Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Totalitarismus jako teorie a jako český „totáč“

100%
EN
Miloš Havelka’s attempt to characterize the years 1939 to 1956 as a ‘totalitarian period’ in Czech history raises a number of questions. Both the wide range of approaches to conceptualizing totalitarianism and the large number of historical phenomena make it unlikely that one can justifi ably claim that there was an ‘internal commonality’ for this period. Theories of totalitarianism can be usefully applied in comparisons of dictatorial régimes rather than in the defi nition of historical periods. In the context of the Czech discourse on totalitarianism, which largely limits itself to Communist dictatorship, Havelka, by taking into account National Socialist rule as well, provides an important impulse, which could lead to some light being shed on the links between the two kinds of dictatorship. Petr Pithart’s claim about the consequences the transformation after 1989 may have for a misinterpretation of totalitarian dictatorship is less relevant to the economic transformation than to the widespread social pathologies that constitute a cornerstone of dictatorial rule.
EN
In this article the author has undertaken a summarizing comparison of dissidents and dissent in Czechoslovakia and East Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, pointing out their similarities and differences, which he endeavours to explain. He points out the asymmetry of the cases he compares, which stems from the nature and scope of the source material, the current state of historical research, and the results that have been achieved, as well as the terminology used. He also offers a more precise definition of dissent and dissidents, which he then employs. He also reminds his reader how dissent and dissidents in the Bohemian Lands, which arose after the defeat of the 1968 Prague Spring reform movement, separated into Reform-Communist, Christian, liberal, cultural, and sub-culture branches. This pluralism was linked together by the establishment of an umbrella organization, Charter 77, eventually also developing into other groups (občanské iniciativy) of Czechoslovak citizens seeking to act independently of Party and State control. In Slovakia, where Charter 77 never really took root, dissent was expressed in religious, national, and, from the mid-1980s, environmentalist terms. In East Germany in the 1970s, voices of Marxist dissent were sporadically heard and the socialist orientation was also particular to the independent alternative movements (Bürgerinitiative) that emerged in the 1980s and developed as a peace movement in the Protestant Church. East German dissent and dissidents, unlike Czech and Slovak, were characterized by some generational and ideological homogeneity. They did not have at their disposal internationally recognized intellectual authorities who would symbolize civil protest. And they lacked a programme that would help them to put down roots. They derived their legitimacy from the rhetoric of antimilitarism rather than from human-rights discourse. Of key importance to the different nature of the dissident movement in East Germany were the existence of another German state next door and, related to that, the massive defection to West Germany, the different status of the churches, and the attitude towards a national tradition burdened with the legacy of Nazism, which, unlike in Czechoslovakia, severely hampered the expression of different points of view about the past.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.