The Hungarian information society – regardless to its modest development – is increasingly divided. In addition to the known reasons, it should be considered that the majority of the outcasts have neither direct contact with PCs and internet (the feature devices of information society), nor with persons using these devices on a daily basis. In order to break the cultural and knowledge barriers, that mostly responsible for the digital division, we have to launch such IT programs that regenerate incomplete social contacts in order to speed up the spread of innovation, new values and attitudes.

The article uses practical approach with everyday examples of the application of IT and communication devices and software showing that the use of simple looking technology how deeply affects everyday life and also democracy.

In recent times, not only the US but also other western democracies can be described as "two-rightwing-party-systems" or in practice as one-party-systems – monopolising political decision making by an institutional structure based on self-legitimising consensus. What are the social grounds and structural reasons that develop the negative tendencies in politics and justice – putting away political liberties, because they cause only trouble? The spoor leads to the structural crisis of the capitalist way of social reproduction.

An answer is sought to the question, why there is so little resistance to capitalism in contemporary Eastern Europe – which leads to the more general question, what are the specific features of capitalism in the former Soviet bloc. Since the tasks (according to the traditional theory) incumbent upon bourgeois revolutions have been fulfilled here by the Bolshevik revolution, the demiurge of East European modernity, secularization etc, both the remnants of the aristocratic-chivalric-ecclesiastic past and the elements of a proletarian socialism were annihilated. Result: East European capitalism is the purest version anywhere.

The article argues against several points of G.M. Tamás' essay theoretically representing antileninist anticapitalism. Interpreting the past by G.M. Tamás is not linked to the newest findings of the field, thus showing historical stages in state socialism has not been solved in his theoretical frame – he cannot make a difference between Lenin and Stalin as historical phenomena. Presenting state socialism as a type of "non-market capitalism" is problematic not only theoretically but also leads to political simplifications, because dictatorship and democracy are rigidly confronted. In fact, he mixes radical social theory with liberal political philosophy leading to an eclectic standpoint.