After Robert Brenner wrote his attack on dependency theory in the 1977 NLR, the impact was immediate. Marxists in the academy found the appeal to return to a class-based Marxism very seductive, especially among Latin American specialists. The Marxist-oriented journal called Latin American Perspectives became consumed with debates between supporters of Robert Brenner and Andre Gunder Frank almost immediately and the summer and fall issues of 1981 were combined to discuss the Dependency and Marxism debate.

Unfortunately, the archives of Latin American Perspectives are only available to those with a subscription to JSTOR, but I have selected two fairly representative items from the two sides for your review.

John Weeks, a supporter of the Brenner approach even though he does not mention Brenner by name (others do), contributed an article titled "The Differences Between Materialist Theory and Dependency Theory and Why They Matter". Before presenting his article and my interspersed articles, I want to offer some personal reflections even though their relationship to the matter at hand might seem tangential.

In 1990 I organized a debate on behalf of the NY Nicaragua Network just prior to the Nicaraguan elections that would result in the FSLN being voted out of office. It was not hard to figure out that Paul Berman was the ideal candidate to speak against the FSLN. This Village Voice self-described anarchist (he now calls himself a liberal) had been writing attacks on the FSLN for a number of years, all in the spirit of casting the Sandinistas as enemies of true working-class socialism. Berman evolved into a cold war type liberal subsequently and gained some notoriety as a "leftist" supporter of George W. Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our good friend Richard Seymour has a chapter on Berman in his forthcoming book from Verso that I am awaiting with bated breath.

For the pro-FSLN perspective, I gave Michael Moore a call and he was more than happy to debate Berman. Just a year or so earlier Moore had been fired from Mother Jones for refusing to print one of Berman's hatchet jobs on the FSLN and was looking forward to a chance to nail him. Although I cannot remember exactly why we decided not to go with Moore, we instead extended an invitation to John Weeks on the advice of NACLA, the journal on Latin America that had not yet degenerated into the kind of mixture of civil society bullshit and State Department liberalism that fills its pages today.

Berman spoke first and was obviously well-prepared, even if his ideas were bogus.

When Weeks began to speak (I was chairing the meeting), I was astonished to see that he did not have anything written down and just "winged it" for 15 minutes. The gist of his presentation was that the FSLN was no different than the PRI in Mexico and there was never any reason for imperialism to be so determined to overthrow it. He characterized it as bureaucratic and mildly social democratic, etc. In other words, in accepting our invitation to defend the FSLN, this knucklehead did not have the common decency to state that he was some kind of ultraleft opponent of the FSLN. Following the meeting, a group of us headed over to a nearby bar where a savvy veteran of the Central America solidarity movement whispered to me that Weeks was some kind of Maoist.

The reason Weeks was so dismissive of the Sandinista revolution was that it was not "class" oriented enough for him. There were far too few industrial workers in the vanguard and far too many small ranchers and members of the "informal economy" to satisfy the litmus test of those who had mastered their Grundrisse.

The main difference between the dependency theorists and those influenced by Brenner was over the question—in my opinion—whether national oppression was a viable category in Marxist terms. I have written about this at some length here  and invite you to have a look at some point.

 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MATERIALIST THEORY AND DEPENDENCY THEORY AND WHY THEY MATTER

By John Weeks

In reading the debate over the relevance and theoretical basis of dependency theory, much of which one can find in the pages of Latin American Perspectives (Chilcote, 1974; Dore and Weeks, 1979; Fernandez and Ocampo, 1974; Frank, 1974), those not versed in the debate might be forgiven for not always divining what the basic issues are. In particular, are "Marxist" theory and dependency theory branches on the same intellectual and ideological tree? Is one theory a subset of the other, complementary to the other? Are they separate and competing theories? The purpose of this brief essay is to demonstrate that they are indeed separate, alternative theories, largely incompatible. To do this, we first summarize the main features of each theory and relate them to their separate intellectual origins. In a brief presentation, this must necessarily result in reducing each theory to a rather bare and stark structure and all aspects of each cannot be dealt with. The intention is not agnostically to offer two alternatives but to demonstrate that dependency theory neither can claim empirical verification nor theoretical validity.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism. As a consequence of this fact (over which there is presumably no controversy), the theory of the operation of the world economy must have a theory of capitalist reproduction as its basis. By "capitalist reproduction" is meant the process by which a specifically capitalist society evolves and reproduces its social relations on an expanding scale. Second, a theory of the operation of the world economy must locate itself internationally. By this we mean that one needs to derive within the theory a distinction between the "domestic" reproduction of capitalist society and its "international" reproduction. It is through this distinction that one can analyze capitalist reproduction in the context of the division of the world along political lines. In other words, a theory of the world economy ("theory of imperialism" or "theory of dependency") need have two (obviously related, but distinct) elements: a theory of capitalist accumulation and a theory of the relevant division of the world for purposes of considering that accumulation as international. In our analysis of materialist theory and dependency theory we shall see how each deals with these two components of the analysis.

