many levels. First, Sartre was the first person ever who coined the term neo-colonialism. the mechanics in power after de-colonization is what Sartre tried to describe in his essay, published one decade even before the 60s.
In fact, what Sartre describes is that neo-colonialism leaves intact the economic system just after the colonization ends. Similar as the African countries had with France after they de-colonialized: a relationship the French national bank in which each African country is subdued to the whims of the French.
Now, in point "process of underdevelopment may indeed continue" is preceded by the conditions of the exploiting nations. who owns the technology necessary to develop further any new industry? who sells it, at what conditions, through what bank, under what international laws? that's not explained in that paragraph. in vacuum, conveys that the ex-colonized country is at fault for not developing itself, because 1) and 2). that's nonsense. 1) and 2) are just survivalist tools when these countries have to compete under unfair conditions.
the third paragraph is nonsensical. Marx never studied in depth the economic relationship between countries, only the economic relationship inside a capitalist country, where the power dynamics are a bit different. For that, Lenin is the perfect teacher, not Marx.
after three paragraphs, I can tell that person knows shit.