> Jim,which dependentista's? Where? A lot of critics of dependency theory >make criticisms without mentioning who and what they are criticizing. >C.Leys is one of the worst perpetrators here. For example, in one of his >papers (in the collection The Rise and Fall of Development Theory) he >presents a sweeping critique of dependency theory yet only cites 1 paper >by Cardoso, 1 book by Norman Girvan and 2 books by Frank. No mention of >the Cardoso-Rey, Cardoso-Marini debates etc etc. That is terrible. > Most of the dependency theorists have never been translated into >english. Many lost their lives in Latin American political struggle. > >Sam Pawlett Steven Stern, "Feudalism, Capitalism and the World-System in the Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean", American Historical Review, Oct. 1988: "To accept a simple choice between 'feudalism' and 'capitalism,' then, is to walk into a conceptual trap. Laclau's brief discussion of feudal-like relations of production served, at a particular moment in an evolving debate, to expose [Andre] Frank's defects. But it did not really solve the deeper conundrum posed by the interpretation of the colonial economy. In this sense, Wallerstein was right when he argued in 1974 that Laclau's was not the last word. What is noteworthy, however, is the speed with which the Latin American literature moved beyond Laclau's initial statement. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a boom in creative Marxian scholarship in Latin America. Before 'The Modern World-System' joined the fray, colonial studies had already yielded a series of sophisticated positions on feudalism, capitalism and the world-economy." Stern then lists in a footnote works by the following authors that exemplified such a boom in Marxian analysis: 1. Ciro Cardoso 2. Jacob Gorender 3. Hector Malave Mata And an author from another area of the world who were influenced by this research: Jairus Banaji Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
