>Don't know if I'd go that far. Leys used to espouse a dependency theory
>see esp. his *Underdevelopment in Kenya* (1974,U of Cal.) a classic
>Baran-type analysis. He says "To my mind underdevelopment theory
>represents an immense advance, politically and intellectually, over
>conventional development theory (or modernisation theory-SP)." pxii. In
>the last 20 or so years though, he has given up on it for he contends
>that dependency or underdevelopment theory has failed to explain the
>"African Tragedy" as he puts it. He now seems to think that sub-saharan
>Africa has never been capitalist at all and this is one of the problems.
>Leys now, justifiably I guess, is resigned to complete pessimism as
>everything tried in S. Africa has failed completely and only made the
>overall socio-economic-political situation worse. The situation there
>today is about as good as it's going to get barring significant drastic
>changes in the international political economy. A more optimistic (and
>complete) analysis is given by Patrick Bond in his various books.
>
>Sam Pawlett
I stand corrected. Furthermore, as a rule of thumb whatever Sam says I
agree with in advance. Unless, of course, it is related to the topic of
wild life preservation.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
