¹ Hirszowicz, M., The Bureaucratic Leviathan: A Study in the Sociology of Communism (New York and London: New York University Press, 1980), p. 7.Google Scholar

² Byrnes, R. F., ‘East Central Europe: Present Situation and Principal Trends’ in Drachkovitch, Milorad M., ed., East Central Europe: Yesterday–Today–Tomorrow (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1982), p. 35.Google Scholar

³ Vuchinich, Wayne S., ‘Major Trends in Eastern Europe’, in Fischer-Galati, Stephen, ed., Eastern Europe in the 1980s (Boulder, Co.: Westview, 1981), p. 25.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksander et al. , From Under the Rubble (Chicago: Regner Gateway, 1981), pp. 3–25.Google Scholar For Sakharov's differences with Solzhenitsyn over the question of Marxist-Leninist ideology cf. Kelley, Donald R., The Solzhenitsyn-Sakharov Dialogue: Politics, Society and the Future (Westport, Conn., and London: Greenwood Press, 1982), pp. 53–8, 124–5.Google Scholar For Kołakowski, 's views cf. ‘Ideology in Eastern Europe’Google Scholar in Drachkovitch, , ed., East Central Europe, PP. 43–53.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Bahro, R., The Alternative in Eastern Europe (London: Verso, 1981), pp. 7–119.Google Scholar

⁶ I owe this distinction to Ž. Hejzlar, , ‘Poland – a Failed Attempt at Emancipation’, Socialist Affairs, No. 5 (1982), p. 207.Google Scholar This rendered, I should add that I disagree with everything else in this article. The distinction between ‘political stagnation’ and ‘political stability’ has often escaped the attention of analysts. The Soviet dissident A. Zimitin, for example, adopting the ‘Asiatic modes’ explanation to developments in post-1917 Russia, writes of ‘a radical distortion’ of Marx's model, which is said to have resulted ‘in the establishment, instead of it, of a social order which, though stable, led nowhere in its growth and development, and was in this sense stagnant’ (quoted in Hirszowicz, , The Bureaucratic Leviathan, p. 4Google Scholar; emphasis mine).

⁷ For a discussion of these two concepts and for a partial revision of the author's own arguments cf. Huntington, S. P., ‘Political Development and Political Decay’, World Politics, XVII (1965), 386–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘The Change to Change: Modernization, Development and Polities’, Comparative Politics, III (1971), 283–322.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Conquest, Robert, ‘Immobilism and Decay’, Problems of Communism, xv (1966), 35–7.Google Scholar Conquest, however, does not provide a definition of the term. One would be tempted to employ Hough, Jerry F.'s concept of ‘petrification’Google Scholar, where it not for the author's own disavowal of such interpretation of Soviet-type systems and for the fact that ‘petrification’ tends to be (wrongly) connected with eternity. Cf. the discussion in the first chapter of his The Soviet Union and Social Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), 19–47.Google Scholar

⁹ Liehm, A. J., ‘The Intellectuals on the New Social Contract’, Telos, No. 23 (1975), pp. 158, 161.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. Bingham, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1966), p. 193.Google Scholar

¹¹ Skilling, H. Gordon, ‘Group Conflict and Political Change’ in Johnson, Chalmers, ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1970), p. 232.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Gitelman, Z. Y., ‘The Diffusion of Political Innovation: From East Europe to the Soviet Union’ in Szpolruk, R., ed., The Influence of East Europe and the Soviet West on the USSR (New York: Praeger, 1975), pp. 11–67.Google Scholar

