50 TH : Dependency,the Pink Tide and Latin American Perspectives

Latin American Perspectives was born out of widespread dissatisfaction with the English language academic journals in North America that covered Latin American political and social issues. Another factor was the failure of mainstream publications to seriously recognize the legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution and the many other attempts at radical and revolutionary change that were commonly suppressed by violent US-backed counterinsurgencies and Washington’s powerful economic blackmail.

When LAP was founded I was a recently minted PhD who had participated in the anti-war and Civil Rights movements. I was immediately drawn to the radical, open discussions and debates that LAP fostered around dependency theory. This led me to contribute my first article to the journal. I was delighted to join many others who contributed to LAP’s special editions and books on dependency theory. I was excited about LAP’s rigorous and broadly Marxist framework that acknowledged the leading currents within the Latin American left and did not compromise with academic apologists for US imperialism or engage in attacks on the Cuban revolution from either the left or right.

LAP’s discussions on dependency theory stood in sharp contrast with the mainstream developmentalist approaches that had anchored US foreign policy in the region. LAP recognized important shades of difference in theory and practice that too often evaded mainstream scholarship. At the same time LAP did not accept the off-handed dismissal of dependency from either left or right. They helped establish a deeper understanding of dependency under capitalism, the specific ways it has changed over time, and its role in global imperialism. Above all, they respected and valued the work of many left scholars from Latin America who contributed unique, valuable insights.

Fast forward to the present day and LAP continues to be at the cutting edge of the debates within the Americas, both North and South. I am particularly impressed with the collection of articles analyzing the “Pink Tide” and left-leaning governments from Argentina to Mexico. Here too LAP has tended to critically probe mainstream scholarship that on the one hand overstates the extent of left electoral victories and on the other hand fails to recognize important changes in the hemisphere’s shifting political terrain. LAP reminds us that gradual motion and shades of difference may (or may not) signal deeper political and economic trends moving towards national liberation and social justice.

I refer specifically to the January 2019 edition of LAP, “Pink-Tide Governments: Pragmatic and Populist Responses to Challenges from the Right” (Issue 224, Volume 46, Number 1) edited by Steve Ellner. ¹ Ellner’s analysis starts by examining the economic and social forces that have produced a range of left-leaning governments whose political base may span the spectrum from moderately reformist to openly anti-imperialist. Far from drawing simple conclusions from this broad array of political forces that won national elections, Ellner makes important distinctions between the pragmatic leadership seeking to accommodate itself in a hostile political arena and others who seek to introduce reforms that strenghthen left-leaning social movements. As is typical of LAP, the analysis is grounded in a materialist understanding of the rising and ebbing political and economic forces that generate the broad array of political forces in today’s hemisphere, including rising social movements, including womens, indigenous and Afro-descendent forces. Admirably, LAP has avoided simplistic dismissals of new social movements and their potential for changing (or dissipating) the undercurrents that may lead to anything from movement-chilling reforms to national and anti-imperialist independence.

Ellner’s treatment of the “pink tide” rests on a careful analysis of electoral gains in which the currents move from right to left, sometimes in hardly perceptible ways, sometimes signaling more substantial political movement. Citing contributors to the special issue, Ellner probes the often subtle differences behind the political forces in play while drawing some general conclusions without over-generalizing. It is clear that LAP’s coverage is able to sort out significant differences: at one end of the spectrum we may consider the Chavistas in Venezuela who root themselves in revolutionary ideology and at the other end the pragmatic Lopez Obrador of Mexico. Regardless of their political diversity, however, no serious analysis can occur without constantly probing the pressing contradictions of global capitalism and US hegemony that form the backdrop for nascent and reviving movements. In this array of contradictory movements, materialism that is both dialectical and historic continues to represent a contemporary Marxist approach to Latin America’s political economy.