Re: Dependency theory

[Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO, Louis is wrong in dumping together the Laclau of the early 1970s
and the Cardoso of our times.

The problem with the "dependency theorists" was that they did not
understand the national question. In 1971, Laclau was beginning a slow
opportunistic drift towards Peronism, that is to the Argentinean
national bourgeoisie. But his points were not badly taken. He did not
say that Latin America lacked capitalist development in a Kautskyist
sense (though today he does). What he was stating was that the tasks
that historically should have been taken up by a bourgeoisie were
bound to be taken up by the workers and peasants.

Will expand on this, because in my opinion it is wrong to believe that
any criticism to "dependency theory" (DT) is a return to Kautsky and
stagism. In fact, what I believe is that DT is a formal reversal, not
a dialectic superation, of stagism. The fact that the first designers
of the theory were the ECLA economists is by no means a secondary
point.

In practical political action, DT supporters (at least in Argentina
and Brazil) were ultra-left opposition to Varguism and Peronism, and
were always isolated from the masses. The problem of the national
question and the problem of the national movement were absolutely out
from their scope. There are other statements on Lou's posting that I
will return to when I have more time, but I would like to state _from
the very beginning_ that _both_ DT and "stages theory" (ST) proponents
were unable to understand the dynamics of political action in Latin
America. Thus, they were bound to become either opportunists to the
national bourgeoisie (the Laclau of the early 70s, after he obtained a
scholarship in Oxford) or pro-imperialists (the Laclau of our days,
and Cardoso).

There is, however, a third possibility, which represents a superation
of this _false_ opposition. It is possible to admit that "Latin
America lacks capitalist development" (in a sense that I will expand
on in a further posting) and to declare AT THE SAME TIME that it needs
socialism and a socialist revolution, and that it does not need to
traverse the different "stages". The debate begins with the character
of colonial Latin America, and the actual meaning of its having been
part of early capitalism.

So that you see this will be a long thread.

Hugs,

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx