The noted socialist politologist reviews the course and data of the elections in 1990 and the consequences drawn from them. He stresses the significance of the changes of power relations that took place during the year and tries to pinpoint the political mistakes and conditions that reduced the number of voters of the individual parties, and especially of the left wing parties.

On the basis of a wide range of opinions expressed on modernisation in the past decade, the author presents the modernisation theory as a paradigm competing with the ideology of state socialism. He criticises the modernisation theory arguing that it was formulated according to the interests of the highly advanced region only and as such, it is nothing else but the programme of transition from state socialism to state capitalism. The author states that this theory is unable to provide a perspective today and for this reason, his final conclusion is that turning to the postmodern theories can be more fruitful also for the East European region.

The author joins those approaches which do not regard the system left behind as socialism from the point of view of formation theory but determine it as state capitalism. He depicts the analogies of this „state capitalism" in various third world economies and analyses the operation of these systems as their inner structural-power relations. He arrives at the conclusion that the present changes leave the state capitalist structures untouched and this way, it is impossible to break out from the mistaken circles of the „third world". The author sees the solution in a mixed economy kept in balance with antimonopoly measures which is characterised by private property of small enterprises as well as workers' ownership of large companies.

This article analyses the change of regime in Hungary, 1989-90. The author mostly stresses those steps of different political movements which "depraved" the changes. He establishes that the main tendencies were present already within the frameworks of the Kádárian policy. He states that a kind of pragmatic and illusionless rationalism characterizes the common sense of Hungarian people today. He takes a stand for a radical reformism based on reality which is built from below and which -in contradiction to the political practice in a narrow sense – concentrates on the protection of human interests and the labourers' ownership.

The study analyses the Hungarian reform process, its elements, stages and dimensions from a new angle. He puts its concrete facts, changes on the scale of the developments of the power relations of the world; he discusses the role played by the struggle, decisions and mistakes of the domestic power groups; he points out that those leading the Hungarian reforms were more ready for the change of system than for the de-mocratisation of the system. He underlines the outstanding function of the reform of ownership in the change of system while stressing that under the realistic conditions of the present time, the reform of the ownership relations in itself cannot lead out from the economic crisis… He also emphasises that the same factors hinder development today which made the previous system collapse. He discusses the chances of the various privatisation possibilities and warns against the illusions which induce expectations that copying the modern market economy would lead to the solution of Hungary's problems. At the same time, he argues that the development of the producing sector and the change of the production structure are fundamentally important.