SOME NOTES ON SOCIALISM AND POSTSOCIALISM:

VOICES FROM WITHIN

Theodora Eliza Văcărescu 

University of Bucharest, Bucharest

© 2004 Theodora Eliza Văcărescu All Rights Reserved
The copyright for individual articles in both the print and online version of the Anthropology of East Europe Review are
retained by the individual authors. They reserve all rights other than those stated here. Please contact the managing editor
for details on contacting these authors. Permission is granted for reproducing these articles for scholarly and classroom use
as long as only the cost of reproduction is charged to the students. Commercial reproduction of these articles requires the

permission of the authors.

 [L]ike postcolonial studies, the orientation I 
am advocating would give voice to the 
‘natives’ [my emphasis] as analysts of their 
own condition. Although it is not clear who 
would be the Franz Fanon of this corpus, his 
or her forerunners surely include the East 
European dissidents and other scholars -
people like Rudolph Bahro, Pavel Câmpeanu, 
György Konrád, János Kornai, István Rév, 
Jadwiga Staniszkis and Iván Szelény - whose 
writing spurred us to seek an understanding of 
socialism different from that offered by Cold 
War categories, even if we now perceive 
deficiencies in their view of it. Yet for both 
postsocialist and postcolonial studies, as 
anthropologists we ought to [my emphasis] 
insist on broadening the category of ‘native’ 
to incorporate the understandings of people 
who have less privileged positions in their 
societies than do those I have just mentioned.  
(Katherine Verdery, 2002: 20)

We are living in Romania, and this is taking 
almost all of our time.

(contemporary Romanian saying)

Introduction

Although I had a strong feeling of 
orientalization when I first came across the 
passage I placed as an opening to my paper, I 
later realized that, beside the many things 
with which I would deeply disagree, there is 
one important thing Verdery points out very 
appropriately: the idea that the voices of the 
people (those not speaking from the 
‘privileged positions’ that Verdery mentions) 

who have been living and still live in 
postsocialism should be more often heard. My 
position is quite different from that of 
Verdery’s. I am a ‘native,’ in this respect, and 
my ‘situatedness,’ although not assigning me 
an objective voice, seems to follow the 
orientation that Verdery advocates.

There has been a lot written on post-socialism 
in Central and Eastern Europe. This topic has 
been dealt with inside-out; one may almost 
have the feeling that there is nothing more to 
talk about. Both ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’1

scholars have studied post-socialism from 
many vantage points: economically, socially, 
politically, culturally, etc. Monographs and 
ethnographies of the Central and Eastern 
European countries have been undertaken. 
Debates over the ‘right,’ or objective ‘voice’ 
in these studies and experiences emerged. As 
a ‘native’ (whatever this might amount to), I 
believe that the experience of post-socialism 
should also be considered from the point of 
view of the people who have lived these 
almost fifteen years in post-socialism. What is 
their lived experience? What is their 
vocabulary vis-à-vis post-socialism, or 
whatever they call this? How do they relate to 

                                                          
1 Since there are significant problems when 
categorizing the world into the West and the East, 
for these are not mere geographical areas, but 
much more complex cultural, historical, religious, 
and even economic constructs, I will, for this 
paper, use inverted commas for both terms and 
their derivatives. 

Jen
Typewritten Text
84



this period? How do they understand post-
socialism? 

I recently had the chance to meet and have 
lengthy discussions with several post-socialist 
and post-colonialist researchers from the 
‘East’ and from the ‘West.’ And during one 
such discussion, I realized that what lacked 
was a ‘view from within.’ What does 1989 
mean for large mass of the Romanian 
people?2 What is their discourse about the 
events of December 1989? How do they relate 
to these events? Do they identify with the 
‘Revolution’ – capital R? How do they 
perceive and re-present their lives during the 
communist regime (both represent and re-
present, as a way of retelling and 
reinterpreting the communist period through 
the lens of the decade that elapsed since the 
fall of communism)? How do they understand 
and relate to the official discourse of the 
‘transition’ and democracy? How do they see 
their lives and the lives of their children in the 
newly established democracy?

For my study I used oral history interviews3

with elderly people living in Romania. Most 
of the interviewees were born and raised 
before World War II, witnessed the changes 
brought about by the end of the war and the 
installation of communism, lived most of their 
lives in the communist period, witnessed yet 
other changes in December 1989, from 
communism to an alleged democracy, and are 
living now in the so-called ‘transition.’4 The 

                                                          
2 I do not mean to essentialize, there is no such 
thing as “Romanians,” but basing my study on 
oral-history, I might hint at some realities 
characteristic to the Romanian people.
3 The interviews had been undertaken by the 
students of the University of Bucharest in the 
period 2001-2003 for a course in structures of 
communication. The course is held by Professor 
Zoltán Rostás, Ph.D., and aims at building an oral 
history archive on several topics.
4 I agree with Katherine Verdery (1996), Michal
Buchowski (2001 and 2004) and others with 
respect to the excessive use of the term ‘transition’ 
for describing the passing of the post-socialism 
countries to something that no one can actually say 
what it is, since the conviction that the anticipated 
capitalism, market economy, and democracy may 

interviewees come from different social strata, 
different educational backgrounds, and 
different regions of Romania; they are both 
women and men and had a wide range of 
occupations. Thus, their views on communism 
and post-communism are different, but there 
can be found several themes common to most 
of them.

Chronologically, the three most important 
themes that emerged from the interviews are: 
the communist period filtered through the 
experience of the fifteen years of ‘transition,’ 
the ‘Revolution’ – capital R and the way 
‘ordinary’ people perceive and relate to it, and 
the post-communist period labeled ‘transition’ 
by virtually all the interviewees.5

The communist period revisited

Based on the interviews, and not claiming 
universality, Romanians’ view and
relationship with the communist period are 
mixed and not clearly defined. On the one 
hand, following the surface level of the 
official discourse and especially the anti-
communist discourse of the early 1990’s, they 
reject and demonize communism. On the 
other hand, in the interviews, they gradually 
come back to it, at a more personal level and 
they start making comparisons with their own 
lives ‘before’ and ‘after’ and their rejection 
starts losing its initial vehemence. 

The theme that emerged very strongly from 
the interviews is one of the disaster brought 
about by the installation of communism. This 
theme appears in virtually all the interviews 
and is related to the way in which 
communism (often described as a Russian 
invasion and emphasized as such) destroyed 
people’s lives by confiscating properties and 
land, eliminating undesirable individuals from 

                                                                                  

prove to be mistaken. I therefore consider 
‘transformation’ a better choice.
5 I use ‘communism’/ ‘communist’ and ‘post-
communism’/ ‘post-communist’ because the other 
term, ‘socialism’/ ‘socialist,’ and ‘post-socialism’/ 
‘post-socialist’ commonly used in the ‘Western’ 
discourse is virtually absent from the Romanian 
public and private discourses. The interviewees 
never used the latter, but they heavily used the 
former.

Jen
Typewritten Text
85



educational institutions (high-schools, 
universities etc.), and from public offices, and 
the lack or shortage of basic products and 
services. What is very interesting with respect 
to the most important discontents of the 
interviewees is the fact that censorship and the 
prohibition of free speech do not appear as 
salient dissatisfactions. This can, of course, be 
explained by the fact that people under 
communism developed strategies of survival, 
i.e. learnt how to comply with the system and 
only those issues that constituted a direct 
threat to their lives were considered salient 
and thus were remembered.

Collectivization, as a hugely traumatic 
experience, is present in all interviews with 
people who lived at that time in the 
countryside. The extremely tormenting nature 
of this act is underlined also by the fact that 
the interviewees were actually children at that 
time and collectivization was something that 
affected more their parents and families and 
only indirectly themselves. However, their 
memory of collectivization is very strong and 
the story of the way communism took their 
land and other related properties (domestic 
animals, utensils, etc.) occupies a great part in 
the economy of the interviews.

The general feeling towards collectivization, 
shared by virtually all the respondents, is one 
of anger and helplessness. They could not 
understand why they and their families had to 
renounce their land and properties, why they 
had to suffer and endure terrible hardships in 
order to keep their properties a little longer, 
why they were persecuted for protecting their 
families. 

The collectivization was the greatest 
evil done by the communists. To take 
away one’s life long earnings? To 
share your possessions with all the 
lazy and the poor? Why was I guilty 
that my father worked hard and 
bought land? Sheer luck that he had 
died four years before and he hadn’t 
lived to see this! […] I was crying 
over his bed and he encouraged me: 
‘Don’t cry, Marin, I am not going to 
die now. When I die, Stalin will die 
too!’ And Stalin did die the same 

night. I was crying for my father’s 
death and I was happy Stalin died […] 
They [the communists] took 
everything from us in ’59. Land, 
cattle, tools, they took it all. They left 
us poor. They took our land up to the 
entrance of the house. Whom to 
complain to? Who would listen? 
When I heard that they were coming 
with the registrations for joining the 
Collective, I left for the woods. I was 
in hiding for two months in the 
woods, until the Militia [the 
communist Police] caught us and 
made us sign. They beat us, they 
threatened they would make us rot in 
jail if we opposed the Communist 
Party. (Interview with Ion Antonescu 
[85 years] in Zoltán Rostás and Sorin 
Stoica, 2003: 284-285)

When the Germans left, the Russians 
came and the communist era started 
and the collectivization started and 
they [the parents] did not want to enter 
the collective. And for six or seven 
years they had to comply with the 
quotas, with many terrible 
hardships… They had to pay for the 
land they owned – grains, money… 
But they resisted as much as they 
could, hoping that things would work 
out and they would keep the property.
But finally they had to give up the 
land and to enter the Collective and 
there was nothing left of the land. 
They didn’t have a yard anymore, all 
that was left was the house… but they 
preferred to do this when they did not 
have a choice anymore, and because 
they refused to enter the collective 
from the very beginning, they were 
kicked out of the education system. 
And they spent eight years without a 
salary, without any means of 
supporting themselves. Then they 
gave in, in order to be reintegrated 
into education. (Interview with Silvia 
Nedelea [77 years] in Zoltán Rostás 
and Theodora-Eliza Văcărescu, 2005)

Jen
Typewritten Text
86



And then, when they [the parents of 
the interviewee] left, the communists 
demolished their house and took their 
land […] In ‘47-’48, after the 
elections, the communists came to 
explain and convince the peasants to 
enter the Collective. They made them 
pay quotas and if you couldn’t pay, 
the quotas added up and you were 
automatically forced to enter the 
collective. If you had a pig you had to 
pay, and it was the same with 
everything, with the vineyard, for 
example. If you had a cow, you had to 
pay a quota of milk, the same with the 
pig and if you couldn’t pay, because 
the quotas were very high, you would 
lose the cow or the pig. (Interview 
with Victoria Mateuţ [72 years] in 
Rostás and Stoica, 2003: 215-218)

The communist regime considered a wide 
range of people as ‘undesirable individuals.’ 
These were, of course, the former leading 
class (members of the parties that were in 
power before communism, public and military 
officials, Western European and American 
embassies’ personnel, etc.) and the people 
who opposed the regime (this meant anything 
from direct opposition to refusing to enter the 
Collective) and their relatives and families. 
However, beside these people, many other 
categories of people who were less visibly 
disturbing to the regime fell under the stigma 
‘undesirable and dangerous:’ intellectuals, 
people who owned private businesses, farmers 
who owned land. These people, besides being 
dispossessed (land and houses, including 
animals, furniture, books, etc.), had to suffer 
from expulsion from schools, universities, and 
working places (for a more detailed study, see 
an analysis of ‘the second circle of suffering’ 
in Theodora-Eliza Văcărescu, 2003: 7-45).

My husband had many problems 
because he was not a party member. 
When they had reorganizations of 
personnel,6 they used to fire him 

                                                          
6 In Romanian ‘restructurări,’ meaning dismissing 
personnel.

according to a certain article, but then 
they would hire him back, according 
to another article, because my 
husband was highly appreciated and 
they needed capable people as well. It 
was more difficult for me, because 
once they fired me because of my 
background [the respondent’s parents 
were schoolteachers – who were 
considered intellectuals –, thus she did 
not have the required ‘healthy’ 
origin], I did not have the courage to 
go back for a few months, even 
years… (Interview with Silvia 
Nedelea in Rostás and Văcărescu, 
2005)

