LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES has some very useful debates about dependency theory. These were very concrete, empirical.
> Also, dependency theory was not the only product of the left --
> Kalecki, for one? -- nor were all versions of it simply denying the
> possibility of capitalist development, though all versions probably
> did deny that capitalist development in the "third world" was going to
> be a replica of the "first". Anyway,
It seems to serve some people's sectarian purposes to equate the left (excluding them and their friends, of course) with "third worldism" or "dependency theory." It's easier to argue against straw men than to deal with serious issues in a substantive way.
> 2. Isn't dependency theory pretty moribund at this time? But,
The left as a whole that's left over from the 1960s and 1970s is pretty moribund (in terms of its effects) and fragmented.
But you are right that dependency theory has had its day and has largely gone away. (There's a fellow on the pen-l list who fits the dependency tag pretty well.) A lot of their insights were combined with more classical-Marxist ideas, while some of the latter have been jettisoned.
> 3. Didn't dependency theory play an important role in its time and
> context? It's faults may be legion, but I think it's left a legacy
> that is worthwhile. Does anyone want to revert to modernisation
> theory, pattern variables, tradition/modernity, stages of growth, and
> Huntington -- although it does seem at times that, in different
> language, we are back there.
yeah, dependency theory did make some major clarifications.
For more productive discussion, I think it's useful to get away from the whole "dependency theory" tag. (It's been reified.) Some dependency ideas should play a role in any emerging synthetic leftist world view... JD