¹³ Gitelman, , ‘The Diffusion of Political Innovation’, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Skilling, H. Gordon, Charter 77 and Human Rights in Czechoslovakia (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), pp. 114–15, 118–20Google Scholar; Kavan, J., ‘Le Comité de défense des personnes injustement poursuivies (V.O.S.N.)’, L'Alternative, No. 1 (11 1979), pp. 42–3Google Scholar; Smith, W. Newton, ‘Un cours de philosophie interompu’, L'Alternative, No. 4–5 (05–08 1980), pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Bissau, Alain, ‘Le SZETA de Budapest: une action en faveur des pauvres’, L'Alternative, No. 10–11 (005–08 1981), p. 40.Google Scholar For a very pertinent discussion of the ‘boundaries’ of reforms cf. Brus, Wlodzimierz, ‘Economic Reforms as an Issue in Soviet-East European Relations’ in Dawisha, Karen and Hanson, Philip, eds., Soviet-East European Dilemmas: Coercion, Competition and Consent (London: Heinemann, 1981), pp. 80–9.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Skilling, H. Gordon and Frečan, V., eds, ‘Parallel Politics: Essays in Czech and Slovak Samizdat’, International Journal of Politics, XI (1981), p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For example A. Hegedüs, G. Márkus or I. Szelényi among the Hungarians, or Bahro, R. in East Germany. Cf. ‘Une opposition est-elle possible et souhaitable? Une discussion avec trois opposants hongrois: András Hegedüs, Támas Főldvary et Zóltan Zsille’, L'Alternative, No. 3 (03 1980), p. 15Google Scholar: Márkus, G., ‘Western Marxism and Eastern Societies’, Dialectical Anthropology, VI, No. 4 (06 1982), pp. 291–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Szelényi, I., ‘Socialist Opposition in Eastern Europe: Dilemmas and Perspectives’ in Tőkés, R., ed., Opposition in Eastern Europe (London: Macmillan, 1979), pp. 187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bahro, , The Alternative in Eastern Europe.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The evidence here is superabundant. Cf., among others, Michnik, A., ‘The New Evolutionism’, Survey, XXII (1976), 267–77Google Scholar; and ‘What We Want to Do and What We Can Do’, Telos, No. 47 (1981), p. 77Google Scholar; Slánský, R., ‘Le dialogue et non l'affrontement’, L'Alternative, No. 2 (01 1980), p. 8Google Scholar; Kenedi, J., ‘Comment je suis devenu idiot’, L'Alternative, No. 10–11 (05–08 1981), pp. 71–9Google Scholar; Skilling, , Charter 77, pp. 47, 177Google Scholar; Schöpflin, G., ‘Opposition and Para-Opposition: Critical Currents in Hungary, 1968–1978’Google Scholar in Tőkés, , ed., Opposition in Eastern Europe, pp. 142–67Google Scholar; Lomax, B., ‘L'essoir de l'opposition democratique hongroise’, L'Alternative, No. 19 (11–12 1982), pp. 19–26.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Szelényi, , ‘Socialist Opposition’, p. 188Google Scholar and Oleszczuk, T., ‘Dissident Marxism in Eastern Europe’, World Politics, XXIV (1982), 527–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an analysis of the combination of Marxist critique and non-Marxist general ‘democratic’ ideas in criticism of East European societies emanating from Marxist circles. ‘It is worth noting’, Hirszowicz indicates, ‘that the views of the opposition movements in Eastern Europe are evolving in a direction that has less and less affinity with the dogmas of the communist parties and the socialist left’ (The Bureaucratic Leviathan, p. 6).Google Scholar

¹⁹ As opposed to merely ‘procedural’ democracy. Cf. Harrington, M., The Twilight of Capitalism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Seroka, Jim, ‘Developed Socialism in Yugoslavia: Socialist Self-Managed Pluralist Democracy’ in Seroka, Jim and Simon, Maurice D., eds., Developed Socialism in the Soviet Bloc: Political Theory and Political Reality (Boulder, Co.: Westview, 1982), p. 80.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. Michnik, , ‘What We Want to Do and What We Can Do’, p. 67.Google Scholar

²² ‘An important feature of political communication in Eastern Europe has been the ability to camouflage material so as to give it an outwardly orthodox appearance. Controversial proposals or arguments can be dressed up in Marxist jargon and published, sometimes with the connivance of the party, and sometimes despite the censor.’ (White, Stephen, Gardner, John and Schöpflin, George, Communist Political Systems: An Introduction (London: Macmillan, 1982), p. 241).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Such ‘disguise’ is occasionally deemed necessary even in societies which have ‘left behind’ the ‘reformist’ stage. Commenting on a resolution proposed by the ‘fundamentalist’ group of Solidarity, which employed some Marxist terminology, two members of the Laboratory of Organizational Sociology of the Polish Academy of Science write that this ‘has to be taken as a desire to speak up a language comprehensible to the other side, rather than take up the formulations binding on the other side’ (Kostecki, Marian J. and Mreła, Krzysztof, ‘Workers and Intelligentsia in Poland: During the Hot Days and In Between’, Media, Culture and Society, IV (1982), p. 233.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Bauman, Z., ‘On the Maturation of Socialism’, Telos, No. 47 (1981), p. 49.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Goldfarb, J. C., ‘Social Bases of Independent Public Expression in Communist Societies’, American Journal of Sociology, LXXXIII (1978), p. 928Google Scholar; Oleszczuk, , ‘Dissident Marxism’, p. 543.Google Scholar Such confrontation bears heavily on the issue of legitimacy, which renders another highly important dimension to dissent stemming from Marxist ideological premisses. Cf. the excellent discussion in Tőkés, R., ‘Dissent: The Politics for Change in the USSR’ in Morton, Henry W. and Tőkés, Rudolf L., eds, Soviet Politics and Soviet Society in the 1970s (New York, The Free Press, 1974), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

