The socio-economic seesaw of communism and capitalism and the corresponding implications on information in media
INTRODUCTION
Are democratic freedoms held, in different forms, by both the socio-economic models of capitalism and communism? Post-1989 popular perceptions of communist systems are anti-democratic, and capitalist systems are democratic prerequisite. This contradicts research and fact; capitalist and communist systems are neither geared specifically for democracy or tyranny. Consider the distinct yet indispensable qualities, such as having individual liberty and communal obligation, offered by both systems and their instruments to be helpful in actualizing and enhancing democratic societies. There have never been more people around the world demanding democratic development than today, however it seems that this development is congruent with the exclusive, victorious promotion of capitalist cultures via economic liberalization through the 1990s. This is dangerous because an imbalance of any socio-economic system is detrimental to keeping democratic freedom legitimate: the imbalance of logic disregards useful and beneficial political theory.
A more in-depth analysis of democratic and undemocratic instances of capitalism and communism from around the world shows the fallacy in their socio-economic dichotomy. A lens is used to interpret them instead as a binary, a distinction to refine and possibly perpetuate the qualities of both. Then, a cumulative case examines their respective invasion on modern media, which, as a political and propaganda tool, intimately controls the ebbs and flows of information necessary to shape widespread political domesticity – private and public. This research serves two purposes: To re-examine and challenge (1) the way we evaluate democracy in the 21st century and (2) how we think about the socio-economic means to be developmentally and socially benevolent in reinforcing democratic balance. As a result, it is argued that using more than just one socio-economic system can be democratically valuable.
ROLE OF CAPITALS AND COMMUNES IN DEMOCRACY
What is the relationship between both socio-economic models and legitimate democratic principles? Examining democratic value offered by each socio-economic pole — the underlying interests of freedom and security and an analysis of the family institution through time — both socio-economic models are proven to have had benevolent, brutal, and often blind implications on aspects of economy and society in “democracies”.
Capitalism and Democracy
Capitalism offers an economic avenue in which individual liberties may be actualized and enables, but does so at the expense of a society capable of helping its communities. Society cannot develop communities because the resources needed are absently consumed in chasing private want and bourgeois optimization – the result of various instruments, conveyors and mechanisms that promote resources to be diverted into less necessary rings of consumption. For many, capitalism and democracy are concepts quite linear: free-market capitalism is an economic liberty, and the stronger a country’s market the stronger its democracy. Perhaps one of the most quoted and referenced works in all of comparative politics is Seymour Martin Lipset’s “Some Social Requisites of a Democracy.” Lipset found that while economic factors did not determine political preference, (which is why we see no ethnographic correlation amongst capitalists and communists) economic factors did determine the quality and legitimacy of politics[1].
Today we are said to have record numbers of democratic countries, and people wishing to be governed democratically. This has been addressed and perverted by history’s greatest productive, communicative, transportation, and technical capacity to assimilate human freedom and market freedom homogeneous. Some argue that the dissolution of economic sovereignty and its forthcoming prosperity has enabled peace; however, it is equally true that in order for certain securities be provided, certain freedoms must be sacrificed. Often one is reminded of civil rights advances with high divorce rates in highly commercialized societies; this is but an example of having freedom at the cost of security. Feminists and socialists alike are quick to point out the shortsightedness or neglect in not seeing capitalisms’ objectivity of the woman, the children and the family[2]; similarly, arguments go as far to condemn a correlation between socio-economic liberalizations and family divorce/hypocrisy[3]. Family is an example of an endangered commune: entire market capitalist societies are oriented towards addressing the self-interest of the individual more effectively than the communal concerns of the family. Aristotle considered other forms of commune include the local community, the city, and the country nationally and internationally. Free market systems are the proponents of individuals who, in such societies, are to conform to being singular: work individually, learn individually, spend individually, and live individually. This type of system is structurally flawed because it has effectively dissected the communes: what humans organically value as sacred, such as nature, family, food and culture, is desecrated by the dilution of the dollar and its objectivity. Worse, the materialism that entertains the void of human community in capitalist societies is catalyzed and perpetuated by aggressive media techniques, which bombard one’s rationality and accentuate one’s desire, using luring intangibles that drape the hungry void. Not only does excessive, unregulated economic liberalism prey upon every individual need, but they exaggerate this need through many informative resources in the interest of acquiring liquid capital and cultivating profits, although short-sightedly missing how by playing with a human’s perceptibility of needs and wants, and disregarding the purpose of living within an inexpensive means, ultimately deprives a much more valuable, sacred human capital. Such a system disproportionately recognizes the short-term wants of the market and the individual capitalist looking to profit off the market, over the needs of the long-term society. Many view free market capitalism as explicitly short-term oriented; its rampant trough of production, marketing and consumption objectify this contemporaneously. In this, the long-term human end has been lost and replaced by a market, material one. This is why socialism was inspired: it is an attempt to return human development and socialization as its ends, and return the market as/to its means.
