Re: Andre Gunar Frank & Marx

The relationship between early dependency theorists like Gunder Frank and
the core of the Marxist tradition occasioned vigorous debate in the 1970s
and 1980s.  There was some attempt to attack AGF's understanding of
Marxism, and various attempts to explain underdevelopment in terms more
congenial to orthodox Marxism.  The most durable of these attempts came to
be called the "mode of production approach."  This approach has its origins
in Ernesto Laclau's criticisms of Frank's work, and attempts to argue that
what has occurred in developing countries in the twentieth century is a
peculiar "articulation" between capitalism and precapitalist modes of
production that has limited development prospects for Southern countries.  

A second, more abortive, attempt at providing a Marxist response to
dependency theorists was Geoffrey Kay's "imperial neglect" thesis.
Briefly, Kay's argument was that the failure of the developing countries to
make economic progress can be understood as a result of the long dominance
of merchant capital, as opposed to industrial capital, in these countries.
Unfortunately, merchant capital does not alter means of production as
industrial capital does.  In effect, as Kay says in a widely-quoted line,
capitalism underdeveloped the Third World not because it exploited it, but
because it did not exploit it enough.

A third attempt, and one perhaps familiar to Marxists in Ireland, was the
late Bill Warren's attempt to defend the Leninist position that imperialism
has had a positive impact on development in the South.     

Some of the issues George Pennefather raises do occur in this debate, as I
recall (it's been a long time since I rummaged through it).  In addition, I
believe that while AGF himself did not make use of concepts like value,
declining profit, etc., other people in the dependency camp did.  Samir
Amin may be an example.  Check out Brewer's _Marxist Theories of 
Imperialism_.

What follows are some key texts in the debate and some overviews that may
be helpful to George.

1. Warren, Bill.  Imperialism: pioneer of capitalism, ed. John Sender.
London : NLB, 1980.

2. Blomstrom, Magnus, and Bjorn Hettne. Development theory
in transition: the dependency debate and beyond: Third World
responses. London : Zed ; Totowa, N.J. : US distributor,
Biblio Distribution Center, 1984.

3. Ronald H. Chilcote and Dale L. Johnson,eds. Theories of
development: mode of production or dependency?  Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications, 1983.

4. Booth, David. "Marxism and development sociology: Interpreting the
impasse." World Development 13, no. 7 (1985):
761-787.

5. Ruccio, David F. and Lawrence H. Simon. "Methodological Aspects of a
Marxian Approach to Development: An Analysis of the Modes of
Production." World Development 14, no. 2 (1986):
211-222.

6. Mouzelis, Nicos P. "Sociology of Development: Reflections on the
Present Crisis." World Development 22, no. 1 (February
1988): 23-44.

7.  Chilcote, Ronald H.  Dependency and Marxism: toward a resolution of the
debate.  Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 1982.

8.  Kay, Geoffrey K.  Development and underdevelopment : a Marxist
analysis.  London : Macmillan Press, 1975.

9.  Brewer, Anthony.  Marxist theories of imperialism : a critical survey.
London ; Boston : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.

10.  Laclau, Ernesto. "Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America."  _New
Left Review_ no. 67 (May-June 1971):  19-38.