Dependency and Revolutionary Theory in the African Situation


Franz J.T. Lee


This short essay consists of the following parts, namely, a brief sketch of the genesis of the dependencia movement; an attempt to classify the various authors of the dependencia theories; the basic theses of the dependencia theories for 'developing' countries, especially Africa, considering oil and revolutionary struggle.


Fundamental Hypothesis


For a people in the process of social emancipation under peripheral capitalism a theory of underdevelopment can eo ipso only be a theory of social revolution attuned to the given historic situation and being an immediate product of the concrete liberation struggle.


Genesis of the 'Dependencia' Movement


In explanation of the dependencia theories we have to state from the outset that, although they have not always been expressly formulated as 'theories of underdevelopment' (that is to day, a manifestation of the international social system), the concept of 'underdevelopment' has been in existence for a long time as a term of scientific analysis especially in the works of Marxist scholars. The dependencia approach originated in the 'classical' Marxist analyses of imperialism in the l910s and 1920s, especially in the works of Lenin and Luxemburg. (l)  After 1930, owing to the split of international communism into two main camps, Stalinism and Trotskyism, official Marxist social theory was practically absent in public debates. Between 1928 and 1960, it became ossified into a dogma under the severe pressure of the Soviet ideological monopoly and bourgeois political theories.

During this period the 'official' Communist Parties of Latin America - which led a mainly clandestine existence - repeated the various dogmas and directives from Moscow, and thus followed the various zigzag manoeuvres of Soviet foreign policy. With few exceptions, no Marxists attempted independent scholarly analyses of the Latin American reality until the 1960s. (2)

After World War II, as the Cold War intensified, the problem of 'under-development' more and more became a central theme in international political discussion. During that period North American authors like Nurkse, Rosenstein-Rodan, Hirschman and Rostow were expounding their 'theories of modernization'. They had a direct political influence on the formulation of economic growth strategies for Latin America on the subcontinent itself. In fact, this was a deliberate strategy of the United States, which operated through the United Nations, at that time heavily under its influence. Thus the United Nations 'Economic Commission for Latin America' (CEPAL) was founded in Santiago de Chile, under the directorship of Raul Prebisch. (3)  It began propagating these 'modernization' theories, with a Latin American aroma, across South America. CEPAL's economic growth ideology - el desarrollismo - even penetrated the social sciences of Latin American universities, especially influencing sociology and political science. In university circles, various professors and lecturers began either apologetically to defend this ideology, or to criticize it from Marxist and non-Marxist Weltanschauungen. Wellknown Latin American exponents of the desarrollismo ideology were Gino Germani (4)  and Roger Vekemans. (5)  According to these theories of 'social change', Latin American countries were to be transformed into industrialized states along Western lines within the shortest possible time. Foreign capital, especially in the form of direct investments and loans, and 'economic aid' (which turned out to be mainly 'military aid' for the ruling classes) was to accomplish this 'economic miracle' within a decade or two. A sine qua non for this 'modernization' process was to be a virulent anticommunism. (6)

It is against this background that the emergence of the dependencia movement has to be seen. It came into existence as a double critique: 1) against the desarrollismo, and 2) against the dogmatic 'Marxist' interpretations of Latin American reality.


Critique of 'Desarrollismo'

In one way or another, all dependencia authors directed their critique against the desarrollismo ideology. The heaviest ideological attacks came from scholars like Auilar Monteverde, Caputo, Pizarro, Cardoso, Falleto, Cordova, Silva Michelene, Dos Santos, Frank, Furtado, Garcia, Gonzalez Casanova, Riberro, Sunkel and Vasconi. (7)  This rigorous debate led interalia to the 'rediscovery' of Marxist social theory in Latin America.


Critique of 'Dogmatic Marxism'

