Class and dependency in contemporary capitalism: some reflections

Jan Lust Van Zeeland

(janlust@ymail.com)
Abstract: The relation of dependency between the countries of the North and the South
is determined by the laws that govern the capitalist mode of production, its internal
contradictions and the class struggle. This relation is not linear nor static, but dynamic and
changing. It finds expression in the role of the state and the local bourgeoisie of the
underdeveloped countries in maintaining and fortifying this relation. A structural and
fundamental change of the relation of dependency can only be brought about by a change in
the correlation of class forces within both the centre and the peripheral countries. The
Marxist version of dependency theory may be converted into an instrument for social
transformation in the peripheral countries if it is enriched by Marxist class analysis. This
means, only by accepting Marxism in full it has the possibility to become an arm in the
struggle for a society without exploitation and oppression.
Key words:

capitalism, state, dependency theory, Marxist class analysis, social

transformation
Introduction
Since its inception at the end of the 1940s, the project of development and in particular the
discourse on underdevelopment have been subject to the evolution of the capitalist
system of production and distribution and the international correlation of class forces. In
this sense, Marxist dependency theorist Marini (1969: 33) upholds that only a
comprehension of the evolution and the mechanisms that characterize the world capitalist
economy provides the right framework to locate and analyze the problems of Latin
America.
Within the context of the communist threat coming from the former Sovjet-Union,
the decolonization struggles in what has been denominated as the Third World and the

victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, in the decades of the 50s and 60s developmental
theorists critized the external and internal structures that hampered progress in the Third
World and elaborated on proposals that pointed to a change of these structures, although
confined within the overall capitalist framework. As such, the project of development that
surged at the end of the 1940s started off as a geopolitical project, meant to keep the
recently decolonized countries within the free world of capitalist exploitation and
oppression.
The economic crisis of the 1970s initiated a political, economic and social
restructuring of capitalist societies that culminated in the 90s with the worldwide
implementation of neoliberalism. With a working class in defense, the examination of the
structures of underdevelopment was changed for a normative analysis. After the collapse
of the Soviet-Union and the former real existing socialist countries in Eastern Europe in
the 80s, a New Word Order was starting to emerge. As a matter of fact, from then on it
was considered that no alternative existed to capitalism. The countries of the Third World
had to open up if they wanted to reap the fruits of welfare that the international capital
markets would provide.
In the last decade, South America is witnessing the rise of what might be called
centre-left or progressive regimes. These governments, mainly those of Venezuela, Ecuador
and Bolivia, propone an independent political, economic and military course, that is,
independent from the policymakers in Washington but not very independent from
international capital (Petras, 2011: 11-32). In a certain way, these administrations could be
considered, at least, as adhering to the idea that regards economic and social progress to be
negatively affected by the dominance of external forces. Processes and projects mostly
stimulated and pursued by former president of Venezuela Hugo Chavz that point to the
unification of the South American countries such as the Union of South American Nations
(UNASUR) and the Bank of the South (Banco del Sur), materialize this theory at a concrete
political level.
The emphasis that is being put on the dominant influence of foreign powers on the
national economy might lead to an underestimation of the relations these forces maintain
with their internal counterparts. The weight that is attributed to external political and
economic factors could even belittle the key social and economic positions internal social

classes and groups occupy within society that mobilize against projects that point to a
change of the rusted social structures of exploitation and oppression. Dos Santos (1986:
362), representing the Marxist variant of dependency theory, considers that in order to
understand the society of backwards countries within the world economy, you also have to
specify the character of the links that are established between the different internal and
specific elements of the studied socioeconomic units and this world economy. Poulantzas
(1976: 40) on the other hand, regards the process of imperialist domination and dependency
to appear as the reproduction, in the very heart of the dominated social formations, and
under specific forms for each of them, of the relation of domination that it links to the
imperialist metropolis.
In this essay we intend to clarify our position regarding the Marxist version of
dependency theory. Although we suppose this theory important for the elaboration of
proposals and the development of a political practice towards the liberation of the
population of the peripheral countries, that is, to the social transformation of their societies
defined as a process that follows a path that irreversibly changes the production relations
and which can be deconstructed in relations of ownership, functionality and exploitation;
who produces what, for whom and how (Carchedi, 1987: 95), we do not think it key to
pursue this objective. We consider that this theory needs to be reformulated and enriched by
Marxist class analysis in order that it can be used as a tool for transformational social
change and to evade its conversion into an instrument for what has been denominated as the
national bourgeoisie, in the end to be regarded as a lackey of international capital,
historically demonstrated in situations when capitalism was put in danger by the
gravediggers of the system. According to Petras and Veltmeyer (2010: 74), a serious
discussion of the prospects for socialism in Latin America today must take into account
world economic conditions in the current conjuncture, the state of U.S.-Latin American
relations relative to the project of world domination and imperialism, the specific impact on
Latin American countries of these conditions and relations, the conditions deriving from the
correlation of class forces within these countries, and the class nature and agency of the
state relative to these forces. In our point of view, the liberation of Latin America is only
real if, as explained by Carchedi (1989: 108-109), exploitation has been eradicated on as
well the production level as on the level of distribution.

This paper is structured in four sections. In the first section we aim to clarify the
relations of dependency and class in contemporary capitalism. This segment has the
objective to place problems regarding dependency and class within the dynamics of global
capitalist development. In section two, we elaborate on the characteristics of the states of
centre and peripheral countries in relation to the question of dependency. This unit will help
us to understand the political realities and limits of political independence of Latin
American countries within the actual phase of capitalism. In the following section we turn
to dependency theory and class analysis. This section intends to review some aspects of
dependency theory that might contrribute, enriched by a Marxist class analysis, to processes
that point to transformational social change in the capitalist countries of the periphery. In
section four we present our conclusions.
I. Relations of dependency and class in global capitalism
The relation between of what has been denominated as advanced and lesser developed
countries is determined by the laws that govern the capitalist mode of production, its
corresponding internal contradictions and the class struggle. According to Marx (1973:
264), capital has a tendency to accumulate, to drive to expand and to produce surplusvalue on an extended scale. This is law for capitalist production, imposed by incessant
revolutions in the methods of production themselves, by the depreciation of existing capital
always bound up with them, by the general competitive struggle and the need to improve
production and expand its scale merely as a means of self-preservation and under penalty of
ruin. The market must, therefore, be continually extended, so that its interrelations and the
conditions regulating them assume more and more the form of a natural law working
independently of the producer, and become ever more uncontrollable. The internal
contradiction seeks to resolve itself through expansion of the outlying field of production.
But the more productiveness develops, the more it finds itself at variance with the narrow
basis on which the conditions of consumption rest.
The relation between the underdeveloped and developed countries cannot be
described as linear or static, but has to be considered as dynamic and changing (Petras &
Veltmeyer, 2011: 105). Moreover, this relation must be analyzed in the sphere of production

and distribution. As former Marxist Ernesto Laclau (1974: 42) noted, the purely
underconsumptionist theories consider external expansion exclusively as an anwer to the
necessity of markets. In this way, they evade that colonial exploitation helps to raise the
average rate of profit and ensures the systems capacity to expand at the time of investment.
The reasons for capital to cross the border of its native country could be
summarized as follows. First of all, capital must and has an inherent tendency to enlarge
the market for its goods and services in order to assure the realization of the produced value
and surplus-value on an expanded scale. Second, it needs to find an outlet for capital that
cannot be properly invested in its country of origin as it does not generate an acceptable
rate of profit. This move is also caused by the fact that abroad it might generate a higher
profit rate than in capitals native country (Marx, 1973: 273). Needless to say, capital from
the advanced countries has not the intention to produce for the internal market of the
underdeveloped countries, but instead its productive activities are determined by the
world market. According to Foster, McChesney &, Jonna (2011), this drive to go outside
of and beyond its historical field of operations and the strength of this compulsion is the
greater the more monopolistic the firm and the greater the amount of surplus value it
disposes over and wishes to capitalize. Third, it has to assure the free flow of natural
resources and the provision of a cheap labour force, and fourth, capital has the urgent and
structural need to reduce the value of constant and variable capital in the developed
countries in order to increase the relative surplus value and to stop the tendency of the
profit rate in the centre countries from falling. 1 This objective is pursued by transferring the
production of those goods and services to the Third World that might help to decrease the
value of constant and variable capital in the advanced countries and to export these
commodities to the home countries of international capital (Marx, 1973: 257).2
1

