Chilcote - Dependency Theory and Marxism

Issues of Theory in Dependency and Marxism Author(s): Ronald H. Chilcote Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 8, No.
3/4, Dependency and Marxism (Late Summer - Autumn, 1981), pp. 3-16 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2633468 . Accessed: 01/06/2013 20:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Perspectives.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.83.1.241 on Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:42:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ISSUESOF THEORY IN DEPENDENCY ANDMARXISM

by Ronald H. Chilcote* Students of dependency have struggled overthe past decade to integrate their ideas with a theoryof Marxism.Their work has opened up new and stimulated interest in many issues questionsand areas of investigation the thought of Marx,Engels,Lenin,and Trotsky. thatrunthrough Criticism has evolvedin thecontemporary withtheacknowledgestudyof dependency mentof theoretical weaknesses:confusion overterminology, undueemphasis in thedomestic and international on market and so on. Controversy economy, has arisen aroundvariousexplanations of dependency which are rootedin theLatinAmerican Fernando experience. HenriqueCardoso(1980), Theotonio dos Santos (1978),Ruy Mauro Marini(1974),and AndreGunderFrank(1967) ideas and theoriesabout Latin America,while Samir Amin have offered a (1976),WalterRodney(1972),and Clive Thomas (1974)have incorporated of dependency in theirwritings about otherareas. Considerable conception debate has ensued. The debateoverdependency theory, unlikesome scholarly controversies, in application. and relevant of dependency Theorists has been richin content withnothing less than unraveling the essence of past have been concerned of historical processes,and theyhave presented contending interpretations to some remarkable historicalreality.These theoristshave contributed as well as to detoursand setbacksin theoryand historical breakthroughs revolutionary practice. The critics of dependencyhave shown no less in theircontributions. complexity reviewof the debatein generaland thisjournalissue in An introductory shouldbe convincing of the proposition thatscholarshave indeed particular over a praxis of some consequence. Since the world does not struggled presentus with unequivocaland verifiable responsesto the questionsthat the debate,the polemicsover dependency The present continue. ensue from of thesepolemics, purposeis to draw upon the implications especiallyin this journal.
*TheCoordinating Editors of Latin American Perspectiveswishto thank RonChilcote forhis editing of thisdoubleissue.He teachesin theDepartment of Political Scienceat theUniversity of California, Riverside. 3
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
essay beginswitha reviewofthedebatein thepages of This introductory eightyears ago, since the journal's founding Latin AmericanPerspectives of thedebatein thecurrent issue. An evaluation thenexaminesthesubstance a of responsesto fourcentralquestionsfolows.Finally,a conclusionoffers of dependencyas well as of new summaryof the principal criticisms by variouswriters. fortheoryand inquirysuggested directions to assess this journal'sthirdseriouseffort The presentissue represents was contained of Marxism. The first to a theory of dependency therelevancy issue ofthisjournaland involved oftheliteramyown synthesis in theinitial untilearly 1974. My discussionoffered prevailing turefromits beginnings of the concept,illustrated the impactof dependencyon experdefinitions classes, and explained how questions over the iences in my university to Marxist had accompanied of dependency theory and irrevelancy relevancy todayto an asof thisjournal.Two of myobservations pertain thefounding no thoery, offers unified was that of dependency. One dependency sessment this I identified four in the literature: to formulations and support position, by AndreGunderFrank of underdevelopment, a thesisset forth development the by Dos Santos (1970)who observed suggested (1966);thenew dependency dominance corporaand industrial established by multinational technological a view the Second WorldWar; dependent development, capitalist tionsafter and appliedby FernandoHenriqueCardoso (1972)to the Braziliansituation; of classical theories of imperialism, foundin as a reformulation dependency manyweaknessesin the the workof Anibal Quijano (1971).I also identified to a class analysis, formulations: the failureto relateexplicitly dependency of exchange, to emphasizerelations the exaggerated emphasis the tendency and thepossibility ofnationalism and development, of obscuring on questions analysis of imperialism. At thetime, pervadedLatinAmerica. Manyoftheseideas on dependency forexample,Laclau (1971)and Warren(1973), criticism by Marxistscholars, in particular on his view thatLatin had tendedto focuson theworkofFrank, since the days of conquest,thatbackwardness Americahad been capitalist was the consequence not of feudalismbut of capitalismitself,and that of dominant metropolises amongnationscan be explainedin terms inequities rebuttal to theseand Frankresorted to an extensive satellites. and dependent a continuous otherarguments dialoguebetweenhim and otherson through isin LatinAmerican For example, thefirst as reflected theleft, Perspectives. to RauilFernandezand JoseOcampo sue of the journalincludeda rebuttal and claimedthatit who launcheda vigorousattackon dependency theory and is a does not explain underdevelopment, says littleabout imperialism In the same issue, criticalreviewsof the of Marxisttheory. misapplication Fernandezand Ocampo piece were presentedby FernandoHenriqueCarLater,in issue 4, Ocampo doso, TimothyHarding,and Marvin Sternberg. a rejoinder to critics, but concentrated his attackon Cardoso and offered especiallyFrank.In issue 5, BarbaraTenenbaumevaluatedFrank'shistorical ofMexicofrom 1821to 1856and concluded in terms thathis view explanation thatperiodwas incorrect and tendedto obscurereof thebourgeoisie during ideas to the Colombian ality.In issue 6, Fernandezand Ocampo appliedtheir therewas the consequenceof and arguedthatunderdevelopment situation in theface of persistence of thefeudal thelow level of capitalist development
