Desde su creación a la fecha la Comisión ha realizado tres simposios: Lima 1970, Roma 1972, y México 1974. En estas reuniones se ha presentado y discutido un total de 74 ponencias científicas (Lima 13, Roma 32, México 29), elaboradas por 50 especialistas de la región y por 24 latinoamericanistas norteamericanos y europeos. Estos 74 especialistas intercambiaron conocimientos y experiencias, y tuvieron contacto estrecho con otros 150 especialistas que participaron en estas reuniones como observadores y comentaristas. Dicho de otro modo, la Comisión ha sido vehículo de contacto y punto de reunión para el intercambio de conocimientos de más de 220 investigadores interesados en la historia económica de América Latina.

Fundamental issues are raised in Sigmund's attack on our book, concerns that pertain to what has probably become one of the most controversial policy debates in recent times: the role of the U.S. in the overthrow of the Allende government. Measured by the amount of time and space devoted to the issue by Congress, the media, and academia, this question certainly requires careful consideration. Unfortunately, Sigmund presently and in the past has not dealt adequately with either the pertinent questions or the relevant data. The numerous errors and distortions require a thorough response.

Researchers wishing access to historical statistics of Latin America can obtain assistance from many institutions. One of the most helpful is the Inter-American Statistical Institute (c/o Secretariat, Organization of American States, Washington, D.C. 20006), which recommends the following:

This research inventory was prepared to provide information on current research into quantitative historical studies and to bring up to date and expand the information provided in William G. Tyler's Data Banks and Archives for Social Science Research in Latin America (CLASP Publication No. 6, 1975). Information published in Data Banks is not republished here.

The Petras-Morley reply to my review is useful in bringing out the basic issues between us. I think they come down to two: one is on the nature of U.S. foreign policy in general, and the other is on the relation of U.S. policy to the 1973 coup in Chile. On the first point, Petras and Morley describe U.S. policy as that of “the imperial state” autonomously formulating a policy that is “largely the product of an integrated body of aggregate interests of the corporate world as a whole,” and in the Allende case involved “the combined and mutually reinforcing efforts” of the multinationals, the U.S. government, and the international banks. I see a variety of interests at work, including those of the corporations, which may and did differ among themselves; U.S. strategic or diplomatic interests, which may or may not coincide with those of the companies; bureaucratic interests within the U.S. government and the international financial institutions; and personal motivations and ideologies, which may make an important difference in the content and purpose of policy (as our limited experience with the Carter administration is already demonstrating). There is now full documentation of the divisions among the companies and within the U.S. government, and of the saliency of personal, ideological, and strategic motives in the decisions of Nixon and Kissinger. Indeed, the very quote from a U.S. government official that the authors cite with reference to ITT: “No country should sacrifice its overall relations or interests or other groups in the country for the sake of one interest group,” makes my point rather than that of Petras and Morley—not as Petras and Morley would have it, the need to subordinate ITT's interest to that of the corporate world as a whole, but the priority of considerations of the national interest over those of the multinationals.

From 1908 until 1973, unknown to most of his countrymen and to Latin Americanists, a Peruvian photographer with an artist's eye compiled a remarkable visual and artistic record of the Peruvian highlands, a record that is just being brought to light. During these years, Martin Chambi, a professional, creative photographer, took more than sixteen thousand photographs, all of which have been retained by his family. Through the efforts of Edward Ranney and the photographer's oldest son, Victor Chambi, this invaluable resource will soon become available for use by authors, artists, and scholars of Latin America. Ranney, a free-lance photographer and a student of archeology, first became aware of Chambi's work during his field trips to Cuzco, Peru, where he spent many months producing his own work, including a forthcoming photographic document on Inca architecture. As he became more familiar with the elder Chambi's work, Ranney soon realized the early artistic eye of this photographer and the superb documentary record he left behind of people, places, and historical events in Cuzco and its surrounding archeological sites and indigenous cultures.

The number of works concerning Mexican history is vast and continues to grow. However, research in the area is complicated by the fact that there are many older works in the field that have been forgotten; they are scattered throughout Mexico, other parts of Latin America, Europe, and the United States. These writings often were published in very small numbers, are now out of print and hard to locate, and thus their existence may escape the scholar's notice. This is unfortunate, for they sometimes contain valuable information.

Un pensamiento social militante, coherente y capaz de organizar y sistematizar teóricamente una concepción totalizadora de la cultura de la sociedad ecuatoriana, aún no emerge en el Ecuador. Nuestro país es uno de los pocos en América Latina que aún no ha visto surgir ese tipo de pensamiento, posibilitado históricamente en otros y que parece estar todavía en un proceso de gestación, a madurar en un futuro impredecible. La trayectoria histórica de nuestra estructura social global y la no insurgencia aún de un poderoso movimiento revolucionario de la clase obrera parecerían explicar este desarrollo acortado. En ausencia de una cultura revolucionaria, en el sentido estricto: que no carezca de una teoría total de si misma, es empero posible y necesario una práctica avanzada dentro de la cultura. La lucha por construír y/o fortalecer las corrientes críticas en las Ciencias Sociales a lo interno de nuestras universidades, es una forma de esta lucha. Y es en esa perspectiva que los esfuerzos realizados en estos dos años desde la Dirección de la Escuela de Sociología, para construir lo que se ha construido y fortalecer lo positivo que existía, se han inscrito. Las prioridades para haber hecho efectiva la inscripción de esta política académica en esa perspectiva han sido contínuas a lo largo de este bienio: posibilitar el desafío y la crítica seria al pensamiento seudo-científico de la sociología burguesa; crear condiciones, espirituales y materiales, para el desarrollo de posturas avanzadas en el pensamiento; desarrollar mecanismos de discusión y difusión de ese pensamiento avanzado para posibilitar su mayor influencia en el terreno de la cultura; y abrir alternativas académicas críticas para nuestro estudiantes de Ciencias Sociales.

Con mucho retraso he leído en mi exilio en Alemania la nota publicada en Latin American Research Review (11, núm. 3 [1976]) titulada “Estudio crítico sobre el libro de Osvaldo Bayer.” No es mi costumbre responder a críticas o comentarios donde se traten mis obras. Creo que no le corresponde al autor salir en defensa de su producción. Salvo el caso en que se tergiversen citas, se escondan datos, se ignoren documentos y se ataque directamente a la persona del escritor lanzando veladas acusaciones de tipo político como ocurre en el artículo publicado en esta revista.