²⁵ Kołakowski, , ‘Ideology in Eastern Europe’, p. 46.Google Scholar

²⁶ Kołakowski, , ‘Ideology in Eastern Europe’, p. 45.Google Scholar

²⁷ Kołakowski, , ‘Ideology in Eastern Europe’, p. 52.Google Scholar

²⁸ Michnik, , ‘The New Evolutionism’, pp. 268–9.Google Scholar

²⁹ For a concise but accurate survey of the Polish developments and the contribution of left-wing critique cf. Rupnik, J., ‘Dissent in Poland, 1968–1978: The End of Revisionism and the Rebirth of the Civil Society’, in Tőkés, ed., Opposition in Eastern Europe, pp. 60–112.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. Kusin, V. V., The Intellectual Origins of the Prague Spring: The Development of Reformist Ideas in Czechoslovakia 1956–1967 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 36–52Google Scholar; and From Dubcek to Charter 77: A Study of ‘Normalization’ in Czechoslovakia 1968–1978 (New York: St Martin's Press, 1978), p. 147ffGoogle Scholar; Skilling, , Charter 77, pp. 43–9 and passim.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. Schöpflin, , ‘Opposition and Para-Opposition’.Google Scholar

³² Kusin, , The Intellectual Origins of the Prague Spring, p. 19.Google Scholar

³³ Kelley, Donald R., ‘Developed Socialism; A Political Formula for the Brezhnev Era’Google Scholar, in Seroka, and Simon, , eds., Developed Socialism in the Soviet Bloc, p. 3.Google Scholar

³⁴ Schulz, Donald E., ‘On the Nature and Function of Participation in Communist Systems: A Developmental Analysis’ in Schulz, Donald E. and Adams, Jan S., eds., Political Participation in Communist Systems (New York: Pergamon, 1981), p. 55.Google Scholar

³⁵ For a detailed discussion of ‘simulated change’ cf. my forthcoming Romania: Politics, Economics and Society (London: Frances Pinter, 1985).Google Scholar

³⁶ Ceauşescu, N., România pe drumul construirii societâţii socialiste multilateral dezvoltate (Bucureşti, Editura politicâ), V (1971), p. 485Google Scholar; XXIII (1983), p. 91; and XXI (1981), p. 45, respectively.

³⁷ Cf. my ‘Autonomy and Conformity in Romania’ in Schöpflin, G., ed., State, Society and Autonomy in Eastern Europe (forthcoming).Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. my ‘The Socialist Republic of Romania’ in Szajkowski, B., ed., Marxist Governments: A World Survey (London: Macmillan, 1981), pp. 589–639 and ‘Autonomy and Conformity in Romania’.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Mârculescu, I., ‘Cibernetica şi gîndirea’, Lupta de clasâ, XLIII, No. 3 (1963), pp. 48–61Google Scholar; Mare, C., Irimie, I. and Roth, A., ‘Lârgirea tematicii cercetârilor filozofice’, Lupta de clasâ, XLIV, No. 7 (1964), p. 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Commenting on the early stages of the revival of the social sciences in Czechoslovakia, Vladimir Kusin writes that they were ‘granted the attribute “Marxist” and the Party claimed a leading role in them. The tree with the hitherto forbidden fruit thus produced “Marxist sociology” rather than just “sociology”’ (The Intellectual Origins of the Prague Spring, p. 93).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cf. St. UngureanuCostea, I. Costea, I., A Concise History of Romanian Sociology (Bucharest: Academy of Social and Political Sciences, Editura ştiinţificâ şi enciclopedicâ, 1981), pp. 7–9Google Scholar; Gheorghiu, M., Social and Political Sciences in Romania: An Outline History (Bucharest: Academy of Social and Political Sciences, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, n.d.), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

⁴² Cf. Bauman, Z., ‘East European and Soviet Social Science: A Case Study in Stimulus Diffusion’Google Scholar in Szpolruk, , ed., The Influence of East Europe and the Soviet West on the USSR, pp. 93–9.Google Scholar

⁴³ Mârculescu, I. and Moldoveanu, I., ‘Probleme actuale ale cercetârii filozofice’, Lupta de clasâ, XLIV, No. 5 (1965), p. 20.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Beraru, P. and Oancea, A., ‘Actualitatea discuţiilor teoretice’, Lupta de clasâ, XLV, No. 3 (1965), p. 88.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Mare, , Irimie, and Roth, , ‘Lârgirea tematicii’, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Davidsohn, I., Stere, E., Botezatu, P., Natansohn, I. and Sâmârâşanu, M., ‘Sarcini actuale ale cercetârii filozofice’, Lupta de clasâ, XLIV, No. 11 (1964), pp. 113–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Gramsci, A., ‘Culturâ şi istorie’, Secolul 20, V, No. 8 (1965), pp. 5–17Google Scholar; Popa, T., ‘Dialectica culturii şi gîndirii la Gramsci’, Secolul 20, V, No. 8 (1965) pp. 18–31.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. Kusin, , The Intellectual Origins of the Prague Spring, pp. 63–8Google Scholar. On the link between the ‘Kafka debates’, ‘alienation’ and ‘young Marx’, cf. Liehm, A. J., ‘Franz Kafka in Eastern Europe’, Telos, No. 23 (1975), pp. 75–83 in particular.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Gazeta literarâ, 9 04 1964.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Gazeta literarâ, 29 08 1963.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Constantinescu, M., ‘Sociological Thought in Contemporary Romania’ in Constantinescu, M., Badina, O. and Gall, E., Sociological Thought in Romania (Bucharest: Meridiane Publishing House, 1974), p. 156.Google Scholar

⁵² For details cf. my ‘Political Culture, Intellectual Dissent and Intellectual Consent: The Case of Romania’, Orbis, XXVII (1983), 393–420.Google Scholar

⁵³ Mannheim, K., Essays on the Sociology of Culture (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971), p. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ceauşescu, N., România pe drumul desâvîrşirii construcţiei socialiste, Vol. I (Bucureşti: Editura politicâ, 1968), p. 407.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Congresul al IX-lea al Partidului Comunist Român 19–24 iulie 1965 (Bucureşti: Editura politicâ, 1966), p. 90.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ceauşescu, N., România pe drumul desâvîrşirii construcţiei socialiste, Vol. II (Bucureşti: Editura politicâ, 1968), p. 255.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Zamfir, C., ‘Critica filozoficâ’, Contemporanul, 10 11 1967.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Liiceanu, G., ‘Filozofia, o ştiinţâ?’, Contemporanul, 5 01 1968.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Mârculescu, I., ‘Statutul ştiinţific al filozofiei’, Contemporanul, 25 01 1968.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Zaharia, R., ‘în atenţie-filozofia’, Tribuna, 19 01 1967.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mârculescu, , ‘Statutul ştiinţific al filozofiei’.Google Scholar

⁶² Die Presse (Vienna), 7 05 1967Google Scholar, as quoted by Radio Free Europe Research, Situation Report, Romania, 10 May 1967.

⁶³ Valentin, A., ‘Marxism şi filozofie’, Contemporanul, 22 03 1968. Emphasis in the original.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Lucaciu, P., ‘Da, filozofia marxistâ este o ştiinţâ’, Contemporanul, 8 03 1968.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf. Berar, P., Mârculescu, I., ‘Ideologie, ştiinţâ şi umanism î concepţia lui Marx’, Lupta de clasâ, XLVIII, No. 4 (1968), p. 21Google Scholar and Mârculescu, I., ‘Fragmente de jurnal (1965)’, Limite (Paris), No. 5 (1970), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Dumitru, N. S., ‘Dimensiunea istoricâ a criticii filozofice’, Contemporanul, 1 12 1967. Emphasis in the original.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. Ch. András, , ‘The Christian-Marxist Dialogue’, East Europe, XVII, No. 3 (1968), pp. 11–16Google Scholar; and ‘Christians and Marxists in Marianske Lazne’, Radio Free Europe Research, East–West Relations, 10 07 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Cf. Gitelman, , ‘The Diffusion of Political Innovation’, pp. 45–7Google Scholar and Valenta, J., Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia, 1968: Anatomy of a Decision (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp. 15, 60–1, 102–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ It is not clear what happened to this group after Bretter's death in 1977. I owe the information on the activity of these intellectuals to George Schöpflin.

