The Misfortunes of the Dialectic of Dependence

In analyzing market inequality, R. Marini has proposed a theory which consists of several dialectical steps: (1) the rate of surplus value is determined not by labor productivity but by exploitation; (2) reduction in the value of wage-goods is the instrument which the capitalist uses to increase the rate of surplus value he appropriates; (3) production increase contributes, but does not solely determine, that result; (4) the diminution in the value of variable capital has the ambivalent effect of increasing the rate of surplus value but at the same time also increasing the composition value of capital, therefore tending to reduce the rate of earning; & (5) in order to save his theory from obvious disharmony with Latin American economic reality, Marini argues that to the extent the region exports raw materials which cheapens the capital of industrial countries, the tendency toward reduced earnings is counterbalanced. The weaknesses of Marini's theory are that it uses peripheral Latin American economy to resolve (in a contradictory fashion) the difficulties of the center-periphery relationship & that it establishes a 'logic of superexploitation' to explain the tendencies toward a decline in the exchange & increase in the supply of food & primary materials. In Las razones del neodesarrollismo (Reasons for Neodevelopment) Ruy Mauro Marini rejects criticisms by Cardoso & Serra of his 'economic reductionism' as a misrepresentation, insofar as it suggests that the economy is not a mere framework within which the political struggle takes place, but an autonomous realm in which the options & consequences are explicable entirely in terms of the forces which act within it. Furthermore, Marini's theory has nothing to do with the populism (narodniks) which Lenin denounced; the populists defended small scale agricultural production, which is not the case here. The proposal submitted by Cardoso & Serra for Brazilian development, surbordination of the working class to the State, equates development with the progress of Brazilian subimperialism. Such an alliance is contrary to Marx's assertion that the bourgeoisie's class interest always remains contrary to that of the proletariat, & is a misleading tactical prescription for contemporary Brazil. 5 Tables. S. Karganovic.