Communism and Democracy
In a communist system, the governing structure of society determines the needs of society, and consequently, less is done by the free choice, or want among capitalists, investors or consumers. While this could impact the problems concerning excess, famine, violence and poverty, it is argued to mandate a certain level of conformity that represses creativity and persona. Communism is a tainted term; the dictionary simply says it is a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership, but most consider it closely associated with authoritarianism, and as an opponent of freedom, when in reality the totalitarianism depends on the nature of the communism. It was developed more as a counter-measure combating capital naïveté, material excess and privately owned enterprises, which Marx, Engels, and others believed was destructive to man’s connection to human nature and community[4]. Most forget that Marx was an accomplished economist and philosopher, voicing concerns of capital interests and their threat to humanity. His philosophy dictated instead a system of communes that act in the human interest, as an opponent to the capital interest that he believed degraded real human social values. Marx speaks of the endangerment of the family community as antagonized and catalyzed by the self-interest of the individual capitalist: ‘The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation’[5]. Family must be respected and endured because it is the first core commune necessary for human development; a 1999 research review claimed that Latin American parentless ‘street youth’, were involved in substantially higher amounts of day-to-day crime and violence[6]. Evidence of communal neglect on the part of the government, who do little to socially prevent the crime from occurring while spending to tyrannically enforce their criminal persecution of individuals, is available to be had in all regions of the world. Moreover, evidences of undemocratic communism are exemplified in most communist regimes’ requirement to conform, and to rescind the power to censor information. Security is available only to who’s willing to pay with their freedoms; an example is Cuba, which prior to the revolution had been an economic vassal of the United States, in their domination of industry, controlling sugar and spice production and consumption, calling the market price. Opponents will argue that a certain degree of conformity could be of benevolence, especially against threatening, dissecting alien empires such as the U.S. The quality of democracy seems to be dependent on a government’s ability to corral capitalist and communist solutions respective and responsive to the needs and wants of the people.
COMBATIVE RHETORIC
What may be learned from approaching this socio-economic/development relationship in different lens or perception? Some problems of socio-economic imbalance may be resolved, such as human rights abuse in communist countries and material abuse in capitalist countries, if the socio-economic relationship can be perceived from differing angles other than polarized, incompatible dichotomy.
Common Fallacy
Most associate communism with notions of anti-democracy, and capitalism as something of a democratic prerequisite. So long as social liberty can be implemented without civil liberty infringement, governments might have room for networks of communes and capitalisms that may complement each other individually and socially. It would seem like the one solves the other’s problem in a democracy. Logically, the only way such a symmetric rivalry is solved is by having mutual concern for both sides of the coin; the co-dependence of individuals of mutual concern that manifest in communes and the universal, civil liberties of each denomination operating under one political canopy one could proudly call a legitimate democracy. Democracy is a term timidly defined and ill manifested because the impulsive polarization of private and public wealth: governments usually orient themselves towards one system or the other. However, they are mutual yet distinct, and each indispensable from one another in manifesting development. This development, or national actualization, is a democratic epiphany; it is the sequencing and synchronization of individual, communal and national liberty. Nevertheless, both exhibit problems that must be addressed to further improve these programs; lack of privately manufactured medicinal essentials in Cuba inhibits the communes’ ability to provide, as the lack of social security in the USA inhibits most from enjoying their massive excess in medicinal inventory[7]. There are many different examples of capitalism through authoritarianism – in El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Pakistan, the Philippines and the Congo, among many others. Conversely, communism through libertarianism worked against the authority in these places, across common tracts of Asia, Africa and in Latin America; even today, good portions of Western and Scandinavian Europe are as democratic as ever, yet simultaneously endorse huge tax rates to fund unprecedented welfare services and to provide other social securities one might find quite communist. It would seem like each example has its own societal principles in determining its circumstance; each have different ratios of individual empowerment and community obligation circumstantial to their political nature vs. nurture orientation.
