This group of over twenty essays was written mainly by Latin Americans but compiled by two North Americans, a political scientist and a sociologist. It seems to be bound together by the authors’ awareness of Marxian analysis as a tool for interpreting Latin America’s problems, although they are not all equally dependent on this analysis. Politics and questions of government policy are underlying themes in virtually every article, but the dialectician’s concern with economic determinism and with the class struggle emphasizes these factors at the expense of other aspects of the environment. This overconcentration seems a rather quaint conceit considering the developments in social science theory and methodology since Marx wrote. Nonetheless, I probably shall assign the collection to my undergraduate students, for it offers some instructive examples of the problems which one important sector of Latin American social scientists considers important and of how they formulate their views.
A majority of the authors represented, Latins and otherwise, respond to the question posed in the book’s title by opting for revolution and rejecting “reformism” in favor of the so-called conflict model of the social system. Although a Marxist analytical framework reinforces this viewpoint, it is consistent with the outlook of most Latin intellectuals, anyway. For that reason, North American students interested in the region should be exposed to the approach early, so that they can better understand the motivation behind policy decisions.
The Latins represented in this collection includes some who are very influential, not only because they are university teachers reaching many future leaders of their respective countries, but because they are among the best prepared social scientists in the region, albeit with a particular ideological cast to their thinking. Rodolfo Stavenhagen and Pablo González Casanova (Mexico) ; Luis Vitale, José Nun, and Torquato S. DiTella (Argentina) ; Glaucio Ary Dillon Soares and Teotônio dos Santos (Brazil) ; and Aníbal Quijano Obregón (Peru)—all have international reputations in their disciplines. Some of their younger colleagues included in the book undoubtedly will earn equal fame in the near future.
All of the non-Latins included in the collection happen to be North Americans, though Maurice Halperin is now based in Moscow rather than in the United States. Best known among them are Fredrick Pike, whose article on “Aspects of Class Relations in Chile, 1850-1960” was first published by HAHR (February 1963), and Merle Kling, whose “Toward a Theory of Power and Political Instability in Latin America” has been reprinted in so many anthologies as to make it a standard.” The other non-Latins, including J. P. Morray, James O'Conner, and the two compilers, offer interesting but not very significant contributions to the collection. One gets the feeling that their experience in Latin America is just a bit too limited to carry off successfully the kind of sweeping historical-analytical interpretations they attempt.
The articles are grouped in three sections. The first, “Overview,” includes seven pieces dealing with economic and social-political conditions on a regional basis. The second, “Class and Class Conflict,” has ten short articles on the political role of specific functional groups (the military, industrialists, miners, etc.), mainly but not always within the context of a single country. The third section, “Development and Politics,” contains six case studies. One is a general commentary by Oscar Delgado on “Revolutions, Reform, Conservatism,” and the rest individual country studies. The three sections are related to each other by a short but adequate general introduction and by commentaries of the editors before each contribution.
As a collection of important Latin American writings on development problems, this book would be a contribution at any reasonable price. At the paperback price of less than a dollar it is a real bargain.
