Dependency theory

Greg Schofield gschofield at one.net.au
Thu May 24 10:02:01 MDT 2001


Julio, having just sent out a series of posts on Blaut's article I have
only just got around to reading yours. I must say I find a lot to agree
with here and though I have tried to attack it from a different angle
(albeit a very torturous and abstract one) it would seem to me that we not
only come to similar conclusions but sometimes touch on exactly the same
points.

I will need a little time to refresh myself and read through the relevant
posts on this thread, but I could not resist calling comrades attention to
one aspect of your argument. By maintaining the difference between theory
and investigation attention is drawn to what can be done - very much along
the lines of Thesis 11.

It has long been my opinion that there has been such a long tradition of
theory intruding into subject matter, displacing actual observation and
necessary conclusions, that in effect the movement is trapped within
itself. Our collective inability to politically connect with the
proletariat manifests itself ideologically as reified theory - none of us
escape this, but being more attuned to this particular problem of the
abstract absorbing the concrete is definitely the way forward.

I think you have demonstrated this awareness in your post, and so above any
of the particular arguments I would ask the list members to read Julio's
post and look for this self-criticism (that is self-criticism from the
movement's perspective). I would differ only in not aiming this so squarely
just at "dependency theorists", for though this is the current debate the
underlying problem is much wider.

Something on this issue deserves wider debate, as the correct placement of
theory in regards to investigation is key debate to anything else we might
discuss.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia

At 05:09  23/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
<reference too long to resend>




More information about the Marxism mailing list