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.

The author undertakes the task of pin-pointing the contradictions of Wallerstein's capitalism-idea with special regard to that aspect which can be found in his advancement concept by which he measures progress with the decrease in the level of exploitation. (This is just the opposite of the process which in fact, has taken place in history). In contrast to Wallerstein (and in harmony with Marx), the author argues that capitalism – although it has increased exploitation – has represented advancement in every respect, at the same time creating the conditions of going beyond it. Zalai expresses his doubts whether the centre-periphery relationship truly increases impoverishment and whether the impact of the centre to pull should not be taken into account with the same weigh.

The author studies the origins of the (19th century) idea of "world freedom" and discusses the changes of the idea of the world systems at certain stages of the history of the left wing movements. He raises questions on whether there can be freedom valid for the whole world? He takes a stand in favour of the idea that a world system organized on the basis of the principle of an "intellectual mode of production" covering the whole of the world economy and society – described in Eszmélet earlier – can present an alternative to the capitalist world system.