The study presenting concrete mechanisms of dependence underlines the responsibility of the selfish and short-sighted policy of the IMF in the crisis of the countries of the East and Central European region following the change of system. The demolished COMECON was not replaced by another economic system, behind slogans of building the market, the de­struction of the market was taking place which has had a very negative impact on the circumstances of living in these countries. On an ideological basis, the development of various collective forms of ownership has been obstructed, whereas this could have been an effective form for the elimi­nation of state ownership under the specific conditions of the societies of the region. The author refers to the helplessness of East and Central Europe, the very weak bargaining position of the governments in face of the West which attracts them (while pushing them back immediately under the influence of being potential rivals).

The study evaluates the Kadar regime as a sub-type of state socialism. Following a short description of state socialism, the authors analyse the world system relations which also set the place of the Kadar system. The article touches on the issue of the basis of this system. Discussing the after-life of the Kadar era, the authors identify with the standpoint that places the roots of much of the present phenomena of politics in the Kadar period.

The well known scholar of 1956 is sceptical concerning whether the changes in Eastern Europe will indeed lead to democracy. He criticises the analogies with Latin America in this regard. After providing a short description of state socialisms, he expounds that in his view, the history of authoritarian systems is continuing in East Europe. He refers to the failures of privatisation and the stabilisation of the position of the new elite. He describes the rapid disillusionment with the new parties, the improbability of the economic catching up and the necessity of the emer­gence of new class conflicts.

The author protests against the destruction of agriculture. He quotes figures and data to show that agriculture was a strong branch of the econ­omy in the past few decades and that no one was thankful for that. He argues that in the history of the past decades of Hungarian agriculture political viewpoints prevailed over the economic ones, and one injustice was attempted to be "remedied" with another. This has remained the case since the change of system.

The author provides a criticism of the theories of totalitarianism. He ana­lyses the factors on the basis of which, a common denominator is set up between fascisms and communisms. He states that in addition to their common radicalism and elements of totalitarianism, these movements developed from different roots, out of different causes and with different aims and for this reason, their linkage should not be maintained.