Dos Santos (2010: 174) explains that the fall in the rate of profit has also pushed processes of
financialization. Powerful mechanisms were created to transfer income from the productive to the financial
sector. Foster, McChesney and Jonna (2011) argue that the problem to find sufficient investment outlets for
their enormous economic surpluses within production, turned giant corporations increasingly to speculation
within the global financial sphere. According to Amin (2010: 6), the oligopolies deliberately choose the route
of the financialisation of the capitalist system as it allowed them to concentrate a growing proportion of the
mass of profits realized in the real economy.
2
For instance, when the costs of living decrease because of the import of cheap food from the Third World,
the labour time socially necessary to reproduce the worker diminishes too. As aconsequence, the capitalist
may lower the wages, i.e., variable capital, without this affecting the reproduction of the labour force. In this
way, the relative surplus value increases because the worker still works the same amount of time, however,
the hours that he or she works for its own reproduction is diminished.

The dominance of global functioning companies and the political, economic and
military defense of their interests by the United States, might lead us to conclude that the
relations between the developed and underdeveloped countries could be described as
relations of domination and subordination. This relation, though, is the result of the
dialectical interplay of on the one hand the workings of international class relations and on
the other hand the international and local class struggle. As Petras and Veltmeyer (2011:
105) argue, the structure of global production, and the international relations of
domination and subordination, are dynamic and change over time, in part because the
geopolitical and economic concerns of the nation-state subject to imperial power leads to a
quest for relative autonomy by state officials and politicians in these countries and
protection of the national interest at issue. Nevertheless, and in this sense we agree with
Delgado Wise and Mrquez Covarrubias (2011: 32), within the spectrum of international
class relations, the underdeveloped peripheries operate as appendices of the global capital
network.
The question of globalization should be considered in the same line of reasoning as
the relations between the North and the South. Globalization is a class project for the
accumulation of capital on a global scale (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2011: 107), albeit its
conditions are not, as in previous phases, unilaterally dictated by capital from the centre
countries (Amin, 1998: 141). In addition, even though multilateral organizations such as the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World
Bank (WB) are, as Bello (2006: 1349) writes, key pillars of the system of global
governance of the neoliberal global order and serve the interests of the United States and
its allies in the North, it is, nonetheless, in the last instance the relation between capital
and labour, embodying contradictory class interests, that determines developments within
and between nation-states.
II. The states in the centre and peripheral countries
The relation of dependency between the centre and the peripheral countries finds
expression in the role of the state and the local bourgeoisie of the underdeveloped
countries in maintaining this relation, and in role of the state and the bourgeoise of the

