Maoism: An Alternative to Dependency Theory?

Author(s): Timothy F. Harding

Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 1, Dependency Theory: A Reassessment
(Spring, 1974), pp. 62-65
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2633528 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American
Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:20:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAOISM: AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEPENDENCY T'HEORY?
by
T'imothy
F. Harding
The importanceof the critiqueof dependencytheoryby Ocampo and Fer-
nandez is twofold.First,it represents an attemptto counterposea positionwhich
we can looselycall Marxist-Leninist-Maoist to botlbdependencytheoryas well as
to the traditionaltheoreticalapproachesof the CommunistPartiesallied withthe
Soviet Union. While Maoism is an importantrevolutionary currentin Latin
America,the creativeapplication to Latin America bv Latin Americansof the
experienceof the Chinese revolutionas abstractedtheoretically by the Chinese
leadershipis still in a beginningstage. As Cardoso and Frank point out below,
dependencytheoryhad its roots in critiquesboth of traditionalCommunist
analyses and of bourgeois-nationalist "structuralist"desarrollismo,but it was
developed within a largely academic environment.This academic birthplace
of
helped conditioncertainaspects dependencytheory:the implicitratherthan
explicituse of Marxism,the preferencefor jargon frombourgeoissocial science
over Marxistterms(for example,imperialismn is usuallyavoided and marginaliza-
tion becomes verycommon). The relationshipbetween Marxist revolutionary
theoryand academic dependencytheorybecame unclear,particularly as a genera-
tion of studentsin the United States and Latin Americawho had not themselves
carefully studicdthe classic Marxistwritersassumed that dependencytheorywas
revolutioniary Marxism,and yet they did not find in dependencyanalysisany
theoryof action.
Furthermore, dependency'spremisethat dependencybegan withthe conquest
in Latin Americaconflictedwith Lenin's insistencethat imperialismrepresenited
a qualitativelydifferentstage in capitalist developmentand the relationship
bctween advanccd capitalist countriesand colonial areas, and that this phase
began in the late nineteenthcentury.Imnpatience with dependencytheorydrove
manyinvolvedin praxisback to Marx, Lenin, and Mao, and in Fernaindez'and
Ocampo's casc into theircritiqueof where thcy thinkdependentistaswent off
thc Marxisttrail.
Fernaindezand Ocampo see feudalismas the major cause of backwardness
in Latin Americaand imperialismas the main reasonforthe survivalof feudalism
witlhwhichit is allied. This leads them to see the nationalbourgeoisie,or some
sectorsof it, as a potentialally in the revolutionary processratherthan as what
the dependentistascall an instrumentof imperialistdomination. Althoughthev
directtheirattackagainst dependencytheory,theirmain disagreements with the
traditionalapproachof the Moscow-oriented CommunistPartiesin Latin America
seem to be overhow to build a revolutioniary party,wlhothe nationalbourgeoisie
is, and what the natureof the alliance withit should be. Fernaindezand Ocampo
mightbe willingto concede that most of the bourgeoisieis now supportingim-
perialism,but they seem to thinkthat even some of these pro-imperialists are
potentialallies in the case of warsof nationalliberationagainstU.S. intervention.
Since it is not within the scope of their argument,they do not give us any
concreteevidence of significantsectorsof the Latin Americanbourgeoisie,frus-
tratedas they are by imperialism,breakingrankswith their foreignally. Is it
moredangerousforrevolutionaries to damn the whole bourgeoisieas irredeemably

62

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:20:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HARDING: MAOISM 63

dependent (the tendencyof the dependentistas)or to featurethe hope of a

nationalistbourgeoisrevolutionary ally which would only appear in the case of
large-scaleforeignmilitaryintervention(as in China or Vietnam)?
Afterthe Cuban Revolution,new groups involved in revolutionary action
tended to followthe 1962 Second Declaration of Havana in attackingthe tradi-
tionalCommunistPartypositionin Latin Americaof allyingwiththe "progressive
bourgeoisie"to bring a "popular-democratic" regimewhich was
anti-imperialist
supposed to break the imperialist-feudal alliance and build national capitalism
to the point that socialism would be on the agenda. Although the Cuban
revolutionaries had foughtunder a broad programaticbanner, the Fidelistas in
Latin America after 1961 argued that socialism should be the immediategoal
because capitalismwa7sthe cause of underdevelopment; theylooked to the peas-
antryas the revolutionary base and to the bourgeoisieas thleenemy. They ad-
vanced this view even thoughthe Cuban revolutionaries duringthe insurrection
and afterhad allied witha sectorof the nationalbourgeoisie,and the revolutionary
leadershipis still allied with the formertenantfarmersand small landownersin
Cuba who own some 40 percentof Cuban farmland and constitutea ruralpetty
bourgeoisie.Afterthe relativeisolation of guerrillaattemptsin Latin America,
some of those familiarwith the Cuban, Chinese, and Vietnamese revolutions
concluded that a crucial theoreticalaspect of these successfulrevolutions(and
missingfromthe Latin Americanarmed struggles)was the broad national liber-
ation strugglewhich appealed not only to urban bourgeoisnationalistsfrustrated
by imperialism,but to peasant would-be bourgeoisnationalistswho mobilized
to fightforprivateownershipof tenantplots or to expand minifundia.Implicit
in thispositionwas the idea that forthe peasantryof much of Latin Americait
was neessaryfirstto introducecapitalismand intensifyproductionand modern-
ize distributionbeforecollectivizedproductioncould be politicallyand economical-
ly successful.
Some of the dependentistas(Cardoso excepted) argue that neither the
backwardnor the advancedsectorsof the economycan developwithouta socialist
revolutionbecause of imperialism.Fernandezand Ocampo agreethat imperialism
maintains backwardness,but they argue that because imperialismmaintains
feudalism,the only successfulrevolutionary strategyinvolvesan alliance with the
bourgeoisie.They do not tell us how theythenproposeto deal withthe advanced
capitalistsectorof the economyafterthe seizureof powerby a movementled by
a revolutionarypartybased on the workingclass. We can presumeit would be by
socializingthe advanced sectors. If a revolutionarv partymakes clear that it will
expropriatethe advanced capitalistsectorsupon seizing power,how can it ally
with the bourgeoisie? Does not this mean that duringthe strugglefor power
revolutionariescan only ally theemselves with the most backwardsectorsof the
uirbanbourgeoisieand the pettybourgeoisie,the intellectuals,and the peasantry?
If this be the case, then could not the progressivesectorsof the middle class
and the peasantrybe won by a franklysocialist programwhieh points out to
them that theiraspirationswould only be won by a socialist revolutionmore
effectively than bv a movementwhich compriseswith their direct and most-
visibleoppressors,the national bourgeoisie?
While the traditionalCommunist Parties maintained a nationalistbour-
geois reformistprogramfor the modernisector, the dependentistasfeel (with
the possible exceptionof Cardoso, see his articlebelow) that only socialismis
capable of overcomingunderdevelopment.In theirzeal to change the definition

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:20:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 LATINAMERICANPERSPECTIVES

of the principaleneinyfromthe national bourgeoisieto imperialismFernaindez

and Ocampo tell us nothingabout the need for socialisttransformation of the
modernsector. However,unlikethe CommunistPartiesin Latin Americawhich
had allowed the bourgeoisieto play the leading role in the coalition with the
supposedlyrevolutionary party of the workingclass, Fernandez and Ocampo
seem to feel that the bourgeoisieis incapable of leadinga progressive transforma-
tion. It must be led by a workinig-class-based revolutionaryparty. (The Com-
munistPartiesoften theoretically stated the need for vanguardpartyleadership
in the coalitionwith the "national bourgeoisie,"but theyeitherdid not act on
this position,or they acted in the name of the bourgeoisiewithout any real
support.) This party,in orderto be successful,must enlist the supportof petty
bourgeoiselementsin the city and in the countrysidearound a programof in-
tensifyingcapitalistdevelopmentin the most backwardareas of the economy
even while collectivizationis being intrducedinto the most advanced sectors.
This perspectiveleads Fcrnandez and Ocampo to attack dependencytheorists
because the formerdo not think that seeing the national bourgeoisieas the
primaryenemyis a way of buildinga national liberationmovementor that the
insistenceon a purelIysocialistprogramwill mobilize the peasantryin a struggle
for (the bourgeoisaim of) owningtheirown land.
It remainsto be seen if in practicea movementbased on Fernandez and
Ocampo's positionwould act differentlv than the traditionalCommunistParties
have in Latin America,since the latterhave held the same basic positionson
feudalism,imperialism,and the alliance with a nationalistbourgeoisie. Pre-
sumablv (although tlheydo not clarifythis in the text) Fernaldez and Ocampo
would differwith the traditionalCommunist position by insistingthat the
leadershipbe in the hanidsof a workingclass partyand not in those of the bour-
geoisie;however,it is onilyin practicethat the CommunistPartieshave allowed
the bourgeoisieto lead with disastrousrcsults,while in theorytheyhave usually
agreed with Fernandez and Ocampo. Since the authors do not clarifytheir
differencewith traditionalCommunist tactics and theory,their omission rein-
forcesdependencytlheory which was developed out of Cuban praxisin critical
oppositionto traditionalCommunist Party theoryand practice.
Like the traditionalConmmunist Parties,Ferinaidezand Ocampo build their
theoreticalpositionlalmost exclusivelyon theirinterpretation of theorydeveloped
before1920,dealingonlIyin theoreticaland not empiricaltermswith the positions
theeyidentifyas dependentista. It was preciselythe refusalof the traditional
Communiststo investigateand confronit thc contemporaryempiricalrealityof
Latin America which led to thc developmentof depenidenicy literaturewith its
cmphasis onl empiricaldata. Will Ferinaidez and Ocaimpo's position be borne
out by empiricaldata? It is not cnough to cite otherempiricalliteraturesuch as
studiesby Hayterand Jalee (see articlcby Fernaindezand Ocampo) because a
carefulreadingof thesc studiessccms to supportdepcndenicy theoryas much as
it docs Ferna{idezand Ocampo. To rcsttheircase on Lenin's empiricaldata or
Mao's tacticalconclusionisis also unisatisfactory. Presumablyfutureinvestigation
would fill out theirargument.
The dependentistashave made a strongempiricalcase forthe non-existence
of a nationialbourgeoisiewhich would be importantenough to count as a
significantally. Fcrnaindczanid OcamDpoapparentlyt feel that the national bour-
geoisieis a crucialallv. lhcir case is asscrtcdbut not demionstrated. If theywere
to clarifythat thcyarc talkinigabout the importanceof allyingwith the urban

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:20:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HARDING:MAOISM 65

middle class and the petty-bourgeoisie peasantry,then theymust explain why a

socialistprogramcould not attractmiddle-classand peasant support.
Assumingthat the authorsare correctin theirview that feudalismpredom-
inates in agriculturein Latin America, they must still deal with how these
characteristicsare modifiedby the contextof imperialism.The survivalof feudal
determinants must then be demonstratedempiricallyin the face of the empirical
and theoreticalworkof Marxists(cited by Cardoso) who have argued that the
apparentlyfeudal formof much of Latin Americanagriculturehides a capitalist
reality. (They do not even cite these works).
There are other crucial questions raised by the Fernaindezand Ocampo
analysis. Why isn't the Peruvianjunta carrying out the programFernaindezand
Ocampo suggest;but how could the Peruvianarmydo so withoutbeing led by
a working-class based revolutionary party? Should they be supportedas the
agentsof a national bourgeoisiedestroyingfeudalismin the countryside?
If a directsocialistprogramis not a sufficientone to attractpeasant support,
whywas the movementassociatedwith Hugo Blanco in La Convencionin Peru
so successfuland such a threatto the rulingclass there? The Trotskyistposition
in Latin Americaholds, accordingto the theoryof "permanentrevolution,"that
any successfulrevolutionmust make the transitionfrom bourgeois-democratic
demandsto become a socialistrevolutionbecause only a socialistrevolutioncan
completethe bourgeoisie'shistorictaskswhich the latterare no longercapable of
carryingout. While Fernaindezand Ocampo seem to give priorityto the al-
liance with the progressivebourgeoisiein the struggleagainst feudalismand
imperialism,the Trotskyists emphasize the importanceof a revolutionary party
forthe successfultransformation of those involvedin bourgeoisnationaliststrug-
gles to a consciousnessof the need fora socialistrevolution.
It is clear fromdependencyanalysiswhy the Peruvianmilitarygovernment
is maintainingdependencydespite the changes they push; it is not clear from
the Fernaindez-Ocampo analysiswhat the limitationsof the Peruviangovernment
reformsare. Secondly,what was wrongwith the Unidad Popular programin
Chile fromtheirpoint of view? Was it just the implementationwhich went
wrong?We will have to wait foranotherarticleforthe answersto these crucial
questions.
In the application of Chinese Communist experienceto Latin America,
the authorsimmediatelyraise the question of how accuratelytheyhave assessed
the Chinese experience. Did Chiang Kai-shekrepresentthe progressivebour-
geoisiein China, and did the earlyand late allianceswith his forcesfacilitateor
set back the Chinese Revolution? Justbecause the Chinese governmentallowed
some elementsin the bourgeoisieto survivethe revolutionand even came to
depend on them does not mean that the alliance with these businessmenwas
crucialto the success of the insurrectionarymovement.Fern'andezand Ocampo
maybe raisingunfortunate expedienciesto the level of theoreticalrequirements.
By hammeringat ambiguous and underdevelopedaspects of dependency
theory,by drawingour attentionto aspectsof Marxisttheory,and by developing
theirtheoreticalapproach as an applicationof what they thinkdeterminedthe
success of the Chinese revolution,Fernaindezand Ocampo force us to move
ahead theoretically.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:20:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions