an instrument of conquest and is still today an instrument of domination."(1)The Instituto Nacional Indigenista(National Indian Institute)of Mexico confirms this observation when it notes that "the mestizo population,in fact,always lives in a city, a center of an intercultural region,which acts as the metropolis of a zone of indigenous population and which maintains with the underdeveloped communities an intimate relation which links the center with the satellite communities."(2)The Institute goes on to point out that "between the mestizos who live in the nuclear city of the region and the Indians who live in the peasant hinterland there is in reality a closer economic and social interdependence than might at first glance appear"and that the provincial metropoles "by being centers of intercourse are also centers of exploitation."(3) Thus these metropolis-satellite relations are not limited to the imperial or international level but penetrate and structure the very economic,political,and social life of the Latin American colonies and countries.Just as the colonial and national capital and its export sector become the satellite of the Iberian(and later of other)metropoles of the world economic system,this satellite immediately becomes a colonial and then a national metropolis with respect to the productive sectors and population of the interior.Furthermore,the provincial capitals,which thus are themselves satellites of the national metropolis--and through the latter of the world metropolis--are in turn provincial centers around which their own local satellites orbit.Thus,a whole chain of constellations of metropoles and satellites relates all parts of the whole system from its metropolitan center in Europe or the United States to the farthest outpost in the Latin American countryside. When we examine this metropolis-satellite structure,we find that each of the satellites, including now-underdeveloped Spain and Portugal,serves as an instrument to suck capital or economic surplus out of its own satellites and to channel part of this surplus to the world metropolis of which all are satellites.Moreover,each national and local metropolis serves to impose and maintain the monopolistc structure and exploitative relationship of this system (as the Instituto Nacional Indigenista of Mexico calls it)as long as it serves the interests of the metropoles which take advantage of this global, national,and local structure to promote their own development and the enrichment of their ruling classes. These are the principal and still surviving structural characteristics which were implanted in Latin America by the Conquest.Beyond examining the establishment of this colonial structure in its historical context,the proposed approach calls for study of the development--and underdevelopment--of these metropoles and satellites of Latin America throughout the following and still continuing historical process.In this way we can understand why there were and still are tendencies in the Latin American and world capitalist structure which seem to lead to the development of the metropolis and the underdevelopment of the satellite and why,particularly,the satellized national, regional,and local metropoles in Latin America find that their economic development is at best a limited or underdeveloped development.an instrument of conquest and is still today an instrument of domination."(1) The Instituto Nacional Indigenista (National Indian Institute) of Mexico confirms this observation when it notes that "the mestizo population, in fact, always lives in a city, a center of an intercultural region, which acts as the metropolis of a zone of indigenous population and which maintains with the underdeveloped communities an intimate relation which links the center with the satellite communities."(2) The Institute goes on to point out that "between the mestizos who live in the nuclear city of the region and the Indians who live in the peasant hinterland there is in reality a closer economic and social interdependence than might at first glance appear" and that the provincial metropoles "by being centers of intercourse are also centers of exploitation."(3) Thus these metropolis-satellite relations are not limited to the imperial or international level but penetrate and structure the very economic, political, and social life of the Latin American colonies and countries. Just as the colonial and national capital and its export sector become the satellite of the Iberian (and later of other) metropoles of the world economic system, this satellite immediately becomes a colonial and then a national metropolis with respect to the productive sectors and population of the interior. Furthermore, the provincial capitals, which thus are themselves satellites of the national metropolis--and through the latter of the world metropolis--are in turn provincial centers around which their own local satellites orbit. Thus, a whole chain of constellations of metropoles and satellites relates all parts of the whole system from its metropolitan center in Europe or the United States to the farthest outpost in the Latin American countryside. When we examine this metropolis-satellite structure, we find that each of the satellites, including now-underdeveloped Spain and Portugal, serves as an instrument to suck capital or economic surplus out of its own satellites and to channel part of this surplus to the world metropolis of which all are satellites. Moreover, each national and local metropolis serves to impose and maintain the monopolistc structure and exploitative relationship of this system (as the Instituto Nacional Indigenista of Mexico calls it) as long as it serves the interests of the metropoles which take advantage of this global, national, and local structure to promote their own development and the enrichment of their ruling classes. These are the principal and still surviving structural characteristics which were implanted in Latin America by the Conquest. Beyond examining the establishment of this colonial structure in its historical context, the proposed approach calls for study of the development--and underdevelopment--of these metropoles and satellites of Latin America throughout the following and still continuing historical process. In this way we can understand why there were and still are tendencies in the Latin American and world capitalist structure which seem to lead to the development of the metropolis and the underdevelopment of the satellite and why, particularly, the satellized national, regional, and local metropoles in Latin America find that their economic development is at best a limited or underdeveloped development