Between 1930 and 1960 the Communist Parties (CPs) of Latin America rigidly applied the model of consecutive stages of the various modes of production, elaborated by Marx and Engels during the mid 19th Century, as an 'eternal law' to contemporary Latin American social conditions. Everything in Latin America that was not 'developed' capitalism, that is 'modernized' in the sense of desarrollismo, must necessarily be 'feudalism'. The political consequence of such dogmatic reasoning was that the CPs were expecting and preparing the 'bourgeois-democratic revolution' - the Latin American 'French Revolution' - which would precede the 'October Revolution'. In order to accomplish this, alliances between the 'progressive national bourgeoisie' and the 'revolutionary proletariat' had to be organized, in its historic battle against the 'feudal oligarchy'. (8)  Prior to the dependencia debate, various small Trotskyist groups had attacked the official CPs because of this 'neo-Stalinist' conservative attitude. But they also understood imperialism as the cause of underdevelopment in the classical Marxist sense as mainly an external factor. Both these Marxist positions were criticized by authors like Cardoso, Dos Santos, Frank and Gonzalez Casanova. (9)  The dependencia authors, especially the Marxist-oriented ones, claimed that imperialism was not only an external oppressive force but, due to its structural presence within 'underdeveloped' societies, it controlled them directly. Hence the operations of imperialism had to be analyzed internally and, in the first place, be fought against nationally. With this new approach most dependencia authors transcended the classical Marxist theories of imperialism. However, neo-Marxists like Paul A. Baran, (10)  had already seen this problem and the necessity of revising and reformulating the concept of imperialism to be applicable to the contemporary 'Third World' conditions.

These political discussions led to serious debates within CEPAL itself, especially among scholars within its research institute, ILPES. The contro-versies spread to the State University of Santiago de Chile, especially to its Centre of Socio-Economic Studies (CESO -, within the Faculty of Economics. The next centre of serious political discussion was the National University of Mexico, especially within the Institute of Economic Investigation (IIE). In the 1960s all over Latin America around the capitals, dependencia study groups came into existence. About 25 dependencia authors became known internationally - among them were not only Latin American scholars but also authors like A.G. Frank (North American) and Franz Hinkelammert (German). (11)  Basically, the dependencia exponents could be divided into three groups, namely, the 'bourgeois nationalists', the Marxists and the 'unclassified' group.

The 'bourgeois-nationalist' tendency understood 'dependence' as a sum of external variables, which build the outer framework of the national developmental process. This led to the conclusion that the carriers of dominance and dependence were basically the national states and that social groups, economic sectors or institutions play a minor role. The essence of dependence is therefore an 'asymmetric interaction'. The propagators of this tendency were mainly Furtado, Sunkel, Helio Jaguaribe (12)  and Anibal Pinto.(13)

For the Marxists, the dependence approach was that part within the theory of imperialism which was not yet fully formulated, and which would describe the effects of imperialism directly within the peripheral states of world capitalism. For these scholars, generally, 'there is no theory of dependence independent of the theory of imperialism'. (14)  They saw their approach as a new element, as the perspective from the 'Third World', and they did not 'only want to extend the theory of imperialism, but to contribute scientifically to its new formulation'. (15)  It was not national states but classes which were the carriers of dominance and dependence (16)  The propagators of this Marxist tendency were mainly Cardoso, Cordova, Dos Santos, Vasconi, Marini (17)  and Quijano. (18)

Owing to the fact that there is no single dependence theory, and that the authors are not even in agreement with regard to their fundamental concept of dependencia, many scholars cannot be classified, because they uncritically borrow concepts from both Marxist and non-Marxist tendencies. Within this ideological confusion we find authors like Aguilar Monteverde, Fernando Carmona de la Pena (19)  and Marcos Kaplan. (20)  Some, like Darcy Ribeiro with his 'evolutionist theory of dependence', (21)  have developed their own independent trends.

Thus, only a specific section of the dependencia movement is Marxist. All tendencies, however, have in common one thing, namely that they are directed against the desarrollismo ideology and the 'neo-Stalinism' of the CPs of Latin America.


Basic Theoretical Statements and Critiques


Relevant contributions in the field of description of underdevelopment came from two sources: from the Latin American dependencia authors and from French scholars. Among the latter are Samir Amin, Charles Bettelheim, Pierre Jalee and Christian Palloix. (22)  They concentrated their research work on the open or veiled transfer of value from the 'Third World' to the metropolitan countries, on the correlation between the two sections of the international division of labor. They mainly did this from the viewpoint of the metropolitan countries, under economic considerations. As we have seen, the dependencia authors did the reverse, beginning from the 'Third World'.


'Dependencia' Theses

According to dependencia theories the situation of underdeveloped countries can only be understood when the decisive role of external factors is con-sidered. The social structures of colonies, excolonies or neocolonies are not the results of autonomous historic development, but they are determined by foreign hegemony and exploitation. Thus endogenous and exogenous factors stand in an indivisible explanatory context of 'structures of dependence' of Third World countries.

'Under-development' and 'development' are not two different stages, the one following the other, but they are historic synchronous processes, functionally determining each other. Consequently, they are two sides of the same developing world capitalist system. Accordingly, one can at best speak about 'development of underdevelopment'.

