Our central concern in this issue is to raise new questions about dependency theory, elaborate and refine ideas, and generate new thinking on the subject. Timothy Harding, who was deeply involved in the dialogue and revision on the Fernández-Ocampo article, is Associate Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles and author of a recent study of labor in Brazil. Raúl A. Fernández and José F. Ocampo argue for discarding dependency theory altogether and identify a number of weaknesses in that theory. Fernández is Assistant Professor and Ocampo is Visiting Professor in the Program in Comparative Culture at the University of California, Irvine. Critical comments on their paper are offered by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Marvin Sternberg. Cardoso, director of the Centro Brasileiro de Análise e Planejamento in Sao Paulo and author of major contributions on dependency strongly attacks Fernández- Ocampo. Sternberg, Associate Professor of Economics at the State University of New York, Albany, attempts to move toward a reconciliation of theory by dependentistas and traditional Marxists. Now associated with the Latin American Institute of the Free University of Berlin, André Gunder Frank reviews his own writings on dependency and underdevelopment in the light of many criticisms he has received in recent years, and he offers a negative prognosis on the work of dependistas. Guy J. Gilbert, a graduate student in political scince at the University of California, Riverside, delves into another area; he examines and rebuts the proposition that dependency is of crucial significance in socialist countries.

The debate over the validity of dependency theory was initiated because of the importance of the question for the future of the Latin American people. It has become necessary to respond to Andre Gunder Frank's comments in Latin American Perspectives, (1974: 99-102) in order to clarify for the reader the most important points in the debate. The article that I co-authored with Raul Fernindez was partly a response to the political conviction that Marxist revolutionary intellectuals in Latin America must take a stand against the unprincipled opportunists who put their rhetoric and terroristic vanguardism at the service of imperialism and reaction. Some of these revolutionary phrase-mongersas Lenin called them -take refuge behind an unconditional support of the Cuban revolution. My response is certainly not motivated by any illusions that Andre Gunder Frank is ready to accept Marxist arguments or that it may be possible for him to enter into a meaningful dialogue, but because he has made a political response to our article.Marxism is a guide to revolutionary action. Both the first exponents of Marxism as well as its great practitioners -Lenin, Stalin, Mao -have defended it as the ideology of the proletariat, as the proletarian conception of the world and world history, and as the fundamental weapon for the definitive defeat of the bourgeoisie. The function of the bourgeois attack upon Marxism is to deprive Marxism of its intrinsically revolutionary character and to transform it into yet another &dquo;vision&dquo; of the eclectic, skeptical and relativistic world of the academics. The advance of the world revolutionary movement has caused many sociologists, anthropologists and economists (especially in Latin America) such as Cardoso to hide behind &dquo;Marxism&dquo; in order to mask their reactionary and counter-revolutionary stands which would otherwise appear grossly out of fashion given the explosive situation in this area. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon: the struggles of Marx and Engels against Bakunin and Lasalle, of Lenin against Kautsky, Plekhanov, Kievsky, Trotsky and others were part of the struggle of Marxism against right-and left-opportunism: against revisionism and anarchism.To favor the revolution theoretically it is not sufficient to shout in all directions that one welcomes the revolution. Is it not the case that sometimes the most ultra-leftist positions are the ones that least favor the revolution, objectively, at a given moment? The abstract defense of either violent revolution or guerrilla activity is not necessarily an indication of the Marxist revolutionary. Anarchism, for instance, proclaims the immediate destruction of the state, the impossibility of any conciliation and of any alliance, the rejection of the utilization of any type of bourgeois structures, the use of violence at all costs and the total rejection and abomination of all bourgeois politics. These ultra-radical positions do not make anarchists any more revolutionary than revisionists. Revisionism proclaims the peaceful t...

This section addresses the nature of two current programs, put forward by their sponsors as "answers" to the problems of industrialization in Latin America. Raúl Fernández, Associate Professor in the Program in Comparative Culture at the University of California, Irvine, with José F. Ocampo, present an analysis of the programs of "regional integration." Using the Andean Pact as a specific instance, or case study, Fernández and Ocampo argue that regional integration is a tool of imperialist domination, and they demonstrate the relationship between imperialist regional integration and the development of state capitalism in Colombia. Rosemary Galli, who teaches at Johnston College of Redlands University, presents an evaluation of another mechanism of imperialist "development" planning. Basing her study upon her own first hand experience with the United Nations Development System, Professor Galli's case study of the UNDS in Colombia shows the machinery of international development planning and its weaknesses. She concludes with a compelling case for the importance of national leadership in such planning.

Este estudio pretende encontrar el grado de correlación entre la enfermedad coronaria y la depresión. Los factores de riesgo, la afectividad, la conducta, la cognición y la depresión son los puntos controladas aquí. los procedimiento se aplica la encuesta de la Depresión de Beck, historia psicológica, historia clínica y una entrevista personal. 39 mujeres y 69 hombres fueron incluidos en el estudio, de los que, 52 eran pacientes infartados, 42, angina de pecho, y 5 tenían una cardiomiopatía ampliado. 64 pacientes mostraron algún grado de depresión antes de la enfermedad cardíaca coronaria. El riesgo común factores en los pacientes fueron: la obesidad, la diabetes mellitus, el tabaquismo, el alcohol y la no depresivos: hipertensión, el sedentarismo, colesterol, y la herencia familiar. No puede llegarse a la conclusión de que la depresión es un factor de riesgo independiente para la cardiopatía coronaria enfermedad; aunque puede estar asociado, como un factor concomitante o de cooperación para el evento coronario que en el futuro podría ser considerado como un factor de riesgo independiente.

In this essay, José F. Ocampo of the Umversidad Nacional in Bogotá offers a historical and political framework for the articles which follow. Ocampo employs the theory of "new democracy" (sometimes referred to as Marxism-Leninism, or simply Maoism ) to analyze the current situation in Colombia. He presents the analysis of classes in Colombia; the strategy and tactics of the dominant classes; the spontaneous struggles of the oppressed classes; and the rise of a nonrevisionist vanguard party of the proletariat.Colombia is a neocolonial and semi-feudal country. Its neocolonial character is the result of imperialist domination by the United States; its semi-feudal character is the result of the degree to which agricultural backwardness has affected Colombia's economic development. The United States has maintained its domination over Colombia throughout the whole of the twentieth century. Initially the United States instigated the separation of Panama; during the 1920s it exported huge amounts of capital into the countrythe so-called &dquo;dance of the millions&dquo; -and began to plunder the natural resources of the nation: platinum, gold, silver, oil, and bananas. Finally, in the last twenty years the United States has achieved a degree of control over the Colombian national economy through the various tentacles of finance capital.Capitalism in Colombia received a definite impulse from imperialism at the beginning of the century, and since then imperialism has dominated the industrial development of the country. The underdevelopment of the country can be seen in the low degree of capitalist development, and the low level of the development of the productive forces. This latter is the consequence of the persistence of the old landholding system in agriculture, and the feudal and semi-feudal forms of production, which together act as a powerful obstacle to the free development of the country. Imperialist domination and the type of national economy which this domination generatespredominance of finance capital and of state capitalismhelp maintain the relative backwardness of Colombia, despite the serious transformations that have taken place in this century.