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.

The founder of our journal's predecessor who lives in Britain analyses the nature of capitalism giving a detailed and many-sided picture of the importance of militarism in the system of capital stabilising the economy and the system.

In connection with the collapse of socialism, the author discusses the reality of the establishment of a self-government model which she thinks is no less realistic than the strongly criticised state socialism, or the recapitalisation experiment which holds out at least as grave dangers for Eastern Europe.

Stressing the insufficiency of the theory, the author underlines the need to take sides unfalteringly with the interests of those living on wages and salaries which should be the minimal programme of the left wing in the present situation when society's "humiliated and saddened" groups have to face a new oppression after Stalinism.