Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> >From Arghiri Emmanuel's "Myths of Development versus Myths of
> Underdevelopment" in the New Left Review, 1974, Vol. 85, which is a reply
> to Bill Warren's article "Imperialism and Capitalist Industrialization"
> that had appeared 4 issues earlier. The chart is meant to illustrate the
> point that "What development presupposes is not industrialization but,
> first and foremost, an increase of productivity in agriculture such that
> those who remain in agriculture can feed those who leave it."
This is not much different than the Arthur Lewis model where 'modernity'
or 'development' just equals how fast the industrial/urban sector can
absorb peasants being thrown off the land
i.e. becoming proletarianized. Historically, this proletarianization or
'primitive accumulation' has been a brutal affair often taking place
through force of arms as in colonial and neo-colonial Africa which had
significant negative consequences later, in terms of the economic
structure (workers i.e. former peasants were stuck in urban areas and
couldn't grow food for domestic needs.cf. Basil Davidson)
It's an important point as one can see the huge shantytowns that ring
southern cities comprised of former peasants who have not been
integrated into the industrial/urban economy except marginally as street
vendors and the occasional maquila. This failure to employ former
peasants has led to third world revolutions, this being the part of the
population
that becomes the most radicalized. So, in this situation the country is
stuck
in a transition which becomes a pseudo-metamorphesis. This is the point
Bettelheim takes up at length in the appendix to Emmanuel's book. What
is the solution? Socialism, of course.
Sam Pawlett