advanced countries to expand, tighten and deepen this bond. The class struggle that is
product of the contradictory interests of antagonistic classes in capitalist society and, in a
certain way, to be considered as a specific manifestation of the internal contradictions of the
capitalist mode of production, reveals itself also in the state apparatus of the countries in the
centre and the periphery.
The political situation of an underdeveloped country reflected in the power of the
hegemonic fraction of the bourgeoisie in the state apparatus or in its dominant influence on
organs of government, is conditioned by the imperialist centre. 3 Therefore, the peripheral
countries have, as the developmental theorists of the 50s and the 60s would say, enormeous
difficulties to progress, not because of the fact that their bourgeoisie does not want to, but
because they are not able to. According to Poulantzas (1976: 67), the relative autonomy of
the national bourgeoisie in the political and ideological structure depends on the type and
level of its contradictions with imperialist foreign capital. Dos Santos (1986: 307-308), on
the other hand, manifests that domination is only possible if it is being supported by
national sectors that benefit from it.
As we explained in the first section, the internal situation of a country is not a mere
reflection of external factors. This means that although multinational capital dominates the
political and economic course of every bourgeois government, it does not signify that there
is no part to play by the representatives of national capital or the national bourgeoisie.
However, we need to make a distinction between the governments of the countries of the
North and the South. While, for instance, those in the advanced countries contribute to
the conquest of foreign markets and the protection of their own; put pressure on the
countries in the Third World to denationalize their companies in order to permit the
multinationals that originate in the North to acquire these; and generate the political and
economic conditions for their multinationals to move around the globe (Petras &
Veltmeyer, 2006: 21-22, 56), the capitalist state in the peripheral countries primarily
executes the economic and ideological functions that are indispensable for the enlarged
reproduction of multinational capital. Or, as Gonzlez Casanova (2006: 225) explains, the
role of national capital in the capitalist countries of the periphery, within the global
3

We do not consider governmental organs the same as the state; however, for the purposes of this essay it
does not pose a problem to use these as synonym. It goes too far to discuss the relation between the organs of
government and the state.

capitalist system, is being reduced to principally the exports of raw materials, occupying a
place as intermediaries in the metropolis of the countries of the South.
The unequal relation between the state apparatuses of the advanced and
underdeveloped countries could be understood as a relation of determinant and
determined instances. This relation can only be surpassed and eliminated by a change in the
correlation of class forces within both countries as their classes are intimately tied to one
another, although with specific differences regarding the importance, depth and scope of
this relation. For these reasons, a structural and fundamental change in the relations of
dependency can only be brought about when the local bourgeoisie of both countries is
politically eradicated.
Finally, and before turning to dependency theory and class analysis, we would like
to demonstrate with the example of the Peruvian state, how the bourgeoisie of the
peripheral countries are intimately related to the dominant classes of the North. As the
Peruvian case shows, in the last two decades its bourgeoisie was not only capable to
implement a large scale privatization process, but it was also the major political force
behind the free trade agreements that Peru signed with a variety of countries and the
countrys addiction to slavishly and timely pay its external debt. Actually, the Peruvian
bourgeoisie is the principal defender of the interests of (multinational) extractive capital,
having succeeded in avoiding an extra tax on the super profits of the mining corporations
and is stimulating infrastructural projects that facilitate the activities of extractive capital,
considered by Gudynas (2011: 399) as state-subsidies just like tax exonerations. In
addition, recently it has accomplished to induce the state to start a process that will
definitively lead to the privatization of the water supply of Lima, Perus capital city.
III. Dependency theory and class analysis
In this section we review some aspects of the Marxist variant of dependency theory with
the objective to present these as possible instruments that might contribute to processes
towards transformational social change in the capitalist countries of the periphery, however,
only in the case when these are enriched by a Marxist class analysis. Our main point of

