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.
NOTES
(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.