Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:10:16.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissident Marxism in Eastern Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

T. Oleszczuk
T. Oleszczuk
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access

Abstract

An examination of the major motifs of dissident political literature from Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Hungary in the 1970s reveals a certain commonality of understanding and suggests that dissent is itself a complex, multicausal phenomenon likely to pervade the region for some time to come. Criticisms of the existing system are based on a rejection of dictatorship and its concomitant intellectual rigidity, economic inefficiency, and social alienation. The dissidents' vision of a better socialist society, in contrast, is one of decentralized decision making and of plural centers of power operating within the context of respect for human rights. The tactics put forward by the dissidents derive from these ideas: open discussion, mass mobilization within a legal framework that respects the rights of minorities, and pressure on established elites to make the necessary changes.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 1982 , pp. 527 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Marx, , “The German Ideology,” in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, McLellan, David, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 164.Google Scholar

2 Friedrich, Carl J. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York: Praeger, 1965)Google Scholar; Gordon Skilling, H., The Governments of Communist East Europe (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966).Google Scholar

3 Friedrich, and Brzezinski, (fn. 2), 289Google Scholar; see also Skilling (fn. 2), 211.

4 Lane, David, Politics and Society in the Soviet Union (New York: New York University Press, 1977)Google Scholar, and The Socialist Industrial State (London: Allen & Unwin, 1976).

5 See, for example, Godwin, Paul, “Communist Systems and Modernization,” Studies in Comparative Communism, VI (Spring-Summer 1973), 107–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bauman, Zygmunt, “The Party in the System-Management Phase,” in Janos, Andrew C., ed., Authoritarian Politics in Communist Europe (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies-University of California, 1976).Google Scholar

6 Connor, Walter, “Dissent in Eastern Europe,” Problems of Communism, XXIX (January-February 1980), 1–17.Google Scholar

7 Liehm, , “The Intellectuals on the Social Contract,” Telos, XXIII (Spring 1975), 161.Google Scholar

8 Tökes, , “Introduction,” in Tökes, , ed., Opposition