Marxism is a highly complex subject, and its contribution to theanalyses of imperialism and capitalist development in backward countries isno less so. It is in these areas that we find the widest divergencebetween the writings of Marx and Engels and those of many contemporaryMarxists, who claim that capitalist development in the periphery is nolonger feasible, or that it is so distorted that it can no longer leadtowards socialism. These views go against the spirit and the letter ofMarx's writings. Nevertheless, as a general rule, we do not find in thesecontemporary Marxist writers any effort to explain this divergence.In this context, what is important is to ask whether the differencesare attributable to changes in circumstances or in diagnosis; that is tosay, whether capitalism has been transformed in such a way that capitalistdevelopment in the periphery cannot take place within the modern capitalistsystem, or whether Marx and Engels' analyses were themselves overoptimisticregarding the possibilities of this development in the backwardareas of the world. At the same time, the writings of most contemporaryMarxists give the impression that Marxist interest in the problems ofcapitalist development in the periphery only began in the 1950s, ignoringthe important debates on these issues that took place before. One of themain aims of this thesis is to rectify this matter. Another aim is toclarify the conceptual issues around which the debates revolves, and toshow how many debates among 'dependency' writers echo similar debateswhich took place earlier within the Marxist tradition, although in mostcases their relevance has not been duly appreciated. I also try to showthe problems involved in seeking 'general' implications for contemporarysocialist political strategy from the analysis of imperialism andcapitalist development in the Third World.In this thesis I have divided the analysis into 4 parts; first, theperiod from the early writings of Marx and Engels to Lenin's Development ofCapitalism in Russia; second, the 'classical' writers on imperialism;third, the period from Lenin's April Theses to Bukharin's and Kunsinen's1928 theses (during the Sixth Congress of the COMINTERN), to the SeventhCongress and subsequent developments until the Cuban Revolution; and in thefourth, the Latin American 'dependency' debates. This thesis also containsan analysis of how both the Seventh Congress and the 'dependency'approaches were transformed into specific interpretations of the politicaland economic history of Chile.My analysis of the fourth period concentrates on the Latin America'dependency' debates, without discussing the works of other writers likeSaair Amin, Rey, Arrighi, or Emmanuel. It is not possible to reviewproperly, within the word limit of a thesis, the period I cover and alsoinclude these writers, and the overwhelming mass of other writings relatingto this fourth period which have appeared, aimed at either supporting orrefuting its basic theses, or simply reflecting its sudden ascendancy inacademic and intellectual circles hitherto relatively closed to radicalcritiques of current orthodoxy.
نام شخص به منزله سر شناسه - (مسئولیت معنوی درجه اول )