[T]he state in dependent capitalism generates its own social base, since its productive function is to assure capital accumulation, and since in performing this function, it creates a sector of public entrepreneurs. At times this stratum is called the “state bourgeoisie”, to emphasize that these social agents are not simple bureaucrats nor do they simply implement the “public good”. They function, sociologically, as the “officeholders of capital.” (210)
F.H. Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependency and Development in Latin America.
I am impressed how the authors were able to discern what is unique about developmental capitalism and the impact of the core/periphery divide. If one were to extrapolate their thesis to today, one can see the origins of what many are now calling ‘state capitalism’ in the BRICs. If we follow dependency theory, these new capitalist organizations are based on the need to develop within a monopolistic global economy, competing for monopoly power with western dominant capital as a natural outgrowth of underdevelopment. What is particularly perverse, particularly in a country like China, is the fusion of the economic power of capital with the coercive power of the state without any real mediation…with all the negative implications involved.
I am impressed how the authors were able to discern what is unique about developmental capitalism and the impact of the core/periphery divide. If one were to extrapolate their thesis to today, one can see the origins of what many are now calling ‘state capitalism’ in the BRICs. If we follow dependency theory, these new capitalist organizations are based on the need to develop within a monopolistic global economy, competing for monopoly power with western dominant capital as a natural outgrowth of underdevelopment. What is particularly perverse, particularly in a country like China, is the fusion of the economic power of capital with the coercive power of the state without any real mediation…with all the negative implications involved.