CHILCOTE: INTRODUCTION:
Finally,in issue 9, Frank production. formsof agricultural and semi-feudal to Ocampo's earliercriticism. provideda rebuttal to abandon their This debate seems not to have convincedcontributors and indeedthe pages of the journalwere permeated in dependency, interest of published The majority of thetheory. withvariousviews and applications conspicuof dependency; one or another interpretations articlesrepresented ous examples included pieces by Rodolfo Stavenhagen(issue 1), Richard FeCorradiand Monica PeraltaRamos(issue 3), Juan Feinberg (issue 2), Juan Ericksonand PatrickPeppe (issue 8), and Peter lipe Leal (issue 5), Kenneth Evans and Theotoniodos Santos (issue 9). to assess the thata second effort it is not surprising Givensuch interest, and Marxism betweendependency and therelationship ideas of dependency was presentedin issue 11 (1976) of the journal, in particularin essays publishedby AgustinCueva and TimothyHarding.Cueva systematically Frank for abandoningMarx's notionof capitalismand equating criticized a capitalismwith money economy;Rodolfo Stavenhagenfor substituting of nationaland regional fora system and class conflict focuson exploitation expansionof capitaltheworldwide Dos Santosforconfusing contradictions; Cardoso and Falletoformixing in the periphery; ism witheconomicgrowth and Marini for differentiating developmentaland Marxist frameworks, is no theoretiHe concludedthat"there capitalism. dependent classical from At the same time, of dependency." whichto locate a theory cal space within is not dead; "It isn't,and no one has he arguedthatthe conceptdependency of our societies. a salientfeature triedto denyits existenceforit represents and will conrelevant still are on it made been have The manystudieswhich is that relevent being stopped perhaps to relevant. What has be tinue 15-16). 11: (issue of dependency" called a theory something in the lightof the contributo assess such criticism Hardingattempted 1974to 1976.He showed how the from Perspectives tionsto LatinAmerican on Latin America(ECLA) ideas were repreEconomicCommission original by the national bourgeoisiein Latin America to sentativeof the effort but in the face of imperialism capitalistdevelopment establishautonomous over into LatinAmericawere rapidlytaking moving thatthe multinationals This led Dos Santos and othersto criticizethe the new industrialization. The earlydependenthe idea of new dependency. ECLA thesisand promote the LatinAmerican of ideas the sterile from also tistas soughtindependence class the working that thesis the in two-stage particular communist parties, to build initial effort capitalism in the the national bourgeoisie shouldsupport about Concerned thesecondstageof socialistrevolution. and laterto promote programs and withthereformist revolution ofthesoGialist the postponement accordingto of the communist parties,the more radical dependentistas, view set forth to theMarxist "werereturning by Leninand Trotsky Harding, the as having spread capitalismthroughout which analyzed imperialism in the to develop strength the local bourgeoisie world,but not permitting areas" (issue 11: 4). Hardingalso notedDos Santos' observaunderdeveloped of the earlysixtiescoalesced the radical movements tionthatthe nationalist class in the drive for national with the revolutionary working bourgeoisie forexforconfusion, thisaccounted forall; in part, and democracy liberation
and Fall 1981, Vol. Vil, Nos. 3 and 4 Issues30 and 31, Summer LatinAmerican Perspectives:
was fused with a bourgeois on imperialism ample,as Marxistterminology development. theoryof nationalist several and Marxism, of dependency now to a thirdassessment Turning trends can be noted. First,the weaknesses and problems of bourgeois theoryare all too apparentin NorthAmericansocial science. dependency of this social The ideas of dependence have permeatedthe mainstream to science as U.S. academicianshave tendedto apply themindiscriminately their empirical research. Generally,the origins of the ideas and their and and thishas led to new confusion to Marxismare ignored, relationship will it issue to focus on this but It is not the of this problem, purpose jargon. to say thatin U.S. academiccirclesthe sloppyworkbased on the susuffice perficialaspects of dependencytends to turnmany of us away fromthe in thisjournalhas essentialquestions.Second,the debate over dependency withthe strong criticism of dependency and its advocates. theory continued in line withLenin,have arguedthatthe dependentistas are Some Marxists, of distorts an explanation not Marxistsand thatthe conceptof dependency Elizabeth William Bollinger, capitalismin backwardcountries; progressive this positionin issue 14. Some Marxists Dore, and JohnWeeks represent to Lenin,Mao, and Stalin, such as Fernandez and Ocampo, sympathetic and that believe that dependencyideas ignore a theoryof imperialism to the persistenceof backwardnessin Latin America can be attributed in contrast to the idea thatcapitalist or its remnants development feudalism Some Marxists,followingin the thoughtof causes underdevelopment. such as Michel Lowy in issue 7 and George Novack in issue 9, Trotsky, observe that variances in capitalistgrowtharound the world are due to thuswriters like