Dependency Theory

[Comrade #138672]

Dependency theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory) is a sociology theory based on Lenin's concept of imperialism. It acknowledges that Third World countries are exploited by the more wealthy countries.

It opposes the theory of development, which states that Third World countries are merely 'underdeveloped', without recognizing the interaction between those and more advanced countries.

What exactly is the difference between dependency theory and Lenin's concept of Imperialism? The former seems to be only a simple relabeling of Imperialism.

[jookyle]

I do not think it's wise to simply label dependency theory as a bourgeois conception. If anything, I would simply call it an extension of the Lenin's concept of imperialism. Dependency theory simply describes situation in modern terms in light of modern occurrences such neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism, and the tactics of institutions such as the IMF. Dependency theory is an aspect and driving force of modern day imperialism. It does not replace the concept of imperialism, it simply gives a categorization for certain observances within imperialism.

[Comrade #138672]

I do not think it's wise to simply label dependency theory as a bourgeois conception. If anything, I would simply call it an extension of the Lenin's concept of imperialism. Dependency theory simply describes situation in modern terms in light of modern occurrences such neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism, and the tactics of institutions such as the IMF. Dependency theory is an aspect and driving force of modern day imperialism. It does not replace the concept of imperialism, it simply gives a categorization for certain observances within imperialism.Ah, I see. So I was wrong.

What about sociology in general? Isn't it a bourgeois science with little use for Marxists?

[BIXX]

Ah, I see. So I was wrong.

What about sociology in general? Isn't it a bourgeois science with little use for Marxists?

No science is inherently bourgeois, and it can have much use for communists, if my understanding of it is correct.

[Craig_J]

Ah, I see. So I was wrong.

What about sociology in general? Isn't it a bourgeois science with little use for Marxists?

As a student of sociology in my second year of A levels (and who indeed took a sociology exam today) I can tell you it depends entirely on what way you look at it...

Like a Question in my exam asked 'To what extetent can, and should sociology be conisdered a science'. So first of all you've got the debate over whther it's scientific at all. You have your sturcutralist theorists such as functionalists (the more centre right/ right sided approach that believes society is fine as it is and should develop slowly, like an evoloutinoary process) and other structralist theories such as Marxism (who I guess I don't need to explain!) who believe sociology can and should be a science as it can reveal what causes people to act as they do in terms of a strucutre influencing us rather than free will. Then you get action theorists and culturalist theorists who argue that we either act as a culture or as complete idnivudals and that sociology IS NOT a science at all. The problem with this theory is that if sociology can't be considered a science there may be next to no point in studying it...

And if we do take sociology as a science you could say it's a bourgeosie science, deifnantly in temrs of fucntionalism, as they argue every aspect of society *(ncluding crime which my exam was about today) is NEEDED for society as everything that exists in society plays positive functions, even if they're hard to spot.

It can still be useful for Marxism to consider it scientifc though as if you don't consider it scientific how can you ever propose it as workable? The whole system of Marxism depends on capitalism infleucning us to make us commit crime and also to create inequaltiies. If it isn't a science it becomes merely a indvidual choice. For example, if you commit crime it is your choice and has nothing to do with a system that doesn't exist (I'm by no way what so ever saying this is the case, I'm merely saying it's the case if you don't conisder Marxism to be scientifc). And if you fail to get a good paid job, tough luck, Marxism isn't a sicence so how can you blame a state when it's down to your free will? (again not saying this is the cae as I believe the truth is the opposite, I'm merely stating the problems of considering sociology as unscientific which means also considering Marxism as unscientific.)

So yeah, Marxism definatnly benefits from the 'science' (down to interpretation whether it's a science or not) of sociology. I think the main problem is that sociology is aminly infleucned by bourgeosie theorists who aim to try and explain WHY society is as it is rather than explain WHY IT IS NOT as it is. It's also mcuh easier to explain the ADVANTAGES of society bieng as it is rather than explain the DISADVANTAGES of society beign as it is.

Hope I'm at least somewhat clear, sometimes I find it hard to put my own knowledge into an understandable strucutre, which definantly needs sorting if I ever want to convince people of my left wing beleifs!

[Craig_J]

No science is inherently bourgeois, and it can have much use for communists, if my understanding of it is correct.

Definantly, assesing the state of capitlaism is a sociological science in itself and is a fundamental basis of Marxism, particularly in the orginal writings of Karl Marx.