Although underdevelopment has external historic roots, its effects are however, felt internally. The forced deformations and insufficiencies are essential ingredients of all internal social structures of 'developing' countries. Abolishment of underdevelopment internally thus has as a prerequisite the eradication of the exploitative control exercised from outside. This is the direct attack on desarrollismo or 'modernization' ideologies.

The dependencia approach was chiefly developed from and for Latin American social conditions. That it is also applicable to other 'Third World' countries is not stated explicitly or worked out scientifically by these authors. (23)

Concerning these fundamental theses, there exists somehow a consensus among the various authors, but beyond this general framework a chaos of opinions has developed around the teoria de la dependencia.


Critique of 'Dependencia' Theories

The main scientific error of most theories is their conceptual vagueness. They criticized desarrollismo and 'dogmatic Marxism' which had transplanted concepts of European or North American origin to Latin American conditions. New scientific concepts to counter these they did not develop. Thus the dependencia literature is often pure description and wide speculation on a high level of theoretical abstraction, lacking inter subjectivity. This is especially the case of the 'bourgeois-nationalist' tendency. The Marxist tendency, on the other hand, has the problem of modifying Marxist concepts, such as 'proletariat' and 'class', in order to apply them realistically to Third World social conditions.

The theoretical and conceptual inefficiency is demonstrated by the term dependencia itself. There exists no clear scientific concept for this historic process. The given explanations mostly end in tautological, partial descriptions or metaphoric deviations. Hence dependence could be any one of the following: a theory; a part of a theory; a concept within a theory; a variable or even a concrete situation.

The same applies to a concept like dependencia estructural. One who expects scientific specification will be surprised to learn that this concept at one time means 'imperialism on a world scale' and the next time it is a component of internal social structures of 'underdeveloped' countries. It seems that the popularity of the dependencia theory was largely due to its lack of conceptual precision. (24)

The above dilemma arises because certain pre questions of scientific inquiry have remained unanswered: How did the capitalist mode of production unravel itself in specific 'Third World' countries? What qualitative differences exist between these two forms? What is the theoretical status of the national state organization of 'dependent' societies in relation to a class analysis on a continental and world scale? Also, what is the relation between the social base and social superstructure of these countries - in other words, between economics and politics? If these questions are not answered, any formulation of the concept dependencia must necessarily be only provisional.

Added to the theoretical deficiencies is the lack of scientific praxis. The dependencia debate did not liberate itself either from the 'Hispanic' tradition of scholastic formalism, nor from what Lenin called the 'infantile disorder' of contemporary 'left' movements. There were bitter Latin American intellectual disputes concerning purely semantic problems. The necessity of empirical work to back theoretical questions was disappointingly neglected. This situation led to the stagnation of the dependencia debate, especially towards the end of the 1970s. Many recent publications are simply repetitions of the previous ones. Furthermore dependencia became a public slogan, an emotional political concept. In metropolitan countries, especially among the 'left', it gained 'exotic' dimensions, entered political folklore, becoming a house-hold word in 'anti-imperialist' social functions.

On the positive side, the dependencia debate certainly had a regenerating and revitalizing effect on contemporary Marxism, with regard to its usage as a revolutionary method of emancipation on a global scale, as revolutionary theory of the 'under-developed' internationally, and as revolutionary praxis. Thus the critique of dependencia theories is politically significant for Africa in the struggle to eliminate the social structures of dependence. But Marxism has to be emancipated from its 'Prolet-Aryanism', its dogmatism and Eurocentrism (or US-centrism). Only then will it become international proletarianism.


Relevance of 'Dependencia' Theories to Africa


The deliberations and critique expressed above apply to similar situations and conditions in other Third World countries, particularly in Africa. Over the last few years many works have been published by African and non-African authors, analyzing various social structures of dependence and revolutionary pressures in specific countries or illustrating general patterns of dependence in Africa as a whole. (25)  The following general observations concerning research work in the theoretical and praxical fields are worth underlining.


Theoretical Relevance

The political relevance of the dependencia approach for the formulation of a 'theory of under-development' for African social conditions will depend on its ability to give theoretical precision to the already attained general conceptual reflections concerning structures of dependence, and on its potentiality to transform these dialectically into concrete empirical work and emancipatory praxis.

Theoretically, the exact locality of a theory of dependence has to be fixed scientifically, especially its categories and concepts, in relation to Marxism, that is in line with political economy and historical and dialectical materialism Only by making it a part of revolutionary theory will conceptual precision and logical consistency be achieved. (26)  'Dependence' or 'underdevelopment' are in all probability not suitable scientific categories. The Marxist concepts have to be reformulated and enriched, in the sense of the 'eternal' dialectical method, in order to be applicable to specific African historical conditions. The universality of the Marxist method must withstand the iron test of real revolutionary praxis.

This is necessary to comprehend the complex systems of polydimensional contradictions and antagonisms in African societies. Dependencia as a possible theoretical concept includes an infinite number of factors. Hence it cannot be 'proved' or be operationalized as such. (27)  For example, a case study of social structures of neo-colonialism in Kenya can contribute valuable information concerning 'structures of dependence', without necessarily once using the concept 'dependence' in its present form, simply because it operates on the concrete empirical plane.

Until now, the area of empirical work and case studies was unlimited. However, in view of the above, for future emancipatory-relevant research work, more emphasis should be laid on detailed analyses of classes and social groups in the various African states - of course, using the method of scientific socialism, Marxism. What are social groups like 'national bourgeoisie', 'petit-bourgeois intelligentsia', 'nationalistic military groups' in the Ugandan context, for example? What exactly is an African 'urban proletariat' or a 'rural proletariat' in the Nigerian or South African context? (28)  Are they qualitatively the same? What about the 'marginal' social groups? Do they have any revolutionary potential? Is there a 'lumpenproletariat' in African capitals?

The concept 'structural heterogeneity', formulated by Cordova in 1973, has great scientific value for African postcolonial social conditions. It pinpoints the problem of 'combined development' of various modes of production in Africa. This 'heterogeneity' vertically forms part of the analysis of African classes, and horizontally explains the regional dynamism, enabling us to explain more precisely 'underdevelopment' and to develop a revolutionary theory as a practical instrument to abolish it.


Praxical Relevance

It could never be our scientific intention and historical role only to interpret African structures of 'dependence' in different ways. The point is: we have to abolish, to change them. Thus our aim can only be a dialectical unity of scientific theory and scientific praxis. Anything else will land on the garbage heap of history.

It is exactly in the dimension of revolutionary praxis that the dependencia approach shows an alarming deficit. Not even the Marxist exponents could precisely indicate how praxically 'dependence' and 'under-development' can be abolished nationally, continentally and internationally. In their revolutionary anticipatory strategies they had to revert to the 'classical' Marxist theories of imperialism and international class struggle. Again, simply because Marxist prequestions have not been answered, the conceptual apparatus is not efficiently developed and there is no consensus with regard to the precise meaning of historical and dialectical materialism in the present African context; many promising scientific efforts end in a cul de sac, stymied by the question of revolutionary praxis.

It is not sufficient to demand the abolition of neo-colonialism and the introduction of socialism, supported by any adjective except 'scientific'. It is necessary to know the exact historical background of the emancipatory movements, their social setting, their dynamism, latency and tendency. The perspective of socialist reconstruction after colonialism or neo-colonialism must be a scientific analysis in the above sense. Otherwise, we are faced with transformation problems, experienced at present, for example, in Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Here clearly one can see the results of the division of emancipatory labor: of revolutionary theory and revolutionary praxis.

In conclusion, the question of abolishing structures of dependence is quintessential; on it depends any scientific deliberations concerning dependencia. Without a revolutionary theory, there will be no social revolution in any African state. In fact, no African revolution will have a chance against world imperialism.

Oil and Class Struggle


Living in Venezuela and observing the growth in international stature of African oilproducing countries such as Nigeria encourages me to mention briefly the problem of oil and the class struggle on a global scale. In reality there is no 'oil crisis' or 'energy crisis', as far as the 'wretched of the earth' are concerned, on the contrary, there exists a crisis of world capitalism, which is here to stay for quite a while. Many Marxist and non-Marxist analyses have been published concerning the oil industry, (29)  its impact nationally and internationally, but we will be concerned here only with the relevance of oil in the process of anti-imperialist struggle. The oil or energy crisis of world capitalism, still our contemporary major mode of production, is a precise measurement of the severity of the crises within the international economic system (which is basically still capitalistic) indicative of its internal contradictions. It is also a measuring-rod for the emancipatory success of 'labour' on a global scale. The vital relevance of oil for capitalist development is well-known; also for socialist construction, especially in 'Third World' countries. Thus the exploited in oilproducing countries gain emancipatory relevance within the national and international class struggle; they acquire a special historical revolutionary task. In a nutshell, 'the internationalism of class struggle in oil is the cutting edge of much broader solidarity'. (30)

This means that Marxist scholars have a scientific duty to study 'oil structures of dependence' and a revolutionary task to be part of the 'broader solidarity' to abolish them by placing oilproducing countries in the frontline of the 'internationalism of class struggle'.

