A Transition That Never Happened

Abstract

Eastern Europe and the USSR were capitalist peripheries and semi-peripheries before 1917/1939, and they started being that again in recent months (Chase-Dunn, 1992; Juchler, 1992; Tausch, 1991b). Socialism once was described by some dependency theories as the alternative to periphery capitalism (Amin, 1975). Most dependency theories and later world system approaches do indeed endorse some kind of socialism or other, even if only by implication (Cardoso, 1979). When penetration by transnational capital inhibits long-term economic growth, it is logical to have less dependence from transnational capital, or none at all. Romania had less core capital penetration than Malaysia, and yet its long-term performance compares miserably with Malaysia. When public investment is beneficial for income redistribution, let us enjoy its benefits and expand it while we can; maybe people in the GDR voted with their feet when the mere opportunity arose to go Westward. When peripheral capitalism in the end means stagnation and inequality and the political repression that we saw in countries like South America, it is necessary to think about alternatives. But what can we learn from socialism? The implicit option for socialism that was inherent in most dependency theories, and from which we cannot escape, was spelt out most clearly in Cardoso (1979). That precisely those societies that once were thought by many to be the alternative to periphery capitalism have rejoined the capitalist camp must have the most profound repercussions for dependency theory and all approaches that were inspired by it.