Re: Dependency theory debate in Latin America

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

>What for instance, does Aijaz Ahmad have to say about these questions?

Although Ulhas never quotes Ahmad, many of the arguments he makes here are
consistent with what you find in his "In Theory", particularly the
inappropriateness of the term "Third World" to describe India. The problem,
of course, is that Ahmad is a literary critic so the essay in question
avoids the tough questions of political economy.

For my money, the best essay in the book is on Marx's Tribune articles on
India, which I discuss at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/ahmad.htm

He makes the point that Marx based his articles on travel literature on
India and little else. Furthermore, the concept of Asiatic despotism failed
to describe India's reality.

In his haste to trash postcolonialism, Ahmad goes overboard with a
vitriolic attack on Edward Said, blaming his fame on the tendency of
spoiled rich kids from the third world to rally around Said's
anti-imperialism rather than dealing with class contradictions at home. My
attitude is that when Ahmad has begun to amass the kind of credentials Said
has in defending the Palestinians, then he has the right to trash him.

I have a book on India at home written by Frederic Clairmont that I might
report on when I get the time. Meanwhile, here are some comments on the
question of India and dependency theory from Anthony D'Costa, a PEN-L'er
from India.


Some off the cuff remarks inserted below:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington                        Campus Box 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :  (253) 692-5718
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:

> One of the advantages of working at Columbia University is that it gives me
> access to one of the most superb research libraries in the world. As Xxxx
> Xxxxxx had recommended Ronald Chilcote's recent books on imperialism, I
> checked the card catalog to see what was available. Besides the titles on
> imperialism, I noticed something that seemed very relevant to my recent
> investigations, namely "Dependency and Marxism: Toward a resolution of the
> Debate", edited by Chilcote. These were articles that appeared in the
> mid-70s in Latin American Perspectives, a journal that Chilcote edited.
> Latin American Perspectives appears to be more scholarly and more Marxist
> than NACLA and I will probably take out a subscription if it is still in
> business.

I still have my copy of Chilcote.
>
> >From what I can gather most of the articles in the book are written as
> polemics against Frank, whose replies are not included. Some of the better
> known critics include David Barkin, who is based in Mexico and writes
> frequently for NACLA, John Weeks, the bumbling professor I brought to NYC
> to debate Paul Berman--one of the worst mistakes in my life considering
> that Michael Moore was available, and James Petras, the irascible ultraleft
> retired sociology professor.
>
> As I have mentioned previously, the two countries in the third world that
> never bought into the dependency school were Mexico and India. About India,
> I have no explanation. With respect to Mexico, it appears to be the result
> of the intellectual hegemony of exiles from Spain, who brought with them
> the kind of Kautskyism that had characterized the Comintern of the Popular
> Front era.

I suspect that Indian marxism was of the nationlist sort.  This is
understandable, given the political importance of getting rid of
colonialism.  Interestingly some of the early kernels of dependency
theory is also found among Indian authors -- the so called "drain
theory".  You will find that in an edited volume something like
"neomarxism ...." by Limqueco.  Can give you a cite if you want it.
Jairus Banaji has written on it, who is also a frequent contributor to
the Journal of Contemporary Asia (a marxist journal that comes out of the
Philippines or Australia).  The national question was an important one
for India (perhaps less so for Latin America because of its earlier
independence (somewhat nominal, given the hegemony of Britain over Lat
Am).  This earlier independence along with settler population plus near
complete insertion to the world economy provided a very fertile ground
for dependency analysis.  In India on the other hand a national
bourgeoisie was in the making, subordinate initially no doubt, but of
inceasing importance at the beginning of the 20th century.  The
bourgeoisie played an imporant role in the nationalist struggle as well.  I
also believe that today Indian capitalists are quite mature.  One other
connection between India and Mexico in this context is M.N. Roy, who I
believe was responsible in some way for creating the Mexican CP.


>
> In any case, there is an article in this collection titled "Dependency
> Theory and the Processes of Capitalism and Socialism" by Carlos Johnson, a
> professor at the UNAM in Mexico that encapsulates most of the themes in
> this anti-dependency trend.
>
> Johnson says that dependency theorists have no explanation for the vigorous
> industrial growth in places like Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Mexico City
> where "some levels of consumption...far outweigh even those that in some
> regions of the United States," thus establishing the claim that development
> in Latin America can never take place to be a "myth". Although I doubt that
> there is a reply to this specific point in Chilcote's collection, it
> appears to me that such cities are typical third world nightmares with
> shanties surrounding ultra-luxurious downtowns and a vast informal economy.
> They grow like out-of-control tumors, swelled by the influx of landless
> peasants. To compare them to the cities of the industrialized North is
> invidious, to say the least.

This is true in national terms but in terms of generating wealth these
countries have accumulated quite a bit.  I might have mentioned this
before on another occasion, a Brazilian steel bureaucrat told me that
if four Brazilian states were to secede it could be in the league of
Western European nations.  One of the states is Parana and Curitiba is
unlike any Latin American city.  I did not see any shanties.  It is a
planned, people friendly city.  Quite a bit has been written on the city
in terms of urban planning.




Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org