4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST ate reference to these sources. Second, is to draw attention to some of the ideas that may appear to be controversial, but without much comment or analysis so that onp may come to one's own conclusion in regard to these. Thirdly, to point out, in the case of a few basic propositions, the philosophy behind them and their likely consequences taking one particular point of view. Naturally, this being only one point of view it would be debatable. Gorbachev defines perestroika as a revolution—'A decisive acceleration of the socio-economic and cultural development of Soviet society which involves radical changes on the way to a qualitatively new State.'1 He concedes that 'we don't equate perestroika with the October revolution, an event that was a turning point in the thousand-year history of our State and is unparalleled in force of impact on mankind's development*. He sees the task of this revolution as being that of imparting 'new dynamism to the October revolution's historical impulse and further advance all that was commenced by it in our society*. He quite pertinently points out that, if the bourgeois revolutions in France in 1789 and in Britain in 1649 could be followed by successive revolutions to consolidate the achievements of the first revolution, there is nothing unusual in a second revolution being necessary to consolidate the achievements of the first one, in the case of the socialist revolution. A question can, of course, be raised that, in the case of bourgeois revolutions subsequent revolutions may have been necessary because one class was consolidating its position against others, whereas if the communist revolutions had resulted in the abolition of classes then what makes a second revolution necessary? If it is contended that even the communist revolution had not succeeded in abolishing classes, then a whole set of other questions would arise as to what are the classes that are persisting and which class is conducting this revolution against which other class? We shall revert to these questions later in this paper. Perestroika can be divided into four broad aspects: I. A re-assessment of the past; II. Perestroika in the literal sense of re-structuring of the economy of the Soviet Union; III. Glasnost, which again is a term that stands for the entire process of democratization of the Soviet polity and State; and IV. Socialism and the World. We can discuss each of these aspects separately before we take a view of the overall picture that emerges. Re-Assessment of the Past This term can be used as an euphemism for a re-assessment of Stalin. But, to consider it so would be a mistake because there is more to the past of the Soviet Union, covering the period 1917-1987, then merely Stalin. However, the most important part of this assessment is no doubt a re-assessment of Stalin. In the book, Perestroika, Stalin is mentioned only once and that in what may be called, a very restrained manner.