Bár a szerkesztőség még több számra való anyagot készített közlésre elő, a ’régi’ Mozgó Világ utolsó – kinyomtatása után betiltott, bezúzott – lapszáma az 1983 decemberi volt.
Valójában búcsúzó gesztus s egyben mementó volt ez, melyet a szerkesztők szinte teljes egészében Bibó István kiadatlan kéziratos tanulmányának s a róla rendezett történész vitának szenteltek.
A szám elején Illyés Gyula és Egyed Péter versei állnak, mintegy mottóként. (Az 1983 áprilisában elhunyt Illyés volt egyik versével a Mozgó Világ címadója – így kettős tisztelgés volt emléke előtt, hogy a búcsúszám élén két versét közölték.)
Ezután Bibó István nagyívű tanulmánya: Az európai társadalom fejlődése teszi ki a lapszám túlnyomó részét. Az erősen antimarxista eszmetörténeti művet Bibó 1971-72-ben mondta hangszalagra, majd leírt szöveget halála után fia, ifj. Bibó István javította és rendezte sajtó alá.’Európa, társadalom, fejlődés’ címmel ezt egy kerekasztal-beszélgetés követi a Bibó-tanulmányról Ágh Attila, Németh G. Béla, Szabad György és Szücs Jenő történészek részvételével. Végül Ludassy Mária filozófus reflexióját közli a lap ’Krisztus és Condorcet. Hozzászólás Bibó István humanista utópiájához’ címmel.
After a few months break, when the journal was coming close to its end, the restart of “World in Move” with its double issue of March–April 1981 seemed to be not just a positive sign of survival, but a real promise of a rebirth. The newly designated chief editor, Ferenc Kulin, together with his very much tried and tested editorial team, managed to get rid of direct censorship from the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League, and was offered another chance by the main cultural commissar, György Aczél himself, “to prove their talents.” No doubt they tried to do their best on the 224 pages of the book-sized double issue.
On the first two pages there was an editorial addressed to readers briefly summing up the recent changes in and around the paper, and drafting further plans for the future. As it was stated, a long decade passed since the start of “World in Move,” and after a prolonged period as a “youth paper,” it was high time to become a forum for adults with full responsibilities. It is true that in two short paragraphs one can be read the obligatory ideological “loyalty statement” of all legally published papers (“engagement with socialism, dialectical and historical materialism,” etc.), but more important is the list of radical claims for free public debates in all fields of life: in politics, culture, arts, literature, science, education, and so on.These ambitions are well reflected by the content of the double issue: finely written poems, short stories, plays, essays, studies, reviews, and critiques of contemporary books, films, music, and theater performances, experimental art pieces, passionate public debates (on schools and higher education), a series of socially authentic photographs (like teenage kids at rock festivals). The world seemed to be moving dynamically, and the journal “World in Move” did too – at least for a few years to come … until the end of 1983.
Coming from Chişinău, the magazine Literatura şi arta was the most obvious presence in the Marian Zulean private collection. As it came out weekly, there came to be over 200 issues in the collection.
Literatura şi arta came through the intermediary of the Romanian Post Office, because it was included in the catalogue of publications to which one could officially subscribe. The magazine was founded in 1977, and initially it was the official publication of the Writers’ Union of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, nowadays the Writers’ Union of the Republic of Moldova. This magazine played an important role in the late 1980s, during the so-called period of national rebirth in Moldova.
Marian Zulean recalls: “I remember that at the beginning of my subscription to this magazine, it came printed in Cyrillic letters. There were Romanian words and sentences, but written in Cyrillic script. Later, starting with 1988, I think [in reality, starting on 15 June 1989, the centenary of the death of the poet Mihai Eminescu, celebrated as the national poet in Romania, then still the Socialist Republic of Romania], it was printed in Roman script. I think this happened in the period in which the running of the magazine was taken over by Nicolae Dabija.” Indeed, in the period 1988–1989, when the magazine was headed by Nicolae Dabija, Literatura şi arta was one of the most important publications in the Republic of Moldova and the principal promoter of the return to writing in Roman script and the designation of Romanian as the official language in the territory.
“The magazine came to this country too. And it was, for those times, very lively, written in an alert language, very different from that of cultural publications here. Even if it was written in Cyrillic. Also, in its pages there were materials with political content – approved by a Moscow that, at that time, was much more liberal and more open than what our communists were doing here. It was an unusually free cultural publication for those times,” recalls Marian Zulean.
In its heyday, the magazine had a total print-run of approximately 260,000 copies per issue. Several thousand arrived in Romania, not in newspaper kiosks, however, but only by subscription, through the intermediary of the Romanian Post Office. It continued to appear after 1989 too, and, in a different format and with a much reduced impact, it is still active nowadays in the Republic of Moldova.
As it was merely printed on newsprint, this magazine was also very perishable. Nowadays only a few copies are still to be found in the Marian Zulean collection. In contrast to collections containing unique materials, where any loss is irrecoverable, the disappearance of the magazine Literatura şi arta from the Marian Zulean collection is not a tragedy for a potential researcher, as the issues in question can be found in public libraries in Romania and Moldova. The reason for its inclusion among the remarkable items in this collection is the astounding discrepancy between the discourse promoted by this literary magazine in the late 1980s and the characteristic discourse of cultural publications in Romania in the same period. The fact that under Gorbachev freedom of expression in the Moldavian SSR, as in the rest of the USSR, was appreciably greater than on the Romanian side of the River Prut produced a significant change among Romanians, who were in general anti-Soviet, but now, for the first time in the post-war period, came to direct their hopes for change towards Moscow (C. Petrescu 2013, 244–56). Furthermore, another discrepancy between the two cultural environments is worthy of notice. In Moldova, the national poet Mihai Eminescu was not only the symbol of this magazine, but also of the struggle for the recognition of the Romanian language, and implicitly of contestation of the Soviet communist regime. In Romania, the same poet had come to be dogmatised as a mere annex to the official communist-nationalist discourse, which was only deconstructed in the post-communist period (Bădescu 1999).
- Bucharest, Romania
- Besonderes Beispiel von:
Made as part of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, which emerged following the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy in 1919, the film offers a complex overview of revolutionary practice and the psychology of terror.
Dezső Magyar and Gábor Bódy, the director and the writer created a multi-layered narrative by using diverse literary sources, actual news footage, and references to current events. The main source of inspiration was Ervin Sinkó’s novel Optimists and the memoirs of József Lengyel and the wife of Tibor Szamuely. Georg Lukacs’s account on the subject was also used for references in some cases, as well as quotations from the writings of Mao and Che Guevara.
The film presents a general model of revolution through talking heads reflecting on their own interpretations and ideas. Though the story is based on actual events, the characters are all fictional. The protagonists, however, in addition to being professional actors, were members of radical intellectual and neoavantgarde circles. They pursued intense theoretical debates on the possibilities of revolutionary action, the dilemma of violence, the criticism of new bureaucracy, and the essence of working class culture.
In part as a consequence of the experiences of the Prague Spring and student movements in the West, the terms of the discussions were changed. The 68er radicals dropped Marxist-Leninist concepts and debated the meaning of leftist politics, the future, and the potentials of revolution and social autonomy. They developed an allegorical reading of the 1919 Hungarian Soviet Republic, which provided a pretext for the filmmakers to discuss 1968. Due to its subversive approach, the film was banned for decades.Produced by BBS (Béla Balázs Studio), MAFILM (Hungarian Film Producing Company) and the Hungarian Film and Theatre Academy in 1969. Published on dvd by Műcsarnok Non-profit Ltd, Hungarian National Film Archive and BBSA in 2006. Available online: https://youtu.be/vH4N_MJ2vvE
- 1061 Budapest Liszt Ferenc tér 10 , Magyarország
- Besonderes Beispiel von: