50. For the ideological foundations of the East German Communist regime, see Leslie Holmes, “The Significance of Marxist Dissent to the Emergence of Postcommunism in the GDR,” in The Road to Disillusion: From Critical Marxism to Post-communism in Eastern Europe, ed. Raymond Taras (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1992), pp. 57-80; and Mary Fulbrook, The People's State: East German Society from Hitler to Honecker (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005).
51. Leszek Kołakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, vol. 3: The Breakdown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).
52. English, Russia and the Idea of the West, p. 122.
53. Georgy Arbatov quoted in ibid., p. 50.
54. Alexandre Zinovyev, Nous et l'Occident (Lausanne: L'Age d'Homme, 1981), p. 13.
55. Dick Howard, The Specter of Democracy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), pp. vii-xvii.
56. Zubok, Zhivago's Children, p. 192.
57. Ferenc Fehér, “The Language of Resistance: ‘Critical Marxism' versus ‘Marxism-Leninism' in Hungary,” in The Road to Disillusion, ed. Taras, pp. 41-56.
58. Oskar Gruenwald, The Yugoslav Search for Man: Marxism Humanism in Contemporary Yugoslavia (South Hadley, Mass.: J. F. Bergin, 1983). One moment when critical thought in the West united with the revisionist spirit in the East to advocate humanist Marxism was the volume edited by Erich Fromm in 1965 and entitled Socialist Humanism (London: Allen Lane and Penguin Press, 1967). It included thirty-five contributions by Marxist and non-Marxist thinkers, which indicated the animus of the sixties to offer a humanist interpretation of Marx liberated from the hegemonic Soviet grip.
59. Kołakowski, Main Currents, vol. 3; Tismaneanu, The Crisis of Marxist Ideology in Eastern Europe.
60. Horvath, “'The Solzhenitsyn Effect,'” pp. 895-96. See Vladimir Tismaneanu, ed., The Promises of 1968: Crisis, Illusion, Utopia (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2010).
61. Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, c. 1958-c. 1974 (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 10. Marwick defined this concept as “the belief that the society we inhabit is the bad bourgeois society, but that, fortunately, this society is in a state of crisis, so that the good society which lies just around the corner can be easily attained if only we work systematically to destroy the language, values, the culture, the ideology of bourgeois society.”
62. Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945 (New York: Penguin Press, 2005), p. 401.
63. Agnes Heller, “The Year 1968 and Its Results: An East European Perspective,” in Promises of 1968, ed. Tismaneanu, pp. 155-63.
64. V. Zubok's account about the generation of “Zhivago's children” shows how, by the end of the sixties, Russian intelligentsia began losing any hope of reforming Soviet-style Communism. The Sinyavski-Deniel trial and publication of Natalia Gorbanevskaya's Chronicle of Current Events (which Peter Reddaway called “the journal of an embryonic civil liberties union”) signaled the shift to searching for an alternative discourse about democracy among Soviet intellectuals. Another side effect of 1968 was the “the reinvention of Russia” (Y. Brudny). See Zubok, Zhivago's Children; Yitzhak M. Brudny, Reinventing Russia: Russian Nationalism and the Soviet State, 1953-1991 (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1998); and Peter Reddaway, ed., Uncensored Russia: The Human Rights Movement in the Soviet Union, with a foreword by Julius Telesin (London : J. Cape, 1972).
65. Zubok, Zhivago's Children, p. 296.
66. V. Cerniayev quoted in Victor Zaslavsky, “The Prague Spring: Resistance and Surrender of the PCI,” in Promises of 1968, ed. Tismaneanu, p. 406.
67. Judt, Postwar, p. 447.
68. Paul Auster, “The Accidental Rebel,” New York Times, April 23, 2008; Jeffrey Herf, “1968 and the Terrorist Aftermath in West Germany,” in Promises of 1968, ed. Tismaneanu, p. 363.
69. Judt, Postwar, p. 449. Wallerstein offered a different reading of 1968. Rather than seeing it as the beginning of the end of revolutionary or radical mass politics, Wallerstein understood it as the starting point of the globalization and generalization of antisystemic movements: the “rainbow coalition” applied to “trans-zonal cooperation”—the only way in which a “desirable transformation of the capitalist world-economy is possible.” However, his conviction that these movements were situated outside rather within (as in Judt's and other authors' analysis) was the real source of his frustration: “a fully coherent alternative strategy” did not appear. Wallerstein was correct in stating that “the real importance of the Revolution of 1968 is less its critique of the past than the questions it raised about the future.” But, as the upheavals of 1989 (the publication year of his article) demonstrated, the sixties affected the re-creation of the center rather than the re-enforcement and reinvention of the extremes. See Immanuel Wallerstein and Sharon Zukin, “1968, Revolution in the World-System: Theses and Queries,” Theory and Society 18, no. 4 (July 1989): 442-48. To paraphrase Marwick, the social movement that developed in the aftermath of the sixties did not confront their societies but rather permeated and transformed them.
70. Edgar Morin, Claude Lefort, and Cornelius Castoriadis, La brèche: Premières réflexions sur les évènements (Paris: Fayard, 1968).
71. Charles Maier, “Conclusion: 1968—Did It Matter?” in Promises of 1968, ed. Tismaneanu, p. 423.
72. See Paul Berman's introduction in A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996).
73. See Vladimir Tismaneanu, Reinventing Politics; Eastern Europe from Stalin to Havel (New York: Free Press, 1992; paperback with new afterword, 1993).