reference in this analysis is Theotonio Dos Santos, who we consider, currently, as the
embodiment of this version of dependency theory.
It is not our intention to develop an extensive review of the discussion of the
Marxist dependentistas, as the prime objective of this essay is to clarify our points of view
regarding this version of dependency theory. In addition, (i) reasons of space do not permit
us to extend our arguments; and (ii) due to time restrictions we have not been able to
elaborate on a complete and coherent review of the theory.
The Marxist variant of dependency theory could be considered as useful for our
purposes as their analysis, in contrast to what we call the reformist version of dependency
theory represented by Cardoso, Falleto, Sunkel and Furtado, among others (Kay, 1989:
127), is framed within the objective of revolutionary change in the countries of the
periphery. In fact, as Kay (1989: 127) remarks, the Marxist dependentistas critize the
reformists for over-emphasizing the external causes of dependency and discuss, by
making reference to the failures of import-substituting industrialization and the increasing
dependence of most Latin American countries, that the nationalist-populist alliances are
inable to achieve genuine development. Besides, as the local bourgeoisie tends to turn
towards authoritarian solutions to deal with the crisis of the populist alliance, it becomes
even clearer that the political choice facing these countries is either fascism or socialism.
The reformist variant of dependency theory considers, according to Kay (1989: 130) and
refering to Sunkel, that to overcome external dependence exports need to expand and
diversified, the agrarian structure needs to be reformed and the industrialization process
should be redirected by developing a capital-goods sector and producing for exports. In
addition, Cardoso and Falleto, according to Kay (1989: 136, 138), argue that the
peripherys lack of a capital-goods sector forces it to link itself to the advanced countries
in order to complete its cycle of capital accumulation. Indeed, Cardoso and Falleto do not
see dependency and imperialism as external and internal sides of a single coin, with the
internal reduced to a reflection of the external.
In his article for the magazine Latin American Perspectives Ronald Chilcote
(1974: 21) summarizes three assumptions that, according to him, most proponents of
dependency theory support. We consider it important to reproduce these suppositions as
they clearly visualize the elements which a Marxist class analysis might provide in order

to help Marxist dependency theory to be converted into an instrument that contributes to

social transformation. First, it is generally believed that dependency theory provides a
framework for explanations of underdevelopment and development. Second, dependency
theory offers a foundation for analysis of class struggle and strategies to promote class
struggle in the interests of resolving societal contradictions and problems. Finally, an
understanding of dependency and the adoption of certain strategies to break dependency
leads to the restructuring of societies, a restructuring which limits capitalism and promotes
socialism in the seeking of a new and better society.
In a Marxist class analysis, according to Wright (1999), the pivotal concepts are
exploitation and domination. While domination does not necessarily imply exploitation as
for instance in the case of non-exploitative economic oppression (Wright, 1999),
exploitative relations are production relations (Carchedi, 1989: 108) and hence, relations of
domination are incorporated. Petras and Veltmeyer (2009: 32) state that a Marxist class
analysis involves a materialist analysis of the dynamics of capitalist development that
takes into account both the objectively given, the structural forces of productive and social
transformation, and the subjective or politically determined response to these conditions, a
dialectical interplay of the objective and subjective, in particular conjunctures and over
time.
A Marxist critique on the scheme centre-periphery as an explanatory tool for
development and underdevelopment might be formulated in the following way. First of all,
in this scheme the periphery appears as a passive entity and merely reflects the centre
(Aguilar, 1990: 147). Second, it obscures, as Petras and Veltmeyer (2006: 61-62) argue in
their critique on the categories centre, semiperiphery and periphery used by Immanuel
Wallerstein, the fundamental differences in class relations and the interests within every
nation-state. For this reason, third, the scheme centre-periphery is not able to determine (i)
the distribution of resources and income; (ii) the property relations of the means of
production; and (iii) the living standards of the population. In addition, fourth, it does not
contribute to an understanding of the political dynamics related to the differences in class
relations and interests within every country (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2006: 62).
Theotonio Dos Santos has included, in a certain way, these critiques in his work
Socialismo o Fascismo when he defines dependency as the situation that conditions

