questions

Can somebody please explain the following quotation to me:

"When we think of modernization and development, we tend to think of the
International Style of the Bauhaus, hig steel buildings, quiet running
engines and so on. We must recognize this image as self deception if we
are truly to look at things scientifically and in a world systems
perspective. If development is a world scale phenomena, then everything it
has produced, and not just those parts that are pleasing to the eye or to
the moral sense, must equally be called modern and developed. "Modern
architecture" must be seen as precisely what every major city in the third
world actually has today: steel and glass high rise buildings plus slums
built by squatters. FOr the slums are just as new as the high rises or
newer...From a world systems perspective we should never fall into the
sentimental error of talking about "poverty versus modernization" or
"slums versus development" because this langage takes our attention away
from the very things that need to be studied, namely, the modernization of
poverty and the development of slums."  from C. Douglas Lummis Radical
democracy p.66-67

I don't get how the connection between development and poverty is made on
this local scale. How is it exactly that the rise of modern cities in the
third world is paralleled with the rise of slums (it can't just be through
poor govt spending by which money is placed in grandiose projects rather
than improving the living condition of the majority - world systems seeks,
I think, a more systemic explanation).

How would you explain the idea of the modernization of poverty?

Finally, I understand, in theory, the claim that the affluence of the rich
countries is based on the poverty of the rest. But there are several
versions of this claim. I subscribe to a weak version: in that the
consumption patterns of the rich nations is only ecologically sustainable
by the lack of adequate patterns of consumption in the third world. What
are the stronger versions of this claim (for example, that their is a
direct appropriation of surplus value by the core from the periphery) and
are they defensible?

Anyway, I know these questions betray my ignorance, but I hope someone can
help.

Ivan