How do people in the Soviet Union imagine the reform of ownership framed in the term of „a multitude of forms of socialist ownership"? How do workers' collectives operating in the form of hiring and genuine cooperatives try to break the irrational limitations posed by state ownership and make their enterprises profitable? We get an answer to this question backed by examples.

The author compares the Polish and the Hungarian opposition movements which – despite the similarities of the economic conditions – differ in their sociological structure and political nature. While the Polish transformation was forced by a movement of social self-defence organised from below, here this process was initiated by groups of intellectuals from above and the prulalistic political interests did not rely on the self-organisin'g process that has taken place in society. The study directs attention to the sharp contradictions and dangers of the social vacuum that is behind the power struggle.

The present debates of the ICP and judging the perspectives of changing the road express the conclusion of an almost 70 years old development. During this, the „third road" attempts or rather ideas have failed which wanted to go beyond both the „existing socialism" and the concept of reforming the social democracy of capitalism. The present idea of socialism held by the ICP, the Occhetto-type „strong reformism" is based on values that are equivalent with those held by the West European socialist and social democratic parties and is based on primarily the further development of democracy. However, this already rejects the perspective of direct democracy, the Marxian self-government model based on going beyond the state and remains within the framework of the model of a market corrected by the state devised by J. E. Meade, a student of Keynes.

Jozsef Herman's interview with B. Denitch, a Yugoslav born New York professor about Eastern Europe, socialism.

The participants of the round table, noted West European Marxists and bourgeoise experts analyse the causes and consequences of the collapse of the East European systems. They try to find the difference between Marxism and „Marxism-Leninism", the Leninist and social democratic basis of interpreting Marxism and its relative truth. They do not only see the decay but also the unexpected emergence of the revolutionary activity of the masses, the possibbility of the development of a new left wing unity which does not simply mean identification with social democracy.