ErnestMandel tendto unevenand combined development; that of growth to describethe patterns and backwardness use dependency from the combination of feudalism and otherprecapitalist modes of resulted with capitalism.Finally,some Marxistscontinueto work with protection ideas of dependencyand to defendtheirearliertheory.While Frank and Frankhavingturnedto world systems Cardoso have abandonedthe effort, to speak of and Cardoso to new attempts of ImmanuelWallerstein theory Marini (1978) insists on combining autonomous capitalist development, withina Marxist-Leninist and Bambirra (1978) and framework, dependency their belief in the new dependency.Their Dos Santos (1978) reaffirmed influence upon Latin Americanand NorthAmericanradical and Marxist of continues to be evidentin thisjournal;forexample,the majority writing essays in issue 21 ("Views of Dependency"). It is clearalso thatin theearly1980sthedebateoverdependency persists. Many writers,both North American and Latin American,continue to intotheirMarxism. Dale Johnson and JoelEdelstein dependency incorporate aboutthisin thecurrent are veryexplicit issue whilemanyof theproponents of dependency Dos Santos, and theory, especiallythe BraziliansBambirra, Marinirepresent influences LatinAmericaand throughout majorintellectual especiallyin Mexico wheretheyhave residedfornearlya decade. For this ofthejournalas well as majorprotheeditors reason,it was decidedto invite in the debateto writeessays arounda number of questionsrelating tagonists dependencyto Marxism,among them: Is dependencycompatiblewith a of Marxismand withrevolutionary in general?Does depenthought theory
in theface of capitalism reflect theneeds of competitive merely dencytheory has where the capitalistmode of production capital in countries monopoly or Marxist-Leto a Marxist relevant Is dependency notyetbecomedominant? Does it help to explain the relationsof ninist critiqueof imperialism? in the transition to socialism? production to the contributions The essays which follow representoutstanding a reviewessay One comprises intothreesections. debate.They are organized since the examinesliterature by RonaldoMunck,who updatesand critically papers.Contributors sevenposition contains of thejournal.Another founding on one or moreof the questions to this sectionwere asked to writebriefly thatassesses deessays,each an overview lengthy above.Thereare also three manner.These essays and Marxismin an insightful bate over dependency past issues and discussionarounddepenchallengethe readerto transcend of contempoto the experience moreconcretely dencyand to applyMarxism raryLatin America. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS lines and theoretical ofpositions summary The identification and succinct with the diverse essays of the present may assist the reader in engaging to ideas about in terms of allegiance Iftheseessays were classified collection. offerstrongdefenses, then Joel Edelsteinand Dale Johnson dependency, in the past have agreethatquestionsof dependency whileothercontributors in studyof LatinAmerica, butthata new focusis now necassistedstudents thatemphasison theinternationsuggests forexample, essary.David Barkin, Dietz and Norma James framework. alizationof capitalis themostproductive is critical Henfrey a modes of analysis.Colin production Chinchilla support on a relating modes of and insists to this analysis production butsympathetic on attention Petras places to classes. James of exploited theory imperialism as theory dependency criticizes ThomasAngotti class and staterelationships. to mustbe directed thusattention solutions; idealistand leadingto reformist in underdevelopment. JohnWeeks also denounces the role of imperialism of world economythatemphasizes callingfora theory theory, dependency level. Gary Howe locates the on an international capitalistaccumulation whereas in seventeenth mercantilist thought, century genesisof dependency Carlos Johnsontraces the idealist and populist notions associated with I now turnto a Russian Narodniks. to the nineteenth century dependency in the seven positionpapers. of arguments summary LocatingDependencyin MarxistAnalysis two typesof dependency and criticizes theory. JoelEdelsteinidentifies and of dependency a bourgeois nationalist conception One typeincorporates in the workof RauilPrebischand the ECLA. This theory ignores is inherent and is static, of classes and class struggle the labor processin the formation classes towarda socialistrevolution. and unableto guidetheworking idealist, based on a radical conception, challengesthe bourgeois The othertheory, to the nations theadvancedcapitalist from thatcapitaland technology notion feudalismand leads to capitalistdevelopment. backwardnations destroys
and Fall 1981, Val. Vil, Nos. 3 and 4 LatinAmerican Perspectives: Issues30 and 31, Summer
by theneeds of the This theory shows thatLatinAmericawas shapedlargely and by participation in theworldsystem. Whileradicaltheory mayexcenter plain dependentcapitalism,its weakness is apparentin its emphasis on and neglect of thelaborprocess, of valespecially thelabortheory circulation Edelsteinindictsleftsectariancriticswho ue in a Marxistview of history. of dependennationalist variant equate thisradicaltheory withthebourgeois cy theory.They fail to recognize,he argues, that dependentcapitalist in LatinAmericais different developfrom industrial capitalist development Europe. analyzed in England and Northern mentthat Marx appropriately offer no general theory and thusdo not Thus whiletheradicaldependentistas compete with Marxism,they provide concepts for a special theoryof social formations in an expandingworld capitalistsystem. understanding admitsthatdependency an Dale Johnson theory has tendedto exaggerate he sees no