2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Marxism-Leninism obviously demands a critique of this entire project, which starts with an excursus into the history of Marxist theory, but ends invariably with a glorification of the economic and political life under bourgeois rule in post-war Western Europe. This glorification is essential to its conception, for how else can Western European capitalism be shown to be different from the capitalism of Lenin's conception, the conception allegedly of a man coming from wretched and backward Russia and writing in the midst of a war? Two articles in this number are devoted to a critique of some of these ideas. In the lead article, Madhu Prasad critically examines the work of Perry Andersen, perhaps the most significant, influential and articulate proponent of the concept of "Western Marxism". In a review article on Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's new book on Lenin, E M S Namboodiripad joins issue with those who bifurcate Lenin's philosophical writing into an early Lenin phase and a late Lenin phase. These two pieces in the current number carry forward our plan of using this journal as a platform for a clash between Leninist positions and those being espoused by the New Left and other similar critics of Lenin. The drug industry in India has deservedly drawn a good deal of attention from researchers. While multinationals are not confined to this industry alone, their operations in this industry are the quintessential manifestation of their general modus operand!. The drug industry in this sense represents "the leading species of a large genus". Some time ago we had published an estimate of transfer pricing, that is, concealed repatriation of surplus value by the multinational companies in the drug industry. In this number we publish an exhaustive study by Kamal Mitra Chenoy and Nagesh Kumar on the drug multinationals in India, a study which at the same time is a crushing indictment of government policy with regard to the multinationals in general and the drug multinationals in particular. Lastly, Moin Shakir in his note on National Integration draws a distinction between political integration and national integration and joins issue with a number of bourgeois theoretical approaches to the question of national integration. While the crudity of the "assimilationist" approach is obvious to many, the "pluralist" approach still commands a certain respectability; the interesting aspect of his note is the exposure of the utter vacuity of the "pluralist" approach.