ABSTRACT
Although dependency analysis was inspired in part by Marxism and although several of the original thinkers of the school called themselves Marxists, many orthodox Marxists were quite critical of the theory. One of the most influential of these orthodox Marxists is Ernesto Laclau, an Argentine political scientist at the University of Essex in England, whose arguments heralded the “modes of analysis” approach. Laclau takes on the dependency approach through a critique of Frank and therefore does not address the more sophisticated thinkers like Cardoso and Faletto, although some of his criticism could be applied to them as well. His central argument is that Frank has a mistaken definition of capitalism, having overemphasized the importance of trade and commerce while having underestimated the mode of production—the way society is organized to produce goods. Laclau suggests that a more accurate analysis would seek to define the mixture of feudal, slave, and capitalist ways of producing goods, rather than simply lumping all these disparate modes of production under the single rubric of capitalism. The most significant implication of this greater complexity in analysis is that the optimism of Frank and others, who believed that socialism was the next historical stage (since capitalism was already well-established), was unfounded. Laclau implies that the options for the future of Latin America are not to be reduced to such simplistic formulae but rather will emerge from a long and complex process of class struggle in various mixed modes of production. Since Laclau’s writing might be especially difficult for readers not accustomed to Marxist terminology, we have added an appendix with a brief overview of pertinent Marxist concepts.