Otherwise, in Africa, we will only be left with the choice of 'barbarism'. (31)  Certainly, if the contradictions between 'labour and capital' (Marx and Engels) or 'under-development and revolutionary pressures' (Claude Ake) are not abolished in an emancipatory way, then, as Engels had already predicted, the African bourgeoisie and proletariat, together with their counterparts elsewhere, will historically end up in barbarism, in the total annihilation of the species homo sapiens.







(1)     See Christian Palloix, 'Die Imperialismustheorie bei Lenin und Rosa Luxemburg' in Neuere Beiträge zur Imperialismustheorie, Vol. l (Munich, Trikont, 1973), pp. 58-96. Also V.I. Lenin, Der Imperialismus als höchstes Stadium des Kapitalismus (Berlin DDR, Dietz, 1970) and Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals (Frankfurt am Main, eva, 1966). For Lenin and Luxemburg, the 'backward' countries were only of interest in so far as they were influencing the relations of production and the process of capital formation in the metropolitan countries. They did not analyze the disastrous effect of the flow of capital and commodities within the 'backward' countries. They did, however, indicate the external dependence of these countries on the world market.

(2)     Exceptions are: the Peruvian, Jose Carlos Mariategui - see his book: Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana (Lima, Libreria Peruana, 1928, 1934); the Chilean, Francisco Encina, the Argentinian, Sergio Bagu and the Brazilian, Caio Prado Junior; also various Trotskyist authors.

(3)     See Raul Prebisch, El desarrollo económico de America Latina y sus principales problemas (New York, United Nations, 1949).

(4)     An Argentinian sociologist, author of Politica y Sociedad en una Época de Transicion (Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1968).

(5)     Other Latin American authors, propagating this ideology, were: Aldo Solari, Jorge Graciarena, Torcuato Di Tella and Federico Gil.

(6)     This is very clearly expressed by the Argentinian representative, Rogelio Frigerio, in his book Crecimiento economico y democracia (Buenos Aires, Losada, 1963), p. 168.

(7)     See a) Alonso Aguilar Monteverde, 'El capitalismo del subdesarrollo: Un capitalismo sin capital y sin perspectivas' in Problemas del desarrollo (Mexico), No. 8, July-September 1971, pp. 17-74; b) Orlando Caputo and Roberto Pizarro, Imperialismo, dependencia y relaciones economicas internacionales (Santiago, CESO, Universidad de Chile, 1970); c) Fernando H. Cardoso and Enzo Falleto, Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (Mexico, Siglo XXI, 1968); d) Armando Córdova and Hector Silva Michelena, Die Wirtschaftsstruktur Lateinamerikas (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1973); e) Teotonio Dos Santos, Socialismo o Fascismo, Dilema Latinoamericana (Prensa Latinoamericana, 1969); f) Celso Furtado, 'Externe Abhängigkeit und ökonomische Theorie' in Dieter Senghass (ed.), Imperialismus und strukturelle Gewalt (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1972), pp. 316-34; g) Antonio Garcia, La Estructure Social y el Desarrollo Latinoamericano in F.H. Cardoso and F. Weffort (eds.), America Latina: Ensayos de interpretacion sociologica-politica (Santiago, Universitaria, 1970), pp. 45-81; h) Pablo Gonzales Casanova, Sociologia de la explotacion (Mexico, Siglo XXI, 1969), pp. 12-23; i) Antonio Garcia, 'Industrializacion y Dependencia en America Latina', Trimestre Economico, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 151, July-September 1971, pp. 731-54; j) Darcy Riberro,Der zivilisatorische Prozess (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1971); k) Osvaldo Sunkel, 'Politica Nacional de Desarrollo y Dependencia Externa', Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, Vol. XXXI, No. 4, October-December 1969, pp. 795-816; 1) Trilman Tonnies Evers and Peter von Wogau in Das Argument, Vols. 4-6, July 1973, pp. 404-54. I am very much indebted to these authors for this paper.

(8)     For example, for the position of the Venezuelan Communist Party see Carlos Lopez, 'Die Kommunistische Partei Venezuelas und die gegenwärtige Lage im Lande' in Probleme des Friedens und des Sozialismus, No. 10 (74). October 1964. PP. 825-31.

