On the one hand, Marini himself never imagined Dialéctica de la Dependencia as the classical work it would later become. After Latimer’s contextualisation then Marini’s proper essay begins, which does little to hide the critical nature of the writing. While economic history has been responsible for the first deviation (the “so-called orthodox Marxist studies”, p. 114), sociology has committed the second. In fact, his analysis of Marini’s text makes the latter much clearer, especially in its crucial points, highlighting its profound topicality. The importance of Marini’s text is, finally, perfectly summed up in a few lines by Osorio: “it was necessary to re-create Marxism, but not to repeat Marx […] That is what Marini’s book, Dialéctica de la dependencia, offers to theory and Marxism.