DEPENDENCY THEORY

A theory of capitalist accumulation encompasses two related but qualitatively different processes: the initial development of capitalism and its reproduction and expansion once established as a mature social system. Most dependency writers do not deal at length with the first element of a theory of accumulation, so perhaps it is necessary to show why an explanation of the initial development of capitalism is important to the analysis of the world economy. Presumably, one of the central purposes of an analysis of the world economy (leaving aside bourgeois apologists) is to explain the pattern of uneven development in the world and to explain why that uneven development — pattern of poverty and riches — seems to have a systematic geographic character. Further, both "dependentistas" and materialists would agree that the uneven development is the result of capitalist accumulation. With these points in mind, it should be clear that any theory which restricts itself to dealing with uneven development in the era of mature capitalism (say, the last hundred years) presupposes what it seeks to prove. The purpose of theory is to explain why some areas are developed and others underdeveloped, and this purpose is avoided by taking as given the existence of developed and underdeveloped areas and proceeding without a backward look to how what has been presupposed is reproduced. Thus, a theory of the development of capitalism is central to the theory of the uneven development of contemporary world society.

We find the clearest analysis of the development of capitalism in the works of Paul Baran (1956) and Andre Gunder Frank (Baran, 1956; and Frank, 1967), and a similar position in the works of later writers (Amin, 1976). We find the hypothesis that the presently developed capitalist countries reached their developed status by the transfer of resources from the presently underdeveloped world. In this view, the epoch-making transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe is achieved by the appropriation of the surplus product from one set of countries by another set of countries (see Dore and Weeks, 1979). The set of countries which loses its surplus stagnates into underdevelopment, and the set of appropriating countries accumulates wealth at a rapid rate, based strategically upon the impetus of a larger available surplus product. This mechanism, of de-accumulation on the one hand and accumulation on the other, continues as capitalism matures, though in more sophisticated form. In the early stage of capitalist development in Europe, the appropriation was more violent and crude — "looting and plundering" — and gives way to "surplus extraction" through "unequal exchange" (Mandel, 1975: chapter 11; Amin, 1976; and Emmanuel, 1972) or profit remittances (Baran and Sweezy, 1966). Closely entwined with this theory of accumulation is an underconsumptionist view of the limits to that accumulation (Dore and Weeks, 1979), which is beyond the space of this essay to consider.

This theory of accumulation necessarily implies an analytical division of the world relevant to it. While dependency theorists write of the relationships between countries in their treatment of uneven development, in fact there is no concept of a "country" present in their theory. Rather, the "international" dimension of their theory of accumulation is achieved by dividing the world into developed and underdeveloped areas, and the de-accumulation and accumulation process occurs in this context. It so happens that political boundaries in many cases coincide with the developed and underdeveloped distinction. But this is in no way implied by the theory, and the theory is equally applicable within countries as between them, as Frank makes explicit (Frank, 1967). As a consequence, dependency theory comes forth with a clear and unambiguous empirical prediction. In as far as contemporary capitalism is characterized by the export of money and productive capital, this export should be from developed capitalist countries to underdeveloped countries.

In summary, dependency theory explains the rise of capitalism and the division of the world into developed and underdeveloped areas by surplus transfer; this uneven development is reproduced by the continuation of such transfers (in more "purely economic" form); the analytical space in which this occurs does not involve countries except by political accident; and predicted is the flow of capital from developed to underdeveloped areas.

