Issues of Theory in Dependency and Marxism

Students of dependency have struggled over the past decade to integrate their ideas with a theory of Marxism. Their work has opened up new questions and areas of investigation and stimulated interest in many issues that run through the thought of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Criticism has evolved in the contemporary study of dependency with the acknowledgement of theoretical weaknesses: confusion over terminology, undue emphasis on market in the domestic and international economy, and so on. Controversy has arisen around various explanations of dependency which are rooted in the Latin American experience. Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1980), Theotonio dos Santos (1978), Ruy Mauro Marini (1974), and Andre Gunder Frank (1967) have offered ideas and theories about Latin America, while Samir Amin (1976), Walter Rodney (1972), and Clive Thomas (1974) have incorporated a conception of dependency in their writings about other areas. Considerable debate has ensued. The debate over dependency theory, unlike some scholarly controversies, has been rich in content and relevant in application. Theorists of dependency have been concerned with nothing less than unraveling the essence of past historical processes, and they have presented contending interpretations of historical reality. These theorists have contributed to some remarkable historical breakthroughs as well as to detours and setbacks in theory and revolutionary practice. The critics of dependency have shown no less complexity in their contributions. An introductory review of the debate in general and this journal issue in particular should be convincing of the proposition that scholars have indeed struggled over a praxis of some consequence. Since the world does not present us with unequivocal and verifiable responses to the questions that ensue from the debate, the polemics over dependency continue. The present purpose is to draw upon the implications of these polemics, especially in this journal.