Historical Methods

I looked at Chapter 3, “The Momentum of Change in Hungary.” A great deal of this chapter is dedicated to the economy of Hungary, economic reform and progress, the emergence and importance of the second economy, and so on.  His statistics and facts are backed by economic textbooks and articles, but Stokes even states that some of the numbers are estimates – as several different sources reveal conflicting information.  In this situation, he admits to making some estimates based on his better judgment.  Many of the estimates on Hungary’s GDP may be slightly off, because according to Stokes, approximately 75% of Hungarian’s “received and income from a second economy.”  I would assume that calculating GDP (or any market indicator, for that matter) in this situation would be difficult considering income obtained “outside the socialized sector,” or, black market transactions, are not included in the calculation of GDP.  Some of his information is contradictory, but considering the limited resources available when this book was written, I would say Stokes is effective in giving a general idea of the economic situation in Hungary.

Once Stokes brings up the democratic opposition that developed in Hungary in the 1970s and 80s, the sources for his arguments are supported by interviews, underground newspaper and journal articles (several written by major opposition leaders) and speeches.  Besides a few very general observations he makes, Stokes uses several primary sources to support his arguments. These sources provide him with a strong case for his claims, seeing as they were written or spoken by the people who lived through and witnessed the events that took place.  

Stokes points out that early in the 20^th century, many people believed a hyperrationalist society would fulfill their desire for equality and freedom. The eventual turn towards communism in Eastern Europe ultimately provided for the exact opposite: individual freedom was denied and an authoritarian state was created. Stokes argues that by the last quarter of the 20^th century, communism had lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many Eastern Europeans. Stokes credits the collapse of communism to several different factors. He especially emphasizes the importance of antipolitical opposition (including the role of an intelligentsia and religion), along with the economic situation and oppressive nature of Communist leaders.

After reading this text, it seems clear to me that Communism eventually always leads to an authoritarian state. Although it is true that many of the reform-minded Communists did not intend to dismantle Communism entirely, it became evident that a command economy is not compatible with democracy. In sum, a market economy is necessary for political freedom, and therefore, freedom cannot realistically be preserved in a Communist society. The downfall of the Soviet Union has shown to the world what happens when a society is based on a single ideology – it fails. Stokes also argues that creating a body of law based on a constitutional democracy is one of the most important steps towards achieving pluralism.

By the end of the 20^th century, Stokes claims that capitalism has triumphed over socialism. Societies in Eastern Europe have turned towards the ideals of capitalism, which includes privatization, market economies, and a democratic government. However, by now, doubts have been cast on whether or not this turn towards capitalism has been successful. I would be interested to know if the economies of the post-Soviet states are better off now than they were before Communism collapsed? (Say, in terms of GDP).

In my opinion, Stokes makes a very important point in the last chapter of the text: the primary cause of conflict in Eastern Europe is no longer based on an ideological struggle as it was before 1989 – but rather a cultural struggle between nations with ethnically diverse populations. The conflict in the former-Yugoslavia was not a class struggle or an ideological struggle, but a nationalist struggle that turned into a bloody civil war. I had previously no understanding of the events that lead to the break-up of Yugoslavia, or any understanding of the revolutions that unfolded in Eastern Europe in 1989 prior to reading this text.

Stokes starts his argument by claiming the revolutions of 1989 originated in 1968 with the oppression of the Prague Spring. While this was a major turning point in Eastern Europe, the rise of antipolitical movements introduced a new wave of intellectual thought that drastically changed the social and political culture that once wholly defined Communist society. These movements are, as Stokes claims, what “doomed the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe” more than any economic or political event that took place.

However, I have some trouble agreeing with his argument completely. Focusing on the main players behind the antipolitical organizations, he overlooks the dissent of the masses. I realize that the many antipolitical movements were heavily influential, but they seemed to only affect a small percentage of the population. By 1980, the economic situation was horrendous in almost every Eastern European country: debt and inflation created trade imbalances, and food shortages impoverished the people of Eastern Europe. The leaders of these countries only further alienated society by not only failing to improve the standard of living, but by failing to uphold basic human rights. I am not saying he did not include it, but I think Stokes downplays the importance of the economic and political situations to answer why the Revolutions occurred seemingly overnight. The role of the masses, it seems, then, was more important than Stokes implies.

Stokes describes the events that lead up to the collapse of Communism on an individual, country-to-country basis. While this was very helpful in understanding how the revolutions unfolded, I am unsure how the events that occurred in one country influenced the events that took place in another – meaning, I am having trouble seeing the big picture here. While it was useful having an inside view from each country, it seems to me as if the collapse of Communism was also an international phenomenon. Maybe it was just the way the text was written and I missed something…?

For the most part, Stokes’ arguments are convincing, as he pulls from a broad range of sources to support his arguments. Many of these sources include essays, newspaper and journal articles written by members of antipolitical movements, such as Solidarity and Charter 77. While the speeches and essays written, say, by Havel and Walsea provide an inside look at the events occurring in Czechoslovakia and Poland, his reference to Western newspapers and Western texts provide for a broad perspective, coming from outside the Soviet Union. He also refers often to economic analyses of Eastern Europe, as well as historical documents and texts that provide a solid background to support his claims.