MATERIALIST THEORY

It is difficult to summarize the materialist theory of accumulation with equal brevity because of the concepts one must develop; so what follows is exceedingly schematic (in more detail, see Weeks, 1979). All class societies are characterized by exploitation and the specific character of each class society is determined by the specific manner in which the surplus product of direct producers is appropriated (Marx, 1972: 783). Exploitation by definition implies a surplus product (production above the needs of direct producers), but a surplus product does not in itself imply accumulation. Accumulation on an expanding scale results from the progressive development of the productive forces rather than from the redistribution of a surplus product among societies. Thus, the explanation for uneven development on a world scale becomes the question of how and under what circumstances societies are characterized by the progressive development of the productive forces.

The process Marx called "primitive accumulation" — the separation of the peasantry from their means of labor (primarily land) — creates such circumstances. With the forcible separation of labor from rights in land, a "free" wage labor force is created. Along with this "freeing" of labor, the means of production become commodities (see Dore and Weeks, 1979). Once there exists free wage labor, and the means of production are commodities, it becomes possible to bring these two together by the medium of money. Indeed, monetary exchange becomes the prior condition for the reuniting of the worker and the means of production. Such a social mechanism for organizing production is capital (money exchanged for the elements of production), and the expansion of this social mechanism (or social relation) results in capitalist society.

[The identification of "primitive accumulation" with the creation of free wage labor is a hallmark of the Brenner thesis. In some supporters (Ellen Meiksins Wood), it is explicitly identified with the British countryside while in others such as Weeks it is implicit. However, Marx did not have such a narrowly defined understanding of primitive accumulation. In chapter 31 of V. 1 of Capital, titled "The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist," he writes: "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation." Whatever you want to say about Marx as final arbiter on such matters, he clearly thought that enslavement was part of primitive accumulation, a view that clearly contradicts Weeks's emphasis on free wage labor.]

In capitalist society products circulate as commodities, which means that the surplus product of capitalist production assumes monetary form. This surplus product or surplus value is the material basis for accumulation and arises from the exploitation of direct producers (the proletariat). Surplus value, however, is only the basis of accumulation, and accumulation is forced upon individual capitalists by the conflict among capitals ("firms"). Because the products of capitalist production must be realized in money form in order for capitalists to initiate production afresh, the conflict among capitals necessarily assumes the form of an economic struggle. This struggle is fought out by the cheapening of commodities through technical change. Technical change leads to production on an expanding scale, so that the capitalist mode of production is an expanding one. This in itself is sufficient to explain why capitalism should reach out to underdeveloped areas. In materialist theory it is predicted that capital will expand into all areas, and once there is more than one capitalist area, the movement of capital between developed capitalist areas is as much to be expected as between developed capitalist areas and underdeveloped areas (Lenin, 1974).4 Materialist theory converts its theory of accumulation into a theory of the world economy by locating it explicitly in the context of countries. What makes a political territory a "country" is that the territory is controlled by a distinct ruling class, the vehicle for such rule being the state. Materialists identify their theory of the world economy as "the theory of imperialism," which can be defined as the theory of the accumulation of capital in the context of the struggle among ruling classes. Derivative from this theory are (1) the analysis of the conflicts and cooperation between the ruling classes of advanced capitalist countries (which lead to inter-imperialist wars); (2) the conflicts and cooperation between advanced capitalist ruling classes and ruling classes of underdeveloped countries ("articulation" of modes of production); and (3) conflicts between ruling classes and oppressed peoples ("the national question").

Our presentation of materialist theory could be no more than a skeleton of that analysis, given the space available. We can summarize this summary as follows: materialist theory treats accumulation as the result of the interaction of production and changing social relations and analyzes the relationship between advanced and underdeveloped areas by this means; for a theory of the world economy, it places this accumulation process in the context of a world politically divided among ruling classes.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