Communizing Liberty
What greater an example of an social reformist attempt to return to this means/ends relationship than by the current American administration under Barack Obama, alleged as an ‘evil socialist’ by media many times blatantly and ignorantly before and during his presidency[8]. America, long before Obama, had established itself as the liberal jewel of the world, and today, shows signs of willingness to communize their personal liberty for a socialist compromise. Rather than looking at his reforms confrontationally, one should rather establish what the American capitalist society stands to benefit off more socialism: redistribution of wealth, government regulation of the economy, nationalization of health care, and other socialist reforms planned by Obama are all endeavors of community development[9]. America has been able to secure personal liberty far more effectively than any other nation; because its citizens were willing to desecrate many traditionally sacred models in order to have their individual rights sacred. This modern development could be a development in politics to a more enabling transitive democratic template: giving up some of their sacred personal sovereignty for communal unity.
Liberalizing Communes
There is a fine line between respecting ones autonomy and requesting ones unity; when unity is considered paramount; ones autonomy suffers – often in extremes like human rights abuse, privacy abuse and genocide[10]. China is liberalizing its communes today, having established strong communities and now developing complementing capitalist institutions, will continue to cautiously improve democratic condition and civil rights with economic liberalization and bureaucratic reductions nationally[11]. The reason for recent and future Chinese economic triumph to be closely related to how the Chinese government has been able to arrange each liberty (individual, communal, national) in an instance of uncharacteristic egalitarianism. It would be significantly important for the supervisors of Cuba’s democratic transition to be aware of this theory of national actualization; it would be a waste of time, effort, endurance and of lives if Cuba’s communist success, namely their agricultural production efficiency,[12] but also development of strong regional science and medical programmes and their fabled education system, all which had organically and creatively been achieved in communes. This, and the fact that the life expectancy rate on this economically war-torn island is higher than that of America, suggests that both socio-economic systems are capable of supporting effective developmental programs that are integral to democracy.
MEDIA
How does the example of media affirm a combinative socio-economic theory?
Media are the channels by which both unregulated market capitalism and unregulated communist economics abuse information – a political instrument useful in controlling and upholding personal/societal values, and the individual empowerment necessary in hemming the fabric of democracy. Research will demonstrate the contradictions of both media in capitalist, individual-minded societies and in communist, commune-minded societies and, the implications both have in fulfilling and attacking democracy. Capitalist media in the US and Canada show the negative impact that private consolidation of media has on information. Communist media in China show the consequences of protecting the community at the sacrifice of self and of human rights. Transitional media from the Ukraine and the Czech Republic show some typical developments of media when political changes occur. In culmination, examining systems of media within both systems of government will support a combinative theory that addresses undemocratic forms of capitalism and communism, and to evolve ways of better handling such a powerful instrument that is modern media with a broth of socio-economic policies.
Capitalism and Media
If capitalist media is controlled and consolidated by private interest, the wealth of information becomes influenced much like a censorship; still liberal, but liberally and deliberately having discretion of what is published, focused on, determined, etc. The sometimes-inevitable pervasive biases individuals with such power hold interferes on the standards of journalism in an example of negligible recognition of community interests and a threat of unregulated capitalism. Cross-ownership further provides private media the power to influence many different sources of information internationally and consolidate information nationally. The ends are generic self-interest, corporate-influenced news, with the outlook and discussion respective to private concern. One prime example is NewsCorp, the most influential media corporation in the world. Rupert Murdoch has used his position as founder and chairman at NewsCorp as a platform to voice his personal conservative, right-wing ideologies, and to manipulate information even in tender political times. He blatantly uses his media empire personally by willingly distorting information to influence his consumers: In direct endorsement of private political concern, Fox had relentlessly portrayed Obama as suspicious, foreign, and fearsome – just short of a terrorist[13]. This direct engagement of a massively influential democratic tool in developing a personal agenda is an inherent threat of capitalist media when they are allowed to operate outside their means and have greater influence.
“News Corporation is the most global and the most competitive media and entertainment company on earth. Every day, they reach more than a billion people through our television, films, cable, books, newspapers, satellite technology and digital media.”[14]
– Rupert Murdoch
We have a unique broadcasting situation in Canada because of our proximity to the more powerful American media market. There are only a handful of large media network corporations in Canada; Ted Rogers’s Rogers Corp, Conrad Black’s Hollinger Corp, and Izzy Asper’s Can West Corp have made the industry famously inaccessible. However, in Canada, with the pervasiveness of intruding American media, we must have a delicate balance between having a strong national media unity, while offering a broad range of specific information and perspective. Despite the government trying to develop a broadcasting policy that might help foster a balance between public and private, their broadcasting act only develops means to consolidate national media conglomerates, and does little but protect the sovereignty of Canadian media[15]. Instead, private corporations will argue that in order to do business most efficiently, media consolidation is required to keep media sources alive, in Canada and other media whose sovereignty is threatened by international, authoritarian capitalist conglomerates. In a free-trade market, they argue that in this industry you must expand and consolidate or go under. In order to survive, they insist that they must be able to expand to compete in a global market. The highly competitive business of media consolidation requires and has forced companies like Rogers and Bell to grow exponentially as media becomes more diversified. The corporations defending the consolidation of media argue that it is uneconomic to have only independent media sources[16]. With larger size and economies of scale, there is efficiency and with it the opportunity to grow and to prosper with higher standards and greater access to information, that will enable and encourage them to invest in new technology and innovation. However, this democratic consolidation creates a regular undemocratic reaction: An author of a new book about media tycoon Izzy Asper says Asper bought more than a dozen daily papers from Conrad Black’s Hollinger International in 2000. As soon as he got those papers, he tried to dictate what they should say because he wanted to influence national affairs[17]. For it to be democratic, it would seem there requires some form of re-integrating communal interests and re-structuring of media, which we consume communally. Rather, a combinative solution may be found between censoring on behalf of the community and having the opportunity to publish media individually, organically and democratically.
Communism and Media
Communist media sources are usually oriented as a defence against the perverse and desecrating nature of capitalist media sources. The inability of private media to address the concerns of the public created an opportunity for a communist countermeasure of publicly regulating media, to eliminate media’s instrumental value for carving out self-interest. Economic and authoritarian liberalization in China has changed many things; one thing it has not changed is the states’ control of media, and the negligible freedom of information in the country[18]. Accounts analyzing China’s developing relationship with capitalism conclude that the Chinese are not succeeding from one system to another, but rather trying to perfect communism with capitalism: their policies are realistic and careful so that the form of capitalism is ensured to be mutually beneficial privately and publicly. Such is not the case for the communist media, which censors and silences democratic manifestations regularly claiming to act in the interest of the whole. The Chinese government removed citizens’ Internet liberties on the anniversary of a community conflict between authority and democracy, the Tiananmen Square protest and massacre, in order to control reporting of the event in the community[19]. China is probably the most successful country in managing censorship in the world, but is having trouble trying to control new social forms of media, including Facebook and Twitter, from publishing media they cannot control well enough[20]. The development of media socialization online has meant China must now try to entirely block media because it is too hard to control. The hole in their logic is not being able to see past the whole; a whole is but the sum of its parts, and not having concern for the parts creates confrontational backlash in the commune, in response to their undemocratic simplicity. Before Perestroika reforms in the Ukraine and the Czech Republic, media was centrally organized from Moscow so that the individual member/prisoner states of the USSR would not have the democratic means to fracture the tentative union[21]. In the Ukraine, years of central control led them to pursue radical forms of capitalism, which in spite react on communes in the same traditional brutality. Privacy is a major concern there, as privatization that comes with economic liberalism, has destroyed their community, causing social and cultural alienation[22]. In the Czech Republic, they experimented a deviation from preliminary censorship to self-regulated censorship as a way to connect the individual concerns with the communal concerns[23]. While these instances are in the right to reform from such alien, subordinating media and are right to refigure it into a more democratically acceptable form, few manage to encapsulate what it is to be democratically balanced, which is to deconstruct the capitalism-communism dichotomy.
Democracy and Media
Media is too important an influential tool to be at the whim of a few autocratic interests; Aristotle once critiqued democracy, because it too can be at the whim of a few key interests which have power, power defined as the ability to persuade… A democratic media considers the freedom of individual expression and the security of communities. It is a mature media; understanding that an overly capitalist media is detrimental to the community and an overly communist media harms the development of the individuals which compose it. Capitalism offers an economic avenue in which individual liberties may be actualized. It enables, but does so at the expense of a society capable of helping its communities actualize. Society cannot develop communities because the resources needed are absently consumed – the result of various capitalist instruments that promote resources be diverted into less necessary rings of consumption. Communism is reintroducing the society capable of actualizing its communities, and permits the governing structure of society to determine the needs of society, and less so the free choice among capitalists and investors. While this eliminates some of the problems concerning excess, imbalance, violence and poverty, it mandates a certain level of conformity and represses creativity and independence. What has been said concerning democratic liberties manifesting in media is also true when manifesting in politic. Media can be used to accomplish a variety of political tasks; it can fracture, just as it can unite and can intimidate and cause fear while encouraging revolution and uprising. The research conducted in media was meant to show the reciprocal nature of securities and freedoms, and the structural dependence of democracy on balancing the two. Too aggressively pursuing any one capitalist or communist policy produces one common result: In capitalism, the consolidation of commercial cultures perverts various ideals sacred to democratic society, and in communism, the consolidation of community cultures that preserve ideals sacred to democratic society, but demanding conformity necessarily opposed by the freedom of expression found in capitalism.
Have the socio-economic models of capitalism and communism both democratic values? Most associate communism with notions of anti-democracy, and capitalism as something of a democratic prerequisite. This common assumption contradicts research and fact; capitalism and communism are neither geared specifically for democracy nor tyranny. Consider the distinct yet indispensable qualities, such as having individual liberty and communal obligation, offered by both socio-economic models to be helpful in actualizing and enhancing democratic societies. Has comparative politics ever been more alive? Today, we are democratically threatened –everything from our media to our families, by not recognizing communist and capitalist values as mutually supportive and non-competitive. Without using both to address the concerns of each, we will continually get the better and the worse in tandem, never to have democracy without deconstructing the pole that polarizes those two concepts long in engagement. Some would contend that the aforementioned problems are but a linguistic breakdown. A dichotomy is a set of terms that are mutual exclusive and jointly exhaustive; no logic can be shared by both terms and everything must be shared by the one term or the other. The psychological evolution of thought embodied in the nature/nurture dichotomy was solved finally to be in fact no dichotomy at all, but rather a relationship that had been proven by history to be more intimately and humanly complex. Dissolving that dichotomy was monumental in developing the study of psychology just as dissolving this socio-economic dichotomy may be monumental for comparative politics.
———-
Photo: Cover of book We the Media: A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting for Media Democracy
———-
[1] Lipset, Seymour M. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” The American Political Science Review 53, no. 1 (1959): http://www.jstor.org/pss/1951731http://www.jstor.org/pss/1951731 (accessed Mar., 2010).
[2] Tichenor, Henry. “Woman Under Capitalism.” 1912: http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924031281169#page/n3/mode/2uphttp://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924031281169#page/n3/mode/2up (Mar. 2010).
[3] Horwitz, Steven. “Capitalism and the Family.” Aug. 2007: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/capitalism-and-thehttp://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/capitalism-and-the -family/#family/# (Mar. 2010).
[4] Hunt, E K. “Marx’s Concept of Human Nature and the Labor Theory of Value.” Review of Radical Political Economics 14, no. 2 (1982): http://rrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/7http://rrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/7 (accessed Mar., 2010)
[5] Marx and Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Get Political. London, UK: Pluto Press, 2008.
