Comments on peripheral capitalism and its transformation

I. It is necessary to state from the outset a Fundamental coincidence of opinion with Prebisch’s article on “Socio-economic structure and crisis of peripheral capitalism”, if the selection of the critical points chosen by the commentator and tin? content of his remarks are to be intelligible. This area of coincidence can be broken down into two propositions: firstly, that the crisis of the system in the Latin American countries is a structural crisis, a theoretical understanding of which calls for analysis of the specific forms of capital accumulation, and of the social and political conflicts linked with these; and, secondly, that the analysis of the dynamic operation of the structure in question must begin with the internal factors. I understand, and accordingly agree, that this is a matter of the priority of internal over external factors at the start of the analysis, although the latter must not be left out of count. This second point is of great interest for the commentator, because it allows him also to invoke the authority of the article under consideration in discussions of a more punctual character; thus, for example, some time ago certain Argentinian economists, seeking to account for the military coup of 1976, gave a foremost place in their explanation to references to the new trends in the international division of labour (external factors) which would seem to be determining the resolution of internal conflicts. I note in passing that this ranking of the explanatory factors is, in that respect, akin to theoretical analyses such as those of Gramcsi (see Note sul Macchiarelli - Sulla Politica e sullo Stato Moderno), in which, in a few pages, he expounds a methodological proposal for the study of political conjunctures in which for the purposes of analysis internal factors acquire priority.