development in the periphery and that provides it with a specific form in a world context.
The relation of dependency between the centre and the peripheral countries has an internal
face, which is not the consequence of external factors but it is its own way to participate
in the development of the capitalist world economy (Dos Santos, 1978: 49). However, in
Imperialismo y Dependencia, Dos Santos (1986: 305) argues that dependency is based on
an international division of labour that permits industrial development in some countries
and limits it in others, subjecting them to the conditions induced by the centres of world
domination.
The struggle for social transformation in periperhal capitalist countries has not only
to face foreign enemies, but also needs to confront internal adversaries. Although it is
possible, as Chilcote observes, that dependency theory offers a foundation for strategies to
promote class struggle, though, for this to occur, the analysis of Marxist dependency
theorists should focus on exploitation within countries as a consequence of the workings of
the global capitalist system instead on relations of domination between countries. In his
analysis of dependency, Dos Santos (1986: 309) appears to assume this argument by
explaining that although internal conflicts may exist between the interests of the
internationally dominant forces and the interests of the dominated national rulers,
essentially these are common interests.
The relation of dependency might only be eliminated, as we argued above, when the
local bourgeoisie in as well the so-called dominant as in the dominated countries is
politically eliminated. Dos Santos (1986: 309) is not clear in this when he writes that
because the dependency situation configurates the internal situation of a country to which it
is structurally linked, it is not possible to break this situation by isolating the country from
foreign influences, as it would create chaos in the internal structure of society. The only
solution would be to change the internal structures of society that, at the same time, leads to
a confrontation with this international structure. By keeping the door open for a nationalist
process that in the passing of time should take the character of a socialist transformation of
society, the local (national) bourgeoisie might be strengthened and in this way the process
that is intended to proceed towards social transformation is, in fact, fortifying its own
gravediggers or internal enemies.

IV. Conclusions
The population of the capitalist countries in the periphery are dominated by the states of the
centre countries and exploited by international and local capital. Although differences exist
between the states of the centre and the peripheral countries, in general, the capitalist state
must be considered as an instrument in the hands of the dominant class. As a matter of fact,
the local bourgeoisie in the South actively participates in maintaining the relations of
dependency.
The development of peripheral capitalism can only be comprehended within the
evolution of the global capitalist system and contemplated as the dialectical interplay of the
workings of international class relations and the international and local class struggle. This
combination of objective and subjective conditions for capitalist development also creates
the possibility for social transformation in the peripheral countries.
The countries of the South are absolutely dependent on the North. Nevertheless,
capital from the advanced countries appears to be relatively dependent on the countries of
the South. This particular situation of relative dependency of international capital might
suppose that it is possible for peripheral countries to follow a more or less independent
capitalist road, i.e., from Washington. However, as the interests of international capital are
closely monitored and military defended by the capitalist centre under the flag of
multilateral institutions, the reality of this relation of dependency seems to be more absolute
than relative.
The liberation of the exploited and oppressed layers of the peripheral countries can
only be brought about by a fundamental and structural change in the correlation of class
forces within these countries. It might be lasting and irreversible, if also the bourgeoisie of
the advanced countries is politically eradicated. The reformist variant of dependency
theory, or what also might be denominated as developmentalism, never aspired,
according to Dos Santos (1986: 442) to break with the hegemonic centre but to get a more
prominent role and with relative independence in the international system to which these
economies and societies were inextricably linked.
The Marxist dependency theory may be converted into a suitable instrument for
social transformation if it would be enriched by Marxist class analysis. Currently, the

theory seems to be useful for as well nationalist and / or populist processes of

independence as for more left wing reformist oriented courses for societal change.
The conversion of the more or less revolutionary variant of dependency theory into
an arm for social transformation, in a theory for the liberation of the peoples in the
peripheral countries, is only possible when it adopts Marxism in full. In order to become a
stepping stone for the struggle towards a society without exploitation and oppression, it has
start to incorporate (i) the Marxist concept of social classes; (ii) the Marxist concept of
exploitation; and (iii) the Marxist concept of the capitalist state.
Bibliography
Aguilar M. Alonso (1990), El capitalismo del subdesarrollo, Mexico, Editorial Nuestro
Tiempo S.A.
Amin, Samir (2010), Financial crisis? Systemic crisis?, Council for the Development of
Social

Science

Research

in Africa

(CODESRIA),

Lecture

Series,

no.

3,

in

http://www.codesria.org/IMG/pdf/Samir_Amin_Financial_Crises_English-doc.pdf
(consulted 23/03/2013).
Amin, Samir (1998), Imperialismus und Globalisierung, in Das Manifest - heute. 150
Jahre Kapitalismuskritik, Hamburg, VSA Verlag.
Bello, Walden (2006), The capitalist conjuncture: over-accumulation, financial crises, and
the retreat from globalization, in Third World Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 8.
Carchedi, Guglielmo (1989), Classes and class analysis, in Erik Olin Wright (ed.), The
debate on classes, London, Verso.
Carchedi, Guglielmo (1987), Class analysis and social research, Oxford, Basil Blackwell
Ltd.

Chilcote, Ronald H. (1974), Dependency: A critical synthesis of the literature, Latin

American Perspectives, vol. 1, no. 1.
Delgado Wise, Ral & Humberto Mrquez Covarrubias (2011), Signos vitales del
capitalismo neoliberal: imperialismo, crisis y transformacin social, Estudios Crticos del
Desarrollo, vol. 1, no. 1.
Dos Santos, Theotonio (2010), Economa mundial, integracin regional y desarrollo
sustentable. Las nuevas tendencias y la integracin latinoamericana, Lima, Instituto de
Formacin y Desarrollo Docente de Derrama Magisterial.
Dos Santos, Theotonio (1986), Imperialismo y dependencia, Mexico, Ediciones Era.
Dos Santos, Theotonio (1978), Socialismo o Fascismo. El nuevo carcter de la
dependencia y el dilema latinoamericano, Mexico, Edicol S.A., Coleccin Filosofa y
Liberacin Latinoamericana.
Foster, John Bellamy, Robert W. McChesney & Jamil R. Jonna (2011), The
internationalization of Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review, vol, 63, no. 2, in
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/06/01/the-internationalization-of-monopoly-capital
(consulted 22/09/2012).
Gonzlez Casanovo, Pablo (2006), Sociologa de la explotacin, Buenos Aires, Clacso.
Gudynas, Eduardo (2011), Ms all del nuevo extractivismo: transiciones sostenibles y
alternativas al desarrollo, in Fernando Wanderley (ed.), El desarrollo en cuestin:
reflexiones desde Amrica Latina, La Paz, Plural Editores.
Kay, Cristbal (1989), Latin American theories of development and underdevelopment,
London, Routledge.

Laclau, Ernesto (1974), Feudalismo y capitalismo en Amrica Latina, in Cuadernos

Pasado y Presente (ed.), Modos de produccin en Amrica Latina, Crdoba, Cuadernos de
Pasado y Presente, no. 40.
Marini, Mauro Ruy (1969), Subdesarrollo y revolucin en Amrica Latina, Monthly
Review. Una revista socialista independiente, vol. 6, no. 61.
Marx, Carlos (1973), El Capital. Critica de la economa poltica. Tomo 3, Buenos Aires,
Editorial Cartago SRL. Translation by marxists.org.
Petras, James (2011), Latin Americas Twenty-First Century Socialism, in Henry
Veltmeyer (ed.), 21st Century Socialism. Reinventing the Project, Black Point (Nueva
Scotia) / Winnipeg (Manitoba), Fernwood Publishing.
Petras, James & Henry Veltmeyer (2011), Rethinking imperialist theory and US
imperialism in Latin America, HAOL, no. 26, in http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/DigitalLibrary/Publications/Detail/?lng=en&id=136387 (consulted 20/11/2012).
Petras, James & Henry Veltmeyer (2009), Whats left in Latin America? Regime change in
new times, Farnham (England) / Burlington (USA), Ashgate Publishing Limited / Ashgate
Publishing Company.
Petras, James & Henry Veltmeyer (2006), Imperio con imperialismo. La dinmica
globalizante del capitalismo neoliberal, Mexico, Siglo Veintiuno Editores S.A.
Poulantzas, Nicos (1976), Las clases sociales en el capitalismo actual, Mexico, Siglo
Veintiuno Editores S.A.
Wright, Erik Olin (1999), Foundations of class analysis: a Marxist perspective, in
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Foundations.pdf (consulted 12/02/2013).