[6] Raffaelli, Marcela. “Homeless and Working Street Youth in Latin America: A Developmental Review.” Interamerican Journal of Psychology33, no. 2 (1999): http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=psychfacpubhttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=psychfacpub (accessed M 2010)
[7] Golden, Tim. Cuban Communism 1959-2003. Health Care in Cuba. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003. HYPERLINK “http://books.google.ca/books?id=bWoEZbafIxgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cuban+communism&source=bl&ots=i3tQhZH8UP&sig=U1doZqH8dCzJUxTWByYjHhjQhw4&hl=en&ei=d4OdS6yVIYPMsQPG2LG_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBQhttp://books.google.ca/books?id=bWoEZbafIxgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cuban+communism&source=bl&ots=i3tQhZH8UP&sig=U1doZqH8dCzJUxTWByYjHhjQhw4&hl=en&ei=d4OdS6yVIYPMsQPG2LG_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBQ (accessed Mar., 2010).
[8] Joyner, James. “Outside the Beltway- Obama the Socialist.” Apr. 2008 HYPERLINK “http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/barack_obama_the_socialist/http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/barack_obama_the_socialist/ (accessed Mar., 2010)
[9] Uwe, Klussmann, Schepp Matthias, and Wiegrefe Klaus. “Global research: NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?.” Nov. 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aidhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid =… (accessed Mar., 2010).
[10] Feitlowitz, Marguerite. A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture. New York: Oxford University, 1998.
[11] Prychitko, David. “Modernizing Marrets in Post China: On the Road to Capitalism?.” (1987): Cato Institute, Policy Analysis # 95 (Mar., 2010).
[12] Exner, Rick. “Cuba’s Declaration of Agricultural Independence.” 2004 . HYPERLINK “http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/Cuba/Cuba%20Ag%20Independence.htmhttp://www.pfi.iastate.edu/Cuba/Cuba%20Ag%20Independence.htm (accessed Mar., 2010).
[13] Wolff, Michael. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.barackobama .” The Guardian UK (2008): (accessed Mar., 2010).
[14] Murdoch, Rupert. “Chairman’s Address to the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.” News Corporation (2008): http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_395.html (accessed Mar., 2010).
[15] Russell, Nick. “Morals and the Media.” Ethics in Canadian Journalism (1994): pg.74 http://books.google.ca/books?id=z-Rcsmjjuh8C&printsec=frontcover#PPA74,M1 (accessed Mar., 2010).
[16] Baxter, James. “Executives defend Cross-Media Ownership.” Vancouver Sun (2002) http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6447 (accessed Mar., 2010).
[17] Smith, Charlie. http://www.straight.com/article-175437/izzy-asper-sought-influence . “Izzy Asper Sought Influence”(2008): (accessed Mar,. 2010).
[18] Zissis, Carin. “Media Censorship in China.” CFR Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounders (Mar., 2010).
[19] Zetter, Kim. “Wired-China Censors: The Tiananmen Square Anniversary Will Not Be Tweeted.” June 2009. “http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/china-censors-internet-before-tiananmen-square-anniversary/(accessed Mar., 2010).
[20] Jakubek, Anna. “Popsci- 20 Years After Tiananmen, China Is Now Undemocratic 2.0.” 06 Mar. 2009: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-06/20-years-after-tiananmen-china-undemocratic-20http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-06/20-years-after-tiananmen-china-undemocratic-20 (accessed Mar., 2010).
[21] Bazyler, Michael. Making Profits from Perestroika: Soviet Economic Reform in the Gorbachev Era. New York: Hein, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ukalr39&div=11&id=&page=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ukalr39&div=11&id=&page= (accessed Mar., 2010).
[22] Zabuzhko, Oksana. “Bnet-Post-Communist Understanding of the Public and Private.” 2002. “http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_1_69/ai_88584137/pg_6/?tag=content;col1http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_1_69/ai_88584137/pg_6/?tag=content;col1 (accessed Mar., 2010).
[23] Culik, Jan. “There was no censorship in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and 1980s.” Apr. 2008: “http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Censorship.htmhttp://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Censorship.htm (accessed Mar., 2010).
Popularity: 6%