⁷⁰ Cf. for example, Bretter, G., ‘Az elidegendedés és forrasai’, Korunk, XXV, No. 3 (03 1966), pp. 371–7Google Scholar, and Bretter, G., Rácz, G., ‘Termékeny speculacio’, Korunk, XXVII, No. 3 (03 1968), No. 12 (December 1968), pp. 387–93 and 1861–4, respectively.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Compare Bretter, G., ‘Személyiség és humanizmus’, Korunk, XXV, no. 7 (07 1966)Google Scholar and Trandafiroiu, N., ‘Umanismul lui Marx’, Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Series Philosophia, XIII (1968), pp. 13–26.Google Scholar

⁷² Gh. Achiţei, , ‘Problema înstrâinârii în filozofia şi estetica marxistâ’, Luceafârul, 22 02 1966.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Zaharia, , ‘În atenţie-filozofia’.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Cf. Gouliane, G. I., Le Marxisme devant l'homme: Essai d'anthropologie philosophique (Paris: Payot, 1968).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Mare, C., ‘Sensul ontologie al umanismului marxist’, Contemporanul, 2 08 1968.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Liiceanu, , ‘Filozofia, o ştiinţâ’Google Scholar. Emphasis in the original.

⁷⁷ Valentin, , ‘Marxism şi filozofie’.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ceauşescu, N., România pe drumul desâvîrşirii construcţiei socialiste, Vol. III (Bucureşti: Editura politicâ, 1969), p. 677.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Wald, H., ‘Antiumanism teoretic şi teoria antiumanistâ’, Familia, IV, No. 12 (1968), p. 13.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cf. Kusin, , The Intellectual Origins of the Prague Spring, p. 46.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Berar, P., ‘Tînârul Marx şi dezbaterile actuale în jurul marxismului’, Lupta de clasa, XLVII, No. 8 (1968), pp. 16–29.Google Scholar

⁸² Iacob, E., ‘Problema alienârii în filozofia marxistâ, Lupta de clasa, XLVII, No. 9 (1968), pp. 51–62.Google Scholar

⁸³ Axelrod, P., ‘Bericht über den Fortgang der sozialistische Bewegung: Rumänien’, Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft, II (1881), 320–6Google Scholar as quoted in Haupt, G., ‘Naissance du socialisme par la critique: La Roumanie’, Le Mouvement Social, No. 59 (1967), p. 31.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. Marx, K., Însemnâri despre români. Manuscrise inedite (Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, 1964).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Cf. Kenedi, , ‘Comment je suis devenu idiot’, p. 77.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The analogy belongs to Kenedi, who paraphrases Marx, in ‘Comment je suis devenu idiot’ p. 76.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. Cernea, M. and Matei, I., ‘Rumania’ in Wiatr, J. J., ed., The State of Sociology in Eastern Europe Today (Carbondale, Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971), pp. 139–76Google Scholar; Nelson, Daniel N., ‘Romania’ in Welsh, W. A., ed., Survey Research and Public Attitudes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981), pp. 436–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ Cf. his Tragicul: O fenomenologie a limitei şi depâţirii (Bucureşti: Univers, 1975).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Shafir, , ‘Political Culture, Intellectual Dissent and Intellectual Consent’.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Cf. Ghişe, D. et al. , eds., Contribuţii ale preşedintelui Nicolae Ceauşescu la dezvoltarea gîndirii filolofice (Bucureşti: Editura politicâ, 1983).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Farlow, Robert R., ‘Romania’Google Scholar in Drachkovitch, , ed., East Central Europe, pp. 329–30. Emphasis in the original.Google Scholar

⁹² Cf. Márkus, , ‘Western Marxism and Eastern Societies’, p. 291.Google Scholar

⁹³ Cf. their essays in Silnitsky, Fr., Silnitsky, R. and Reyman, K., eds., Communism and Eastern Europe (Brighton: Harvester, 1979).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Cf. Wishnevsky, J., ‘More Details Emerge About “Socialists” Arrested in USSR Earlier This Year’, Radio Liberty Research 341/82, 23 08 1982Google Scholar. It is doubtful that Medvedev's advocacy of a ‘return to Leninism’ belongs to the same line of thought. Cf. Medvedev, R., Leninism and Western Socialism (London: Verso, 1981).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ The attraction to Eurocommunism, for example, is non-existent in Romania (or Bulgaria), much in contrast to the Soviet, Czechoslovak, Polish and East German cases. Cf. Wesson, R., ‘Eurocommunism and Eastern Europe’Google Scholar in Drachkovitch, , ed., East Central Europe, p. 72.Google Scholar