serious thanproductioti bu't relations, analysisof exchangerather and insufficient substantive development, alternative, verylittletheoretical research He agreeswithEdelstein beyondsome of the workon dependency. on dependency nationalist thatwritings exposedtheweaknessesof reformist of and also that discredited the tenets modernization theory, approaches, these writingsoffereda response to some inadequacies of traditional he believes, revealedthemechanisms used by Marxism. Dependency writers, a view from to appropriate surplusand emphasized metropolitan bourgeoisies the peripheryrather than the center as evidenced in most studies of in dependency deficiencies imperialism. At the same time,he acknowledges of the stagnation thesis associated with the idea of development writings: underdeveloped appeared to precludeprospectsfor socialism;emphasison to local class struggles; externalaspects obscuredattention foreign penetrationtendedto be explainedin terms of conspiracy thanas thepractice rather of transnational capitalism and corporate capitalin a new stageof monopoly he suggests thatdependency is morethana perspective imperialism. Finally, ofproduction and he calls fora balancedapproachto thestudy thana theory, and fora dialectical and external and circulation aspects analysisof internal in the studyof concreterelationsof social forcesand class analysis. From Dependencyto New Approaches to this issue agree with Edelsteinand Dale Many of the contributors has stimulated interest in Marxist to dependency thatpast attention Johnson thatcontemporary but theysuggest investigation analysisof LatinAmerica, may also be enhancedby new approaches. Norma Chinchillaand JamesDietz affirm theoryhas that dependency contributed to Marxistanalysisof development and underdevesignificantly Such theory new orthodox Marxist theory by addressing lopment. challenged new categories foranalysis,but it did not adequately questionsand offering Dependency and underdevelopment. conceptualizethe termsdevelopment writers tendedto relatetheir to the capitalist mode of production perspective whileignoring relations of production. They also were apparent precapitalist unableto differentiate capitalism in capitalism from nondependent dependent LatinAmerica. Critics of dependency penetration have arguedthatimperialist
of Latin America creates conditionsfor a mature capitalism and the and precapitalist of feudalism of production, destruction relations but,argue Chinchillaand Dietz, this perspective also is flawed. Thus, an alternative approach, the modes of productionanalysis, appeared within Marxist are evident in thisapproach:each nationaleconomy thought. Threepremises two or more modes of is seen as a concretesocial formation comprising of different production; stages of development modes of productionare and thedevelopment articulated within anysocial formation; is understood as capitalist developmentwhich is always underdeveloped. In contrastto of capital approach,the mode of production Barkin'sinternationalization the While acknowledging on the nationaleconomy. analysisfocusesdirectly in the Third impactof international monopolycapital on social formations to mode of production World,Chinchillaand Dietz suggestthat attention of capital to internal allows forattention processessuch as the reproduction its articulation withothermodes in the social formation. This may through permitanalysis of class alliances and strugglesignored in dependency studies. JamesPetrasalso focuseson class but arguesthatthe processof capital must be looked at globallywithina framework accumulation of class and state relationships. He recognizesthe significance of a world capitalist system,but he delineatesthe faults and weaknesses of a world systems which is seen as a derivative of dependency theory theory. He shows how have distorted of capitalistaccumulation theorists understanding by using thatobscurespecificrelations and processesthatshape historical categories how theiremphasison external development; relationships leads to difficultiesin analyzing in terms ofclass conflicts capitalist development between labor and capital. Petrasemphasizesthe social relations of production rather of class relationships, thandependency. bothat theinternal Investigation and international levels,allows foranalysisof class and staterelationships and of of peripheral core capital withinthe class structure societies. forexample,believesthe dependency David Barkin, school appropriately but suggeststhe most useful questionedthe causes of underdevelopment, of capital. thisissue is thatof internationalization forexamining framework This framework of the laws of capitalist necessitates examination accumulato social relations in the capitalist tionand attention mode of production. His to the international approachshiftsanalysis fromthe nation-state political to the three currents of capital economy.For instance,Marx's attention be extended (moneycapital,productive capitaland commodity capital)might level. Thus, one weaknessin some dependency to the international analysis his approach can be overcome. He illustrates (emphasison the nation-state) to Mexico where he notes that nationaldecision makinghas by reference withinternational thedomestic combined econocapitalto "internationalize" in greater of masses of people, immiseration my,resulting unemployment, - all consequencesof concern to dependentistas. and denationalization He on a local level.Thus,a also sees thisapproachas usefulto popularstruggles of internationalization of capital can be linkedto concrete structural theory situations. changesin particular
Iswes 30 and 31, Sumiar and Fall 1981, Vol. Vil, Nos. 3 and 4 Perspecfives: LatinAmerican
10
Incompatibility of Dependencyand Marxism