If the outline of the contrasting theories was brief, our critique must be briefer still. First, we deal with theoretical objections to dependency theory. First, we deal with objections to dependency theory. As we have seen, capitalist accumulation in dependency theory is primarily the result of the redistribution of surplus product between developed and underdeveloped areas. This presupposes both the production of the surplus product (a precondition for its distribution or redistribution) and accumulation itself. Accumulation is not related to the social relations under which a surplus product is produced or appropriated, with the implicit view that a surplus product is a sufficient condition for accumulation. In materialist theory, on the other hand, accumulation is explained as the result of particular social relations in a society (capitalist social relations). In this way, it is not only possible to explain why accumulation occurred in what the dependency theorists call "the center" rather than the "periphery," but also to explain why it did not occur anywhere before the capitalist epoch. Second, on an empirical level, dependency theory makes the prediction that the flow of capital should be overwhelmingly from developed to underdeveloped areas. It is difficult to see how this theory could predict anything else, and in fact the overwhelming amount of direct investment flows are among developed countries.

[I have heard this business about "the overwhelming amount of direct investment flows are among developed countries" many times in the past from those who object to dependency theory. While it is borne out by statistics (the US, for example, invests much more in Canada and Great Britain than it does in 3^rd world countries, it does not do justice to the forms of super-exploitation that typify North-South relations. Indeed, the absence of investment in Cuban sugar fields in the 1950s was one of the main factors that led to the revolution. Using Andre Gunder Frank's terminology, the Cuban ruling class was a typical "lumpen bourgeoisie" that preferred to spend its profits on shopping sprees in Miami than on new tractors, etc. The "development of underdevelopment" in fact can often be an expression of the lack of foreign direct investment [FDI] rather than an excess. Also, keep in mind that American FDI in Great Britain is subject to British laws that protect against the kind of thievery that American companies in Cuba carried out. When Fidel Castro nationalized Esso, he compensated them with the assessed value that Batista's tax men had leveled. When Esso screamed that they were not receiving the full value of their property, Castro said tough—they should have never tried to cheat the Cuban people to being with.]

This incorrect description of reality derives from (1) an erroneous theory of accumulation, and (2) a failure to analyze the division of the world into countries (ruling class conflicts). Materialist theory, with its theory of imperialism, makes no such prediction, but rather views the export of capital from developed to underdeveloped countries as one aspect of the general movement of capital.

It is not possible in a few pages to do justice to two entire schools of thought: in the case of dependency theory this is because of its strong eclecticism, and for materialist theory because of its analytical complexity. However, a brief survey reveals the former to be unsatisfactory on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

 

DEPENDENCY: A SPECIAL THEORY WITHIN MARXIAN ANALYSIS

By Joel C. Edelstein

A dependency theory which purports to explain underdevelopment in Latin America exclusively as a consequence of the transfer of surplus from backward areas to the metropolis (the "exploitation" of one nation by another) fails to comprehend the central role of the labor process in the formation of classes as well as class struggle as the motor of history. Divorced from the material reality of the working classes, it ignores the role of the masses in making history. It is static. Despite occasional calls for socialist revolution, it is based in idealism and is therefore incapable of guiding revolutionary action. Moreover, such a dependency theory presents the poverty, hunger, and oppression of peasants and workers as a consequence of a capitalism "deformed" by foreign monopoly capital. It imagines that an anti-imperialist coalition led by local capital could bring about "normal" capitalist development. Thus, this dependency theory defends the interest of local capital against Marxism-Leninism and against the struggle of the working classes for socialist revolution.

This dependency theory is implicit in the work of Raul Prebisch and the Economic Commission for Latin America, which identified the long-term tendency in the terms of trade to be a decline in the relation of prices of primary products to prices of manufacturers. (Ironically, though this "theory" did truly speak on behalf of local capital, it set the stage for the penetration of foreign monopoly capital into the industrial sector under the recipe of import-substitution.) This formulation was replaced in the mid-1960s by more adequate, radical, and Marxist efforts. However, the bourgeois nationalist concept of dependency reappeared in the 1970s beginning with Raul Fernandez and Jose Ocampo's article in the first issue of Latin American Perspectives. They and other left sectarians have equated the work of radical and Marxist writers such as Andre Gunder Frank, Theotonio dos Santos, and Ruy Mauro Marini with the limited bourgeois nationalist concept of dependency. In this fashion, the left sectarian critics ignore the explicit object of their attacks, the radical and Marxist dependentistas, and use bourgeois dependency as a straw man.

In my opinion, this misrepresentation by the sectarians is doubly unfortunate because it obscures both the genuine and important positive contributions which they have made as well as the real contribution of the left dependentistas. The sectarians are simply wrong in ignoring the emphasis on class by radical dependentistas such as Frank. They are similarly mistaken in their portrayal of left dependency as an apology for a "normal" capitalism or the voice of local capital. Most importantly, their tendency to represent the dependency perspective as an alternative to Marxist analysis is incorrect. It is, nonetheless, worthwhile to put aside these errors of the sectarian critique in order to assimilate its accurate and important criticism of left dependency: the neglect of the role of the labor process in shaping the dependent capitalist social formation and its consequent failure to serve as a guide for revolutionary struggle and for the project of the transition to socialism.

Radical dependency theory arose as a negation of bourgeois theory which presents history as a process in which a diffusion of capital and technology from the advanced capitalist countries to the "less developed" countries leads to the destruction of feudal stagnation and the rise of universal capitalist development, prosperity, and democracy. We can see in Frank, for example, an effort to refute this notion in part by turning it on its head. Thus, Frank observed in the interaction of more advanced with less advanced countries a flow of resources from underdeveloped to more developed nations. In the face of a formulation which blamed underdevelopment on feudal isolation from the dynamic forces of capitalism, Frank focused on exchange and even defined seventeenth century Latin America as capitalist. In the heat of ideological struggle, Frank's work had the virtue of simplicity. Those who understood a different perspective could easily grasp this simple reversal (though a more fundamental contribution of Frank was his analysis of the internalization of imperialism in its impact on shaping of classes and class forces which Frank identified as a process of underdevelopment — and this element seems to have escaped the understanding of bourgeois theorists).

The sectarian critique of dependency is correct in the sense that dependency theorists have dwelt on the question: why Latin America did not undergo a capitalist development like that of England and Northern Europe. Stating the problem in this fashion does put forth implicitly the assumption that without reinforcement of the position of an agrocommercial bourgeoisie by external forces, industrial capitalism would have developed in Latin America as it did in England. And some critical junctures have been located in which local capital has contested for power and been crushed by domestic agrocommercial ruling classes in combination with foreign interests. It answers the question essentially by looking to the integration of the area into the expanding capitalist core, thus emphasizing the reflexive aspect of Latin American development — that colonial and neocolonial economy and, consequently, class structure have been shaped by the needs of the center.

It seems to me that the analyses generated by posing the question of development in terms of participation in the world system have generated useful explanation, supported by solid historical evidence. The explanation is not merely why capitalist development characteristic of the core did not develop in Latin America. The dependency perspective has also explained, though partially, the development of dependent capitalism.

To what extent has Latin American development been determined, not reflexively in response to external forces, but as a result of internal forces and contradictions? Obviously, no European market could call forth silver mines in Cuba or sugar plantations on the Pampas of Argentina. But would local capital have responded differently had the role of foreign capital been less influential? For example, would the effort to increase surplus value have moved beyond extending the length of the work day or intensifying the labor process to altering production, itself. In its focus on the interaction with the world system, the dependency perspective tends to draw attention away from this question.

In its beginnings as a negation of bourgeois theories of development, radical dependency had strength in simplicity, but also a weakness. It is one thing to turn on its head the Hegelian dialectic. A similar effort worked upon a lesser set of concepts has an impoverished result. Although it does not substitute nation for class as the sectarians charge, it has indeed defined a mode of production by an analysis of circulation. It ignores the labor process and thus tends to understand history as a conflict among the owning classes. It fails as a guide to revolutionary action.

The labor theory of value is central in the Marxist understanding of history. The process by which surplus value is appropriated by the owning classes is critical in determining the objective antagonistic interests of the owning and the producing classes. The nature and the rate of exploitation imbedded in the labor process shape consciousness and, ultimately, the forms and level of class struggle. In the dialectical transition from feudalism to capitalism, a manufacturing bourgeoisie becomes ascendent through its efforts to increase the rate of surplus value which goes beyond lengthening the workday and intensifying the labor process. In their competitive struggle for survival and a higher rate of surplus, the capitalists transform the labor process. The triumph of the bourgeoisie is a new mode of production in which feudal classes have been reduced to the status of remnants; servile labor has been replaced by wage labor, a new concept of property and a new legal structure have been implanted which provide for investment mechanisms required by industrial capitalism; and the nature of the labor process has been changed and with it the creation of new classes, class interests, and class consciousness. Though the change is dialectical and remnants of the past remain, nonetheless there is a consistency within the new mode of production. With the new labor process of capitalist production, the producing classes are formed by a social existence which shapes a proletarian consciousness as well as proletarian class interest and proletarian forms of class struggle. The competition among capitalists forces investment, which creates a higher organic composition of capital with its tendency toward a falling rate of profit. As Marx analyzed the tendencies of capitalism, this mode of production with its unplanned anarchy of production and its fundamental contradiction between the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation generates crises. Capitalism also creates class forces which are shaped and mobilized by its increasing crises. In its development it creates not only the agents of its own destruction but the productive forces upon which a transition to socialism can go forward.

This understanding of a historical movement is the result of analysis of real historical experience leading to a specification of the tendencies within capitalist development. It specifies how capitalism as a closed system develops. With the recognition that capitalism is not a closed system but is still in an accelerating process of internationalization toward closure, and beneath the confusing complexities of working class cooptation in periods of rapid capital accumulation and of revolutions which have arisen not from the contradictions of advanced capitalism but rather from the contradictions of imperialism, this Marxian understanding of historical development remains accurate and fundamental. An analysis can only be useful as a guide to revolutionary action if it includes an understanding of the labor process as the locus of social existence, shaping class consciousness and the forms of class struggle.

The radical dependency perspective does not deny analysis of the labor process. It does point out that production for external markets has been a basic element in the formation of underdevelopment. Production for external markets has been vitally important in establishing the interests of dominant classes in Latin America as well as in the specific correlation of class forces. Failure to recognize this element in the historical development of Latin America precludes an understanding of that history.

It is true that just as markets created by English imperialism favored the manufacturing bourgeoisie in England, the availability of markets for primary products of Latin America strengthened the position of agrocommercial and mining classes in Latin America. In this sense, the dependency perspective helps to identify the impact of relations with the world system on the correlation of class forces within all nations which have entered into such relations. However, in the English case, these market opportunities arose largely as a result of foreign policies which reflected ascendency of the manufacturing bourgeoisie which was the principal beneficiary. This history is directly consistent with the Marxist analysis of capitalism as a closed system. That is, the manufacturing bourgeoisie became dominant over its feudal predecessors fundamentally because the forces of production had advanced to a point that maintenance of feudal productive relations was no longer possible. The interaction with undeveloped and underdeveloped societies only confirmed and accentuated the rise of a manufacturing bourgeoisie, which Marxixt analysis of historical development would expect.

Latin America's relation to the world system was significantly different in that it resulted in the establishment of economies and, consequently, of class systems initially as the exclusive result of the policies of the more developed countries. The ruling classes in Latin America arose on the basis of these colonial economies. Once established, the dominance of the export sector was supported by imperialism.

The development of industrial capitalism in England and Northern Europe has been characterized by the elegant dialectical movement described by Marxist analysis, driven by its own internal contradictions. The context of dependent capitalist development contains forces which influence historical development, causing it to deviate from the course which it would follow if development occurred without this influence. While dependent capitalist development is in no way "unnatural" or "distorted" in any absolute sense, since it is one locus of the process of world capitalist development, its context is different from that which was the locus of analysis upon which the Marxist understanding of capitalist development was created. In my opinion, the sectarian critics' refusal to accept the significance of the differential loci results in an inadequate, rigidified analysis.

While the radical dependency perspective only brings out elements in the context of dependent capitalist development which differ from that of the development of the now advanced capitalist countries, some sectarian critics have raised this perspective to the level of a general theory. In so doing, they attempt to make dependency into a competitor with Marxist theory and methodology. In my opinion, the concepts used by left dependentistas do not sufficiently specify a set of relationships to constitute a theory. But if these concepts were to add up to a theory, it is a special rather than a general theory. As a special theory, it seeks an understanding of social formations which have been created essentially through their integration into an expanding world capitalist system. It is not an alternative to Marxist analysis. It can be a perspective which makes a Marxist analysis of these social formations possible by exploring the totality of Latin American dependent capitalist development.