Frank interprets the Gulf war mainly as a reaction to the recession in America. He loo, stresses the role of oil Going through the history of American interventions, he proves that starting the war in the Gulf was based on a pretext and that the American superpower has not intervened in defence of "democracy" but it has done so at different spots of the world only there and then when ft served its own interests. He quotes as another cause the need to create a new enemy image after the downfall of communism.

Bonzio questions those standpoints which consider the Gulf War as simply a North-South conflict. He argues that behind the North-South conflicts, there are North-North ones (that is those between the big powers in the centre). He differentiates between the horizontal and vertical conflicts within the capitalist world. Similarly to the regulation school, he thinks the engine of development are the changes of age of technology and organisation which also determine the conflicts. He links the vertical conflicts to the period of relative stability, while the horizontal ones to the changes of epoch proving that ultimately, it is always the North-North conflicts that are decisive. He thinks the capitalist world economy is the entity of centripetal and centrifugal movements, this first of the two being overweight While underlining the two-directional nature of the movements, he criticises the oversimplifying theory of exploitation of periphery. He stresses that it is the totality of centre-semi-periphery-periphery relations that ensures the reproduction of the capitalist world economy.

Burbach too, explains the Gulf War with the oil interests. He enumerates the American interventions and provides new examples to prove that they have not happened in the interests of "democracy". He proves by the example of Latin America (with the detailed analysis of the recent past of Nicaragua and Mexico) that the neo-liberal policy has failed to consolidate the democratic institutions of the less developed countries. Then discussing the American foreign political activities in Eastern Europe, he shows how does the Latin Americanisation of Eastern Europe serve direct American interests. The author who comes from the United States calls attention to the fact that an inner society which is in crisis in many ways is behind the USA's foreign policy. He sees the future of the American democracy in its broadening, "socialisation" and in the increase in the weight of the civil society.

The short news taken over from the international press discusses the fact of environmental destruction in Central America showing to what extent it is the consequence of the activities of the American monopolies, poverty they have induced as well as the (colonisation type) war forced onto the peoples of the region.

This social philosophical analysis started out from the questioning of the existence of classes. He differentiates between and juxtaposes the "economic" and "social" approaches to class relations and analyses the mistaken alternative which has taken the dual tradition of economist (social democratic) and overpoliticised (Leninist) form. He re-formulates the Marxist thesis that class is a sensible category only as a relationship and states that the idea of the working class is inseparable from the presence of the workers,' movement. From this he deducts the thesis the "class party" is contradictory in itself. He too, considers as the essence of modern capitalism the fact that it exists as a world system, as the division of the different societies on the basis of their development is a basic precondition of the reproduction of capital. As a consequence, he denies the existence of "world bourgeoisie" and "world proletariat", as even the struggle of interests in the world system is waged in the form of the struggle of nations.