Dependency Theory (Mine) - (Nestor) ( Karl Marx)

Julio Huato juliohuato at
Tue May 29 09:44:58 MDT 2001

Charles Brown questions the need to differentiate between modes of
production as they articulate in the same market.  He doesn't see the
practical relevance of these distinctions.

>CB: How does it matter ? What difference does it make ? Except in an
>abstract debate or a debate about the abstract ?
>Concretely, there has never been wage-labor/capital relations of production
>that were not part of a larger division of labor that included oppressed or
>less than fully waged forms of labor also in relation with capital.  Never
>in history. The concrete actual existence of wage-labor/ capital relations
>of production has always been in connection to below- living
>wage-labor/capital relations of production in a world capitalist system.
>There is no such thing as pure wage-labor/capital relations of production
>in fact, in history , at all, from the primitive accumulation through
>transnational monopoly imperialism 2001. Capitalism produces both
>wage-labor and slavery as a historical tendency.

IMO, Charles' point of view is a rejection of theoretical thinking
wholesale.  The readers have read our respective arguments sufficiently to
make up their own minds.  Which way of proceeding is more adequate when one
is trying to understand a concrete social formation (e.g., Latin American
societies in the 21st century) and set the tasks of communism in these
conditions?  IMO, the failure of the hegemonic way of thinking about Latin
American capitalism (dependency theory) is evident and it results from the
inability to think clearly and congruently in accordance with the mode of
analysis Marx proposed.  We need to move beyond historicism.  The sooner,
the better.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

More information about the Marxism mailing list