I think I've already mentioned that a natural ideology,
I think I'm the only person who has this kind 
of opinion, I've never come across it before.
In the years towards the end of the '50s, '60s and '70s, 
there was this theory of convergence
meaning that these two systems were growing more 
alike. Capitalism was becoming more socialist,
and you could list here the welfare state, 
the effect of Keynesian economics.
It had different roots in different countries, 
including Nazi Germany.
In any case, the role of the state is expanding
not just in managing the economy, 
but also in the redistribution of assets
and thus guaranteeing a certain social justice; 
this is the direction that capitalism is taking.
On the other hand, socialism – the one 
that actually exists as Brezhnev put it,
meaning Soviet or Chinese communism – 
will inevitably tend towards democratisation
because, well, '56 exposed what was really happening.
Later, the Prague Spring showed me that despite regression,
movement in this direction was inevitable
so there would be a kind of synthesis, a coming together.
– I was convinced of this, I mean, 
I was opposed to dictatorship,
these forms that socialism or communism 
were taking in Poland and other countries.
However, I had a deep conviction that some 
kind of future democratic socialism was inevitable.
I could mention another book by Huntington – a whole book… an eminent sociologist and theologian,
Peter Berger, who died recently. He'd been a professor at Boston University.
I had known him well personally,
and he wrote an entire book where his thesis was clear: 
private ownership is without inherent legitimacy.
This means that private ownership existed and can only 
exist as a result of the burden of sheer existence,
hence it was legitimised by simply being
or on account of its ties with other values – 
religious, democratic – and so was beyond doubt.
In any case, again, reversal is impossible.
I could cite many authors.
Another mutation in a different format, this was 
at the time of the changes that followed '89,
was the reappearance of the writings of many authors,
for instance, those of the renowned philosopher 
of the middle generation, Jon Elster.
A sociologist, an outstanding  expert on Latin America, his background was Polish, he only left in the 60s was
Adam Przeworski, a very well-known expert primarily 
of the changes in Latin America and democratisation.
There was also Claus Offe in 
German, a first-rate sociologist.
A great many people said that the political 
transformation, in other words, democracy
was incompatible with an economic transformation, 
meaning the establishing of market values.
The reasoning was very simple:
the introduction of democracy empowers and 
provides the  opportunity to organise,
to those social groups which are 
threatened by market changes,
social degradation, uncertainty, unemployment,
social diversity all of which were fairly 
limited during the communist era.
