Introduction
We are at a crucial decision point in history. The political landscape as we
have known It since the end of the Second World War is undergoing a radical
transformation. Communist dogma has lost its sway over people’s minds and
the Soviet empire, which had been based on that dogma, is collapsing.
A process chat has been gathering momentum over decades has accelerated
to a point where it qualifies as a revolution. Events are happening so fast that
II is hard to keep up with them. East Germany is transformed from one day to
the other, followed by Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia in quick succession. The
demise of the Communist system in Eastern Europe has become
an accomplished fact in the space of not much more than a month. What is
now at stake is the fate of the Soviet Union Itself. And that, in turn, will help
to shape the political future of the whole world.
There are two possible outcomes. Either the Soviet Union will become
integrated into the free world or it will continue to disintegrate. The events
of the next few months will, in my opinion, have a decisive Influence on the
ultimate outcome. In any case, the pace of events cannot continue to
accelerate much further, so that much more Is likely to happen in the next
few months than in the years and even decades to come.
We have seen similar historical decision points in the past. The year 1945 was
one: 1919 was another. But the closest parallel Is with 1848, because that
was the last time a revolutionary fervor swept from country to country and
the raw manifestation of the people will had a major impact on the nature of
government. There Is another similarity with 1848: the people's will
manifests itself in the form of nationalism- Yet there is a common goal which
unites the various manifestations: the desire to get rid of an oppressive
system of government. This gives national movements a universal character:
there is a sense of brotherhood that connects them.
The destruction of the old system is more or less assured. What is at stake is
the shape of the new one. Will it be possible to replace the old structure with
new ones so that people of various nationalities can live side by side and
among each other in peace, or will the process of disintegration
continue until it deteriorates into civil war? Unfortunately, the line of least
resistance leads to the latter alternative. It takes time and energy to
construct a new system and both are in short supply. It Is my firm conviction
that only the deus ex machina of Western assistance can tip the scales in
favor of a constructive solution. That is the conviction that has guided me in
my actions and that is the case I want to argue here.
My own involvement in the historical process I describe has grown with the
process itself. I started out by trying to create small cracks in the monolithic
structure which goes under the name of Communism In the belief that in a
rigid structure even a small crack can have a devastating effect. As the cracks
grew, so did my efforts until they came to take up most of my lime and
energy.
Until recently, my Involvement prevented me from voicing ray views publicly
because there was a conflict between my roles as participant and as
observer. The conflict was both external and internal. Externally. I was
constrained by the fact that the dissolution of Communist dogma was
proceeding al a different puce in different countries and views that could
have been expressed In one country would have caused difficulties in
another. That constraint was largely removed when my foundation in China,
the Fund for the Opening and Reform of China, was wound up after the
Tiananmen Square massacre.
The internal conflict was more enduring. As a participant I felt genuinely
inspired and optimistic. There was so much to do and I was so effective in
what 1 was doing. However, as an observer 1 could not help but become
increasingly pessimistic because perestroika was producing no tangible
benefits. I was afraid that if I were to give voice to my pessimism I
might endanger my effectiveness as a participant. I preferred to keep my
views as an observer to myself.
The conflict was resolved by the revolution in East Germany. As an observer,
it became clear to me that events were heading for a showdown and. unless
there was a radical shift in Western policy towards the Soviet Union,
developments within the Soviet Union would take a nasty turn within the
foreseeable future. I could pinpoint the cause of the impending trouble with
considerable precision: it would be In the Baltics and it would revolve around
the Issue of a separate currency. As a participant it became equally clear to
me that anything, I could do to influence Western policy would far outweigh
in Importance the activities connected with my foundations. Thus, the two
points of view coalesced and I found it not only possible but also necessary to
stale my views. Hence my decision to write this book.
It has to be an instant book, because there is no time to write II. This holds
true in both senses. Events are moving so fast that the time taken in writing
the book may render it out of dale. At the same time 1. personally, am so
involved both in running my foundations - is Hungary. Poland and the
Soviet Union (with autonomous branches in the Ukraine. Estonia
and Lithuania), not to mention Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria - and in trying to
Influence Western policy that 1 cannot take time out for writing a book. 1
must write and act at the same time.
The task is not as impossible as it may seem. Writing is action, whether we
admit it or not. and it may be more effective to acknowledge that 1 am both
observer and participant than to try and preserve an artificial distinction
between the two roles.
I have been preoccupied with the relationship between observer and
participant all my adult life and I have explored it in different contexts. My
view of that relationship is the basis of my philosophy and it is that
philosophy which has guided
me. first as a speculator in financial markets and. more recently, as a
participant in history.
My attempts at Formulating my philosophy have not been crowned by
success. As a young man I tried to slate my views in a short book entitled The
Burden of Consciousness but. by the time I had completed It. I found it
wanting and so It was not published. Then came a series of attempts at
reformulation, which ended only when one day I could not make head or
tall of what I had written the day before. I gave up abstract philosophy and
devoted myself to making money. But the urge to try and formulate my ideas
did not disappear altogether and I kept on reluming in Itinvarious ways at
various times. Finally I managed to break through the tangled web of
abstractions by using my experiences as a financial speculator. My book, The
Alchemy of Finance, allowed me to stale my philosophyina context that
assured me of an audience. Author and audience were working at cross
purposes: I was interested in the relationship between the participants’
thinking and the situation in which they participate, while my readership
was interested in the secret of my financial success. Nevertheless, the book
served Its purpose. It allowed me to break out of ray intellectual isolation. 1
came in touch with a whole new trend in scientific thought, variously
described as the theory of complex systems, self-organizing evolutionary
systems and chaos theory, which I found much more congenial to my way of
thinking than traditional philosophy.
I am now ready to have another go al Crying to state my philosophy in the
context of the present historical situation. The philosophy is needed to
explain both my actions as a participant and my views as an observer. But my
primary Interest is in the historical situation itself. Philosophy will have to
take second place. That is rather fortunate, both for me and for my readers. 1
cannot afford to get bogged down in abstractions. Nevertheless, philosophy
will play a crucial role in my argument. It will be the basis not only of my
explanations and predictions but also of the policy 1 shall advocate.
Interestingly, the theoretical framework I need to put the present historical
situation into perspective Is the same as the one I proposed in The Burden of
Consciousness. There. 1 tried to contrast two social systems - open and
closed societies. I argued that each social system has a peculiar mode of
thinking associated with it - the critical mode of thinking with open society,
and the traditional or dogmatic mode with closed society. Each social system
leaves something to be desired -something that can be found only in the
opposite system. Thus, there is a genuine choice to be made between two
principles of social organization. We are at a very special moment in history,
a time when the choice actually presents itself. How we respond will have
far-reaching consequences for the future of mankind.
24 noviembre 1989
