The study written more than three decades ago is an interesting document of the type of social democratic thinking which created the welfare state as a class compromise. This moderate programme seems to be far too social­ist int the eyes of many people. The author criticises and refutes as anti-de­mocratic the social injustices of the highly advanced democracies. He de­nies the necessary contradiction between democracy and planning. Apart from the sober compromise between the elite and the employe

In his excellent, wittily written study, the well known Russian social scholar outlines a brave concept which is in line with the theory of "social production system" that has been discussed on several occasions in our periodical. Buzgalin offers a sharp criticism of the fashionable neoliberal economic theory and proves that the collapse of "socialism" is the indication of the de¬velopment of a new paradigm. He presumes that history of "socialism" was a-distorted – variant of the same processes which set the whole world's development on a post-capitalist course in the 20th century. He compares the transformation of the basis of the capitalist economy and world outlook (the development of a new mode of a production) to the process of building up the capitalist society pointing out that at that time too, what was new then broke forth in the disguise of restoration. He calls for the elaboration of an economic theory that would be adequate to these changes and stresses that possibly, the economic theory too, will have to melt into other sciences and approaches because the emergence of a new paradigm always goes together with the emergence of a new scientific approach.

The crisis of socialism is at the same time the crisis of social democracy. The author denies the concept that social democracy could become a paradigm trend even without an appropriate theoretical basis. He also de­bates the view that through the paternalism of the welfare state, the histo­rical achievement of social democracy, it would have lost its progressive character. He points out that the multis are much more aggressive when in­terfering in the "spontaneous processes". If social democracy can be criticised for anything, then it is the far too strong absence of criticism towards representative democracy (to the expense of the mechanism of direct democracy that can be put up against international capital gaining strength with globalisation).

The study written in the form of a review describes the three great revolu­tions, the American, the French and the Russian through their description by contemporaries and by doing so, he calls attention to the fact that some of the great personalities of the liberal pantheon were far from sharing the aversion of today's theoreticians of the new right towards social justice, the opposition to private property, direct democracy and towards the ideals of re­volution in the world historical sense.

The author who was involved personally in the cultural policy of the Kadar-era, linking to the writings carried by our paper's previous issue, tries to pro­vide an objective analysis of that cultural policy. Proceeding from sub-era to sub-era he shows that it was characterised by successive waves. He calls attention to the asynchronity of the policy as a whole and cultural po­licy and the tensions stemming in the role of culture of having been a valve. He points out that when evaluating the period, it is impossible to think in black and white terms: the results and regressions were inseparable in the cultural performance of the age. He makes an attempt to evaluate the role played by György Aczél (and to some extent of Janos Kadar) and discus­ses those features of the age in the field of culture which led to the collapse and the preparations for the change of system ending the Kadar-era.