(9)     See F.H. Cardoso, 'Teoria de la dependencia' - o 'analisis de situacionas concretas de dependencia', Revista latinoamericana de ciencia política Vol. 1, No. 3, 1970, pp. 402-14; Theotonio Dos Santos, 'El nuevo caracter de la dependencia', Matos Mar, 1969, pp. 175-7; Andre Gunder Frank, Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1969), p. 407; Pablo Gonzales Casanova, op. cit., pp. 9 f. and 35-51.

(10)   Paul A. Baran, The Political Economy of Growth (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1957). This book had a decisive influence on the dependencia discussion; it was criticized by many authors, especially the Marxist-orientated ones.

(11)   See Franz Hinkelammert, El Subdesarrollo latinoamericano. Un caso de desarrollo capitalista (Buenos Aires, Paidos, 1970).

(12)   See Helio Jaguaribe, 'Causas del Subdesarrollo Latinoamericana', Matos, March 1969, pp. 201-19.

(13)   See Anibal Pinto, 'Notas sobre Desarrollo, Subdesarrollo y Dependencia', Trimestre Economico, Vol. XXXIX, No. 154, April-June 1972, pp. 243-64.

(14)   See Candoso, op. cit., p. 409.

(15)   See Dos Santos, op. cit. p. 176.

(16)   See Octavio Inni, Imperialismo y cultura de la violencia en America Latina (Mexico, Siglo XXI, 1970), p. 12.

(17)   See Ruy Mauro Marini, Subdesarrollo y revolucion (México, Siglo XXI, 1969).

(18)   See Anibal D. Quijano, 'Dependencia, Cambio social y urbanizacion en latinoamerica', Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, Vol. XXX, No. 3, July-September 1968, pp. 525-70. Cum grano salis one could also include A.G. Frank in this category.

(19)   See Fernando Carmona de la Pena, Dependencia y cambios estructurales (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1971).

(20)   See Marcos Kaplan, 'Estado, dependencia externa y desarrollo en America Latina', Matos, March 1969, pp. 158-200.

(21)   See Ribeiro, Der zivilisatorische Prozess, op. cit.

(22)   These authors are well known to scholars of social sciences and it is not necessary to cite their works here.

(23)   Only recently did scholars like John Saul, Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, C. Mellassoux, C. Palloix, A. Rweyemanu, C. Leys, W. Rodney, C. Thomas, C. Ake and Y. Barongo, among others, attempt to verify this approach of structural underdevelopment in Africa or Asia. See especially Samir Amin, 'Underdevelopment and Dependence in Black Africa: Historical Origin' Journal of Peace Research, No. 2,1972, pp. 105-19; G. Arrighi, Sviluppo Economico e Sovrastrutture in Africa (Turin, Gulio Einaudi Ed., 1969); W. Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Publishing House, 1972); G. Arrighi and J.S. Saul, Essays on the Political Economy of Africa (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1973); H. Green and A. Seidmann, Unity of Poverty: The Economics of Pan-Africanism (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1968); Colin Leys, Underdevelopment in Kenya (London, Heinemann, 1975); C. Ake, Revolutionary Pressures in Africa (London, Zed Press, 1978); Y. Barongo, Neocolonialism and African Politics (New York, Vantage Press, 1980).

(24)   To give examples of all these concepts which lack precision would go beyond the framework of a short paper ... but any critical reader could locate them easily in the dependencia literature.

(25)   See footnote 23. Also Samir Amin, The Arab Nation (London, Zed Press, 1978), Maghreb in the Modern World (Harmondsworth, Penguin 1971) and his Neocolonialism in West Africa (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1974)

(26)   From Nkrumah's 'Neo-Colonialism' to Ake's 'Revolutionary Pressures' remarkable work has been done in this direction of conceptual and emancipatory clarity.

(27)   See Evers and von Wogau, op. cit., p. 447.

(28)   See Franz J.T. Lee, Südafrika am Vorabend der Revolution (Frankfurt am Main, ISP-Verlag), pp. 146-58 and 170-202; Franz J.T. Lee et. al., Nigeria gegen Biafra? Falsche Alternativen. Über Verschärfung der Widersprüche im Neokolonialismus (Berlin-West, Wagenbach, 1969), pp. 49-68.

(29)   Of great value to this section is Petter Nore and Terisa Turner (eds.), Oil and Class Struggle (London, Zed Press, 1980).

(30)   Ibid., p. 2.

(31)   See Ake, op. cit., pp. 106-7.