The difficulties of living under communism 
consisted also in the continuous lack of basic 
products and services: food, electricity, and 
heating were scarce and often rationed. 
However, even if this topic is one of the most 
widely known facts of life under communism, 
it was surprising to find that it was not among 
the first things the interviewees mentioned 
about life in communism. As it is natural to 
assume, people developed surviving strategies 
in this respect as well, they learnt how to live 
with these shortages and to find other ways of 
procuring the necessary means for survival 
(this is referred to in some studies as the 
‘second’ or ‘unofficial economy’ – Nancy 
Ries, 1997; Caroline Humphrey, 2002). This 
does not necessarily mean that they 
‘collaborated’ with the system (in this sense, 
all the Romanians who survived communism 
can be said to have collaborated with the 
system), but only that they managed to trick 
the system and to obtain what they needed. 
This fact is also reflected in the discourse; the 
complex set of relations and means whereby 
people managed to satisfy their basic needs 
was very well summed up by only one verb –
‘a se descurca’ (approximately ‘to manage,’ 
or rather ‘to manage to survive’), used very 
often as an answer to the question ‘How are 
you’ instead of the common ‘I am fine.’ It is 
still used, but it also acquired a negative 
connotation, related to the ‘not-so-legal’ and 
based on ‘relations’ grounds, rather than on an 
open, right, and fair way of succeeding in life.

Jen
Typewritten Text
87



We used to stay in lines for hours for a 
morsel of food, weighed for every 
gram, proportionally with the number 
of people in the family. We used to go 
back home with only one kilo, or three 
quarters or even half a kilo of bread 
[…] I used to calculate how much 
money per day I could spend, so that it 
would last the whole week. I used to 
go to the market with only 10 lei and 
to buy half a kilo of tomatoes, or a 
kilo of potatoes or one cabbage. Still, 
we didn’t starve to death! I remember 
that, in order to have heating over the 
winter, an uncle from my husband’s 
side once brought us a carriage of 
wood from somewhere and I used to 
make the fire weighing the wood, in 
order to last more. (Interview with 
Silvia Nedelea in Rostás and 
Văcărescu, 2005)

The Revolution

The Revolution appears in the interviews as a 
corner stone, many things are weighed against 
it, people refer to the events of their private 
lives in relation to the Revolution, they often 
say “after the Revolution” even when the 
things they talk about have nothing to do with 
the change of the system. However, it is 
interesting to notice that the correspondent 
“before the Revolution” is far less used, 
instead they use “during the time of 
Ceauşescu” or “during communism.” This 
aspect is actually extremely telling for the 
entire mythology built around the Revolution, 
a mythology rooted more in the public and 
official discourse than in the actual lives and 
experiences of the Romanian people.

Commonly referred to as ‘the Revolution of 
December 1989’ or ‘the overthrow of the 
communist regime,’ or, more recently, ‘the 
events of December 1989,’ the revolution was 
experienced in different ways by Romanians. 
Although the public discourse constructed it 
as an outcome of the wish of the people, as a 
sudden breakthrough in which all Romanians 
took part, if not actively, at least at the level 
of belief and hope, more than a decade after 
the Revolution, many Romanians seem rather 
weary with respect to the supposedly popular 

movement of December 1989. The 
Revolution itself is thus minimized and its 
outcome is weighed against their own 
wellbeing before and after.

The first thing that the respondents mentioned 
when they were asked about their opinion of
the revolution is the reference to the killing of 
the Ceauşescu couple. The revolution itself is 
defined by the act of the murder of the two 
dictators, who were considered the symbol of 
the communist regime. Moreover, the fact that 
the killing of Ceauşescu became a symbol of 
the revolution and even a symbol of 
‘democratic’ Romania, is also reflected in the 
language. Many interviewees refer to 
Ceauşescu by the word ‘împuşcatul’ (‘the 
shot-one’) as in ‘during the time of the shot-
one,’ instead of ‘during the time of 
Ceauşescu.’ However, virtually all the 
interviewees disagree with the decision to kill 
the two dictators, but they do this for different 
reasons. Some simply consider it a barbaric 
act that should not have taken place, 
especially around Christmas; others think 
Ceauşescu was not guilty of anything, they 
even regret losing him and the things they 
gained during his rule.

I wouldn’t want to talk to you about 
how it was, about what happened 
during those days of the last decade of 
December and the first days of 
January 1990. My consciousness as a 
Christian is burdened with the 
shooting of the two in the Christmas 
day and it is very clear to me that I 
have no reason to regret the fall of 
communism. I regret, though, that it 
took blood on asphalt, because –
without being a convinced 
conservative, or educated in the
conservative spirit – we wallowed in 
the “honey” of ovations while the 
Berlin Wall was falling! We were the 
last ones and we remained – in a 
wrongly conceived transition –
tributary to communist teachings.
(Interview with Oltea Suceveanu [67 
years] in Rostás and Văcărescu)

During the Revolution I was here, in 
Mangalia. I heard from time to time 

Jen
Typewritten Text
88



loud shouting and booing, but there 
was no big deal here. Some went to 
Bucharest. Some who died were 
innocent, some were guilty. The same 
with Ceauşescu. He was not that bad. 
He gave us an apartment, he gave us a 
gas cylinder, he gave us everything we 
needed. But he did not have faith. If 
he had had faith, he would have still 
been alive. (Interview with Elena 
Brehoiescu [65 years] in Rostás and 
Văcărescu, 2005)

For many Romanians the Revolution – capital 
R was something that went on very close and, 
at the same time, far from them, they knew 
about what was going on, but it was not 
something they directly participated in, in 
many instances not even at the level of a 
common consciousness. The public discourse 
constructed a ‘TV Revolution,’ a ‘Live 
Revolution’ and a people of ‘couch-
revolutionaries,’ a people that participated in
the Revolution in front of the TV sets from 
their homes.

I went to these friends of ours and I 
told them that Doru [her husband] was 
not at home, that I didn’t know what 
was going on, what to do. And they 
told me: ‘Don’t go anywhere, don’t 
worry. Look, on the TV they said it’s 
a revolution.’ Ceauşescu was talking 
and then they started to shoot. And I 
said: ‘I have to get some bread, 
because Doru will get home and he 
will be hungry.’ I went out. I run into 
Doru and then we both stayed home 
until Ceauşescu left, and then we went 
out to see what was happening on this 
side by the Scala cafeteria. Doru said 
we should go back, but I wanted to go 
on the other side, at Patria, to see what 
was going on there […] Then we 
came home and we heard gunshots. I 
called Doru who told me to get under 
the table immediately. They were 
firing from somewhere very close. 
The electricity went off and I was 
terribly scared. In about one hour 
Doru calmed me down and told me to 
continue to bake the cake. We 

watched television the entire night, 
day and night. (Interview with Elena 
Ionescu [84 years] in Rostás and 
Văcărescu, 2005)

Post-communism and ‘transition’

The predominant feeling expressed by the 
respondents with respect to the last fifteen 
years is disappointment and angriness. 
Following the official discourse, they describe 
the period of time they are living in with such 
words as ‘transition,’ ‘democracy,’ 
‘capitalism,’ ‘freedom,’ but all these concepts 
are two-layered. On the first level they can be 
interpreted as positive aspects of the post-
communist period, but, at the second level of 
meaning, they are all used in a negative and 
critical way. Thus, ‘transition’ is a period of 
instability and chaos, ‘democracy’ and 
‘capitalism’ are ‘Western’ imports that cannot 
function in the Romanian landscape, 
‘freedom’ is understood in the sense that 
everybody can do whatever they want, 
without any sense of responsibility and care 
for the others.

The respondents reconstruct and reinterpret 
the communist period through their personal 
experience of the fifteen years that elapsed 
from the ‘overthrow’ of communism and, 
since they consider their living standards to 
have been worse during the last period, they 
criticize the newly established regime for its 
inability to ensure wellbeing and security for 
the people. Therefore, the moment the 
respondents start talking about their present-
day lives, they start condemning the poverty 
they have to live in and the corruption of the 
ruling class, thus finding ‘good sides’ of 
communism. This is not to say that 
Romanians regret the end of the communist 
regime (although many explicitly expressed 
this regret) or that they would like to go back 
to it, it is just that many interviewees 
expressed their profound dissatisfaction with 
the present state of affairs in Romania and 
also with their own life standard.

During the time of Ceauşescu there 
weren’t so many people without work, 
if you wanted to work, you would find 
something. Now, you can starve to 
death, if you are not a sleek. 

Jen
Typewritten Text
89



Everybody’s steeling, they only care 
for themselves and for their fortunes 
and they do nothing for this country. 
All those that I spoke with live a bad 
and poor life. When I meet old people 
like me in the park and I talk to them, 
they say we had a better life during 
the time of Ceauşescu. (Interview with 
Elena Buculei [87 years] in Rostás
and Văcărescu, 2005)

The regime established in 1990 made several 
attempts to repair some of the wrongs done by 
the communists. One such attempt is the law 
on retrocession, which, supposedly, ensured 
the return of the properties to the people who 
owned land and real estate that was
confiscated by the communists. The process 
of giving back the properties was a very 
difficult one and, since in many cases was 
deficiently managed, lead to an even deeper 
dissatisfaction of the people and thus to the 
failure of these endeavors. Consequently, the 
people felt that they cannot trust the 
‘democratic’ system, just as they could not 
trust the ‘communist’ system. Moreover, since 
their expectations were even greater this time, 
they feel even more betrayed and cheated by 
the newly established class of leaders.

Now, after the Revolution, I started to 
go to law courts to get back my 
parents’ land. But in ten years I only 
got back ten hectares and above all 
that, they gave me land where they 
wanted to, not where it was our land 
before. Whom to argue with? Where 
to go to? If you don’t know anybody, 
nobody takes you into consideration! 
We thought we would get back what 
was stolen from us, but these people 
rob us even more… (Interview with 
Silvia Nedelea in Rostás and 
Văcărescu, 2005)

After the Revolution they gave us 
back our land, but it was for nothing, 
it was in vain, because we are old 
now, we cannot work the land 
anymore… Cristea, my husband, is 
dead, we do not have the means to 
work on the land because it is very 

expensive to pay for trucks, to pay 
for… And you cannot work with 
horses, we do not even have horses. 
(Interview with Ioana Rotaru [82 
years] in Rostás and Văcărescu, 2005)

Conclusion

Romanians’ relationship with their communist 
past and their post-communist present is 
neither uniform nor clearly defined. Both 
periods are doubly constructed: first, through 
the period itself and the events specific to 
each period, and second, through the 
experience of the other period. Thus, the 
communist period is first seen as the period 
when they were dispossessed of their 
properties, they were persecuted for being 
‘enemies of the state,’ they had to endure 
many hardships and shortages. But at a closer 
scrutiny and after the comparison with the 
post-communist period, many respondents 
reconstruct in the same discourse a 
communist period that was bearable and even 
desirable. 

The ‘transition’ period is also constructed on 
two layers: initially according to what 
happened and referring first and foremost to 
the Revolution – capital R and the instauration 
of a long-wanted democracy. Then it is 
reconstructed as a period of instability and 
insecurity, of corruption of the ruling class,
and extreme poverty of the people. 

References cited:

Buchowski, Michał. 2001. Rethinking 
Transformation. An Anthropological 
Perspective on Post-socialism. Poznan: 
Wydawnictwo Humaniora.

Buchowski, Michał. 2004. “Between 
Stigmatization and Resistance: A Creation of 
‘Victimized Groups’ Identity in Poland” in 
Enikö Magyari Vincze and Petruţa Mândruţ 
(eds.), Performing Identities. Renegotiating 
Socio-cultural Identities in the Post-socialist 
Eastern Europe. Cluj-Napoca: Editura 
Fundaţiei pentru Studii Europene.

Humphrey, Caroline. 2002. The Unmaking of 
Soviet Life. Everyday Economies after 
Socialism. Ithaca & London: Cornell 
University Press.

Jen
Typewritten Text
90



Ries, Nancy. 1997. Russian Talk: Culture and 
Conversation during Perestroika. Ithaca: 
Cornell University Press.

Rostás, Zoltán and Sorin Stoica (eds.). 2003.
Istorie la firul ierbii. Documente social orale. 
Bucureşti: Tritonic.

Zoltán Rostás and Theodora-Eliza Văcărescu 
(eds.). 2005. Cealaltă jumătate a istoriei. 
Recuperări sociale orale. Cluj-Napoca: Limes.

Văcărescu, Theodora-Eliza. 2003. “Women 
and/ in the Communist Political Prisons. The 
First and the Second Circle of Suffering: 

Romania 1947-1965,” Romanian Journal of 
Society and Politics, vol 3, no. 1/2003, pp. 7-
45.

Katherine Verdery. 1996. What Was 
Socialism and What Comes Next?.  Princeton, 
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Verdery, Katherine. 2002. “Whither 
postsocialism?” in C. M. Hann (ed.), 
Postsocialism. Ideals, Ideologies and Practices 
in Eurasia. London and New York: 
Routledge, p. 15-21.

Jen
Typewritten Text
91