This issue of Debatte focuses on the analysis of the causes and consequences of the collapse of the Central and East European regimes in 1989 and the end of the USSR two years later in 1991. A long-standing theme of the journal has been the extent to which the developments of those years and the nature of the societies established prior to 1989 have shaped what has come after. The social problems and economic difficulties besetting the region covered by Debatte over the last few years have their roots in the dramatic events two decades earlier. Any attempt to understand what is currently happening in Central and Eastern Europe must come to terms with the nature of the changes that took place at that time.
Graeme Gill provides a suggestive overview of the way in which the obstacles faced by Gorbachev's perestroika project resulted from the nature of the approach towards dealing with the legacy of Stalin adopted by Khrushchev in the 1950s and 1960s. According to Gill the Khrushchev years created insuperable barriers to future reformist strategies within the USSR and contributed in large measure to the eventual break-up of the system. Gill's account raises a question encountered in a number of the other articles in this issue of the journal; namely that of the extent to which other alternatives to the kinds of changes seen in 1989 and 1991 were possible, especially alternatives which either involved preservation of elements of the existing system or creation of some kind of alternative to dominant capitalist models–or both.
The remaining articles in this issue arise from papers presented at our successful conference on the East European Revolutions in Perspective held in October 2009. They fall into two groups. Three contributions, by Miklós Mitrovits, Grzegorz Piotrowski and Krysztof Brzechczyn deal with the development of the Polish opposition through the 1980s and the implications of this development for the transformation process which began with the so-called Round Table talks in 1988 and 1989 and led to the first Solidarity-led government in 1990. In so doing they link up in fascinating ways with the analysis of these events provided by Bogusław Potoczny in the previous issue of this journal.
Mitrovits outlines in detail the way in which the idea of self-management, one of the main candidates for an alternative path to that taken by Western capitalism, was gradually sidelined in favour of market imperatives. Piotrowski looks more closely at one particular aspect of the evolution of oppositional thought and practice; the role of young people, often motivated by counter-cultural ideals; and provides interesting comparisons between the way in which this developed in Poland and in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Brzechczyn provides a more theoretical approach, examining the way in which the conceptual framework provided by non-Marxian historical materialism, as developed by the philosopher Leszek Nowak, can encompass the particular set of compromises reached in the Polish case. Together these papers, in conjunction with others published previously in Debatte, make an important start in assessing the way in which the revolutions of 1989 were influenced by developments in oppositional movements in the preceding period.
The other two articles here are both concerned with literature. Velichka Ivanova looks at the work of the Bulgarian novelist Blaga Dimitriova and compares this with the Czech writer Milan Kundera. The comparison allows Ivanova to make important points about the implications of particular narrative and linguistic choices for the relationship between imaginative writing and political commitment. Similar issues are addressed from a different perspective by Magdalena Latkowska in her study of German writers before and after 1989. Latkowska assesses the way in which German unification posed particular problems for writers in both the West and the East and examines the way in which the answers given to such problems by writers have contributed to an increasing divorce between literature and politics in re-unified Germany. Again, the extent to which patterns established in the years prior to 1989 shaped the developments of that year and the succeeding period is a key concern in her article. Gareth Dale's review of the autobiographical work of Dieter Segert takes up many of the same questions but suggests a different way forward, based on popular mobilisation, which he suggests was not taken up by Segert and his colleagues.
The high quality of the conference papers published here is indicative of the stimulating debates which took place last October. Debatte is keen to organise future conferences and we are currently planning one for the spring of 2011 which will focus on the impact of the current economic crisis on Central and Eastern Europe and on the German response to that crisis. We welcome suggestions for conference themes and papers from our readers.
As mentioned in previous issues we are keen to include topical contributions and documents, especially from Central and Eastern Europe, in the “Forum” section, alongside the peer-reviewed articles which have formed the main body of the journal. Here we publish two such contributions, by Simon Pirani, dealing with labour movement issues in Russia. One is concerned with an important campaign against the victimisation of a trade-union activist, Valentin Urusov, while the other reports on the recent upsurge in strikes and other protests in the Kuzbass coalfield. Again, we very much welcome suggestions and contributions from our readers for the Forum section.
Finally, we publish here two further book reviews. Wilfried van der Will looks at Dieter Dettke's account of German foreign policy and the Iraq war and Owen Worth examines Simon Pirani's analysis of Russia under Putin. From this issue onwards we have a new team acting as book review editors. Gus Fagan is stepping down after four years and will be replaced by Gareth Dale and Adam Fabry, both based at Brunel University. Thanks are due both to Gus for much hard work over the years and to Adam and Gareth for taking on the role.