Theories of Development of Newly-Free Countries, various bourgeois conceptions that have sprung up since World War II because of the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism and the attempt to counter the increasing influence of socialist ideas in the newly-free countries. These theories try to explain, from bourgeois apologetic positions, the causes of the economic backwardness of the developing countries, and elaborate ways to overcome this through industrialisation, planning, domestic and external financing of development, etc. The most commonly held theory of the causes of “ underdevelopment” is the so-called theory of vicious circles which emerged in the late 1940s, and was advocated by many economists, such as R. Nurkse, G. Balandier, and W. Krause. According to this theory, the cause of economic backwardness and the primary obstacle to overcoming it is a system of interrelated and interdependent factors (whose sources are not usually specified) which prevent the resolution of one problem without the resolution of the others. Thus low per capita income, the most important indicator of economic backwardness, is a result of low labour productivity. The latter is attributable to low living standards, and this results from low incomes. Most bourgeois economists believe that the development problem can be resolved by "breaking the vicious circles of poverty”. The very widely publicised "theory of balanced growth" 356 (R. Nurkse, H. Leibenstein, P. RosensteinRodan, and others) calls for a gradual departure from the "vicious circle" without any serious disruption of inter-sectoral proportions. Its advocates claim that to expand the market, which is narrow because of the population’s low solvency, many factories producing consumer goods have to be built simultaneously. This should increase employment, and, consequently, incomes, which will result in the expansion of the market. At a later stage some factories should be built to manufacture producer goods so as to create a market for all enterprises. Scientifically, this theory is fallacious because it does not provide for any radical break up of outdated economic structures, ignores the necessity of making economic and social transformations, exaggerates the potential of the developing countries to make huge investment, etc. The theory of "unbalanced growth" (A. Hirschman, R. Dumont, F. Perroux and others) suggests concentrating investment in key industries or geographical regions to invoke a "chain reaction of growth”. The inevitable disproportions would need to be straightened out at a later stage (“expanding the bottleneck”), which would ultimately result in a break out of the "vicious circle”. The advocates of unbalanced growth erroneously presume that the priority development of the most promising industries must entail disproportions. The fallacy of this presumption is exposed when it is compared to the Marxist theory of reproduction, especially in the light of Lenin’s contribution, in particular his "On the So-Called Market Question”. Another theory, that of "external push”, suggests that the push that would break the "vicious circle" should come from without. It calls for an accelerated development of traditional export industries which would attract resources for funding development, including export income, foreign investment in export-oriented industries, and taxes on profit deductions of foreign companies. The accelerated growth of traditional export is supposed to boost other industries by earning additional money for overall economic growth. The status of the developing countries as agrarian and raw material appendages of world imperialism is, however, perpetuated through this approach. In late 1960s and early 1970s the theory of equal partnership came to the fore which also requires the developing countries to increase exports, but provides for the establishment of certain industries to be managed by the leading Western monopolies. For all its progressive appearance, this theory is essentially colonialist. All the bourgeois theories of the development of the newly-free countries imply only the capitalist way, and ignore the need for radical social and economic change.