While some contributors see the compatibility of dependency and Marxism and others desire to move analysis in new directions,two writers reject dependency altogether. Thomas Angottiidentifiestwo strategiclines in dependency theory:one and reformist"and representedby Amin and Cardoso, while the is "rightist other is ultra "left" and calls for worldwide socialism as the solution to underdevelopmentand is represented by Frank. Both lines, Angotti argues, divert attention from the socialist revolution and fail to advance the antiimperialist movement. Dependency theory offers a critique of dualism, distinguishesbetween core and periphery,analyzes unequal exchange, and emphasizes the dependent relationship of the bourgeoisie on external forces, but, according to Angotti, a Marxist interpretationof these propositions would reveal them as idealistic. Therein lies the major methodological error of dependency theoryand an explanation as to why the theorypays scant attention to stages in the revolutionary process, changes in the mode of production, and the class struggle. Dissatisfied with Marxist critics of dependency theory,in particular with Charles Bettelheimfor his "anarchosyndicalist" outlook and Robert Brenner for his "idealism," Angottibelieves the role of that Marxists must offera critique of dependency as well as affirm imperialismin development in order to promote unity in the anti-imperialist movement. Distinguishingsharply between Marxist theory and dependency theory, John Weeks emphasizes capitalist reproduction as the basis of the world economy. His central position is that dependency theorylacks both empirical verificationand theoreticalvalidity. In summarizingthe theoryof dependency, he looks at the view of capitalist developmentestablished in the writingof Paul Baran and Andre Gunder Frank who showed that uneven development was the consequence of advanced nations appropriating and accumulating wealth or surplus product while countries losing that surplus stagnated into underdevelopment.Weeks relates this line of thought to a critique of the unequal theory found in the writing of Amin, Emmanuel, and Mandel. Materialist theory of accumulation differsfrom dependency theory in that accumulation on an expanding scale is the consequence of the progressive of a surplus development of productiveforces ratherthan of a redistribution among societies. He extends his discussion to world economy and the theory of imperialismwhich he defines as "the theoryof the accumulation of capital in the contextof the struggleamong rulingclasses." In summingup, he states first that accumulation is the consequence of particular capitalist social relations in a society, and, second, that most direct investment of capital flows among the developed countriesratherthan fromdeveloped to underdeveloped areas as hypothesized by dependency theory.
Toward a Theoryof Imperialism

The three lengthy essays in another section of this issue elaborate on many of the positions,ideas, and criticismsfound in the briefposition papers, offerserious criticisms of dependency theory, and suggest direction which Marxist analysis should take in the study of Latin America. I now turn to a
11
brief summary of the argument in each of these essays. Colin Henfrey initiates his discussion with a critical overview of ECLA's and dependency. Both theories,he believes, attempted reformist structuralism an of underdevelopment,set out to analyze reformulate understanding to class relations and struggles,and were responses to the crisis of Marxist thought after Stalin. Henfrey distinguishes between two dependencies: the of Cardoso and stagnationmodel of Frank and the structuralhistoriography Faletto. In a review of these dependencies, he offersan assessment of the various strands of thought, the underlying issues of contention, and the relationshipof theoryto Marxism. For example, he draws out the differences in the prolonged debate between Cardoso and Marini, then shows how Marini identifieswith Frank but, unlike Frank,attemptsto place emphasis on production rather than circulation. He concludes that the debate is circular and its terms "more assertive than investigative." Given the lack of class analysis in studies of dependency, Henfreyturnsto an examination of modes of production and their implications for comparative study of Brazil and Chile. First,he examines the work of JohnTaylor "which criticizes Frank's problematic but reproduces its generality";then he looks at Laclau's critique which "encourages a reductionistuse of the concept for labeling local modes of production"; and finally he delves into the historical use of modes of production in the work of Carlos Sempat Assadourian, Roger Bartra, and Agustfn Cueva. Second, he concludes that mode of production analysis is limited because it has littleto say about class relations beyond the capitalist mode; it emphasizes the economic, thereby losing sight of superstructural elements in an analysis of working classes; and it is limited by its concern ratherthan movement.Thus, althoughthe mode of production with structure approach offersthe possibilityof more precise analysis, it suffersfromsome of the limitationsthat affected dependency theory. The problem before us, is to resolve "the task of relatinga theoryof imperialismto the histherefore, tdries of the exploited classes, not in dependent capitalism, or articulated modes of production, but in Latin American social formations." Carlos Johnson attempts to demonstrate that while radical dependency thoughtand theoryappears to stand both as a body of socialist revolutionary in this as a Marxist-Leninist theoryis idealist critique of imperialism, reality in to socialist and theoretical relevance falls short and ideological any and thus tends to substantiate capitalism in development or transformation the less developed countries. Dependency theory also fails to adequately address international economic exchange relations, to explain relations between capital and labor, or to offer a path toward socialism. Johnson posits the thesis that concepts like dependency reflect the associated with theoryabout capitalist development idealist, populist thinking which can be traced to the nineteenthcentury.The Russian Narodniks, for objectives, yet relied on pettyexample, advocated socialist and revolutionary bourgeois analysis by noting the need for foreigncapitalist markets in order to gain surplus value and by recognizing the impossibility of establishing capitalism in Russia at that time. Johnsonnotes that the theses of developmentalism promoted by ECLA during the 1950s were both a response to imperialism and an attemptto move the area toward autonomous capitalist development. The result was that some local ruling classes sought greater
and FPdl1981, Val. Vill, Nos. 3 and 4 Issues30 and 31, Summer LatinAmerican Perspectives:
12
involvement in the process of capitalist accumulation. When these classes failed to halt imperialistextractionof capital, critics like Cardoso resortedto a mixtureof structuralfunctionaland Marxist concepts to attack the notion of progressinherentin the developmentalismof ECLA. Johnsonfinds in these concepts an ideological justification in favor of the needs of competitive capitalism in the face of imperialism.He discounts bourgeois applications of to incorporate dependependency theory and focuses particularlyon efforts dency into a theory of Marxism. He acknowledges that Lenin, Trotsky,and other Marxists used dependency in their writings;dependency like the word class was drawn fromthe thoughtof bourgeois political economists of their times, but the term dependency was not the essence of the method of materialistreasoning and explanation used by Lenin and Trotsky.In contrast, Marxist-Leninist dependency theorists such as Marini and Dos Santos representthe class needs of local rulingclasses that favor greaternational accumulation of surplus value. Johnsonfaults these and otherwritersfor failing to analyze the principal relations of capital accumulation and class struggle and for such erroneous theses as identifyingconsumption with capital accumulation, statically dividing surplus labor from necessary labor, or overemphasizing the degree of exploitation of the labor force. Further,he indicts the dependentistasfor emphasizing exchange relations and circulation of capital rather than the relations of production. In summary,dependency theses are simply a product of capitalist class needs for accumulation and he believes, an analysis of bourgeois ideological reasoning.They do not offer, socialism and internationaleconomic relations but instead obscure materialist explanation through ideological forms of theoretical interpretation. Gary Howe dismissos dependency theory because it deviates from the classic theoryof imperialism,especially in its attentionto exploitation among nations rather than classes and its emphasis on circulation rather than production.Howe illustrateswith referenceto Brazil where the relevancy of dependency theorywas called into question in the face of the collapse of effortsto forman alliance of the bourgeoisie and the workingclass to promote national autonomous development.Both alliance and theoryfailed in the face of foreign capital penetration, resulting in rapid expansion of Brazilian the working class, skeptical of the bourgeoisie's drive industry;furthermore, toward national development, withdrew, thus sharpening the struggle between capital and labor. Howe argues that Marx did not systematically address the unequal development of productive forces and relations; a Marxist theory of the internationalizationof capital, especially in the less developed parts of the world where industrialization is slow and large populations exist within precapitalist relations of production, has not been fully elaborated. Lenin, he says, examined the export of capital "within a remarkablynationalist frame of reference."Howe then looks at two periods with emphasis on primaryproduction of imperialism:the nineteenthcentury, for export from the periphery, and the period 1914 to 1945, with the of production as representedby the multinationalcorpointernationalization rations.The firstperiod was characterized by absolute surplus value through of labor and extension of the working day, while the second intensification led to dominance of a system of relative surplus value and the period new forces and relations of production in the core. New of development
13
contradictionsappeared in the reorganization of the internationalsystem of production, resulting in the emergence of mass labor organization in the transitionof one form of imperialism to another througha period of world wars and fascism. Thus, concludes Howe, both dependency theoryas well as most theories of imperialismhave not advanced analysis of the international capitalist system in the contemporaryperiod. What is needed is analysis of unequal development of the relations of production with attention to "the reproductionof the capitalist mode of production throughthe integrationof different systems of productionin the global, social system of productionand realization of surplus value." CONFRONTING THE PROBLEM OF DEPENDENCY AND MARXISM In view of these arguments,I now turnto an examination of some theses My discussion which emanate fromthe questions initiallyasked contributors. sifts through all the essays that follow in an effortto synthesize various perspectives. As the reader approaches these articles, it might be useful to keep these questions in mind, so as to determineto what extent the various contributorshave attempted to respond. What about the relationshipof dependency to a theoryof Marxism? The idea of dependency is suggested in the writingof Marx. In chapters 24 and 25 of the firstvolume of Capital, Marx describes the relationship between rich and poor countries. In chapter 20 of volume three he states that merchant's capital "functions only as an agent of productive capital . . . Whenever merchant's capital still predominates we find backward nations. This is true even within one and the same country . . . " (Marx, 1967, III: 372). Kenzo Mohri (1979) writes that until the late 1850s Marx stronglybelieved British trade and industrial capital would destroy monopolistic societies and establish the material foundations of Western capitalism in Asia; this view is evident in a passage fromthe CommunistManifesto,in his writingson India (in 1853), and in numerous passages from Grundrisse (1857-1859). Mohri argues that Marx shifted ground in the middle 1860s, in particular in his writingon the Irish question; one passage in chapter 15 of the firstvolume of Capital resembles the idea of development of underdevelopment:"A new and internationaldivision of labor, a division suited to the requirementsof its chief centers of modern industry,springs up and converts one part of the globe into a chiefly agriculturalfield of production,for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial field" (Marx, 1967, I: 451). Mohri concludes that Marx was moving toward a view in which Britishfree trade the old society into the world market system so that "the was transforming of this society would determinea course of developresultingtransformation ment of its economy and a structureof its productive powers completely dependent upon England" (Mohri, 1979: 40). Lenin also referredto the idea of dependent nation and periphery. In Imperialism: the Highest State of Capitalism, he stated : "Not only are there two main groups of countries, those owning countries, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically,are independent,but in fact are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependency . . . " (Lenin, 1967, I: 742-743).Cardoso suggests that Lenin provided the firstsystematicanalysis of capitalist development in
and Fall 1981, Vat. Vil, Nos. 3 and 4 Issues30 and 31, Summer Perspectives: LatinAmericon
14
backward nations when he "formulatedwith simplicitywhat would be the core of the dependency analyses" (Cardoso, quoted in Palma, 1978). A systematicreview of the writingsof Marx and Lenin may demonstrate support of contemporarydependency theory. Gabrial Palma (1978) devoted some attentionto such a review but concluded that approaches to dependency have not really succeeded in building a formal theory and assessment of concrete situations of dependency. Carlos Johnsonsuggests that Lenin took the concept of dependent nations frombourgeois political economists but that he was guided by materialistreasoning and theoreticalanalysis. Gary Howe is correct in his view that Marx had not fully developed any systematic analysis of dependent relationships, believing that dependency theory was not based on formulations by Marx. Although Joel Edelstein and Dale Johnson agree that no general theory of dependency has emerged, they believe that the past work on dependency must be used as a foundation for future investigation. Henfrey, Barkin, Chinchilla and Dietz, and Petras all believe that theoreticalanalysis will profitfromnew directions,while Weeks insists on a restorationof classical materialisttheoryin a Marxist tradition. Does dependency reflectonly the needs of competitivecapital in the face of monopoly capital in countries where the capitalist mode of production is not dominant? Carlos Johnson answers affirmativelyby illustrating his position with a critical analysis of Cardoso and Marini. Howe effectively relates dependency to the failure in Brazil to establish a national alliance of bourgeoisie and workingclass to promote autonomous national development. The question is not directly addressed by other contributors,but most I suspect, would recognize the political implications of class alliances that obscure recognitionof class enemies. What of the significance of dependency for analysis of class and class strugglein Latin America? A decade ago specialists were insistingthat theory and investigation incorporate a class analysis. Yet today there remains a dearth of such work. The mode of production approach suggests the possibility of empirical study on the class relations of production. Class analysis using other approaches has been suggested. In general, there is to the agreementthat dependency theoryhas not yet contributedsignificantly study of social classes in Latin America. Finally,has dependency theoryprovided any developmental solutions for Latin America? The contributors would answer negatively. Dependency theory served the purpose of questioning old and static formulations, especially in bourgeois thinkingbut also in questioning rigid ideas emanating from the Stalinist period and the Communist International's models of underdevelopment and class alliance. The latter models incorporated a unilinear perspective of feudalism and capitalism and called for alliances with the national bourgeoisie. As Munck suggests,even the CommunistParty of Mexico recentlyrecognized that dependency theoryhad confrontedthese old schema of the Cominternand the Latin American communistparties. It is also clear that dependency theory was conceived as a response to the inadequacies of theories of imperialismin explaining the impact of capitalism on domestic structures of the less developed countries. Most contributors would agree, however, that dependency theoryhas not provided us with any
15
new theory of imperialism. Nor has it demonstrated any way to solve the problems of capitalist exploitation. Likewise, it seems not to offer any strategyof achieving socialism, and it has not been used to analyze relations of production in the transitionto socialism. In summary, while many contributorsacknowledge the fact that questions of dependency stimulated new questions and interestinganalysis of Latin America, there is also agreement that past work has suffered from many problems. Those interested in dependency have recognized that no general and unified theory exists and that confusion over terminologyhas diverted investigationaway from central concerns. The criticismsraised in the present issue and elsewhere are numerous. It has been argued that some theories of dependency distortthe thoughtof Marx and Lenin. Idealism and ideology permeate the writingon dependency. Some versions of dependency focus on the needs of competitivecapital and thus appear to be supportiveof the dominant classes in Latin America. Dependency may divert attention from the impact of imperialist penetration or overlook the importance of precapitalist social formations. Dependency theory may emphasize static categories so that dynamic and dialectical analysis is not possible. Class analysis, for example, is often lacking due to stress on relations of exchange rather than on relations of production. Given these criticisms, all the contributors suggest that theory and must advance. Some, such as Carlos Johnsonand Weeks, urge a investigation returnto classical Marxist conceptions of internationalcapital. Others, like Dale Johnson and Edelstein, believe that Marxist formulations do not necessarily lead to adequate analysis of the contemporaryworld capitalist system; and thus, new concepts and theory building may correct this deficiency.Barkin refersto the need for and approach to the study of the internationalizationof capital. Dietz and Chinchilla write on the usefulness of the modes of productionapproach, while Henfreyargues that we must go beyond such analysis toward work on imperialism and class struggle.Petras reinforcesthis position, while Howe stresses relations of production, and Angottiis concerned about class alliance and political strategyin the struggle against imperialism. It seems clear that the task in the decade ahead with the classical Marxist texts and theories necessitates not only familiarity of imperialismbut the development of theoryand investigationthat benefits from close examination of relations and modes of production, specifically class analysis of social formations that allows attention to state-class relationships and the impact of the internationalizationof capital.
Amin, Samir
REFERENCES
Capitalism, of Peripheral An Essay on the Social Formations 1976 UnequalDevelopment:

New York: Monthly Review Press
Bambirra, Vania Mexico City: Ediciones Era 1978 Teor6a de la dependencia: una anticrftica, Cardoso, Fernando Henrique 1972 "Dependency and Development in Latin America," New Left Review, 74 (July-August), 83-95
Cadernos Petr6polis: do desenvolvimento, ensaiossobreas teorias 1980As id6iase seu lugar:

CEBRAP (33), Editora Vozes
and Fall 1981, Vol. Vil, Nos. 3 and 4 Issues 30 and 31, Summer Perspectives: LitinAmerican
16
Dos Santos, Theot6nio 1970 "The Structureof Dependence," American Economic Review, LX (May), 231-236 1978 Imperialismo y dependencia, Mexico City: Ediciones Era Frank, Andr6 Gunder 1966 "The Development of Underdevelopment,"Monthly Review, XVIII (September), 17-31
in LatinAmerica:Historical Studiesof Chile and 1967 Capitalism and Underdevelopment Brazil,New York: Monthly Review Press
Laclau, Ernesto 1971 "Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America," New Left Review, 67 (May-June),19-38 Lenin, V. I. 3 volumes, Moscow: Progress Books 1967 Selected Works, Marini, Ruy Mauro 1974 Dial6ctica de la dependencia, 2nd ed. Mexico City: Ediciones Era 1978 "Las razones del neodesarrollismo (respuesta a F. H. Cardoso y J.Serra)," Revista
Mexicana de Sociologia(XL), 57-106
Marx, Karl 1967 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy,3 volumes, New York: International Publishers Mohri, Kenzo Review, XXX (April), 32-42 1979 "Marx and 'Underdevelopment,'" Monthly Palma, Gabriel 1978 "Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment?," WorldDevelopment (VI), 881-924 Quijano, Anibal
in Peru:A Study in Neo-Imperialism, New York:Monthly 1971Nationalism and Colonialism

Review Press
Rodney, Walter 1972 How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,London and Dar es Salaam: Bogle-L'Ouverture and Tanzania Publishing House Thomas, Clive Y.
and Transformation: The Economics New 1974 Dependence of theTransition to Socialism,

York: Monthly Review Press
Warren, Bill 1973 "Imperialism and Capitalist Industrialization," New Left Review, 81 (SeptemberOctober), 3-44

Chilcote - Dependency Theory and Marxism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chilcote - Dependency Theory and Marxism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issues of Theory in Dependency and Marxism Author(s): Ronald H. Chilcote Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 8, No.

ISSUESOF THEORY IN DEPENDENCY ANDMARXISM

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Incompatibility of Dependencyand Marxism

Toward a Theoryof Imperialism

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Capitalism, of Peripheral An Essay on the Social Formations 1976 UnequalDevelopment:

Cadernos Petr6polis: do desenvolvimento, ensaiossobreas teorias 1980As id6iase seu lugar:

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Mexicana de Sociologia(XL), 57-106

in Peru:A Study in Neo-Imperialism, New York:Monthly 1971Nationalism and Colonialism

and Transformation: The Economics New 1974 Dependence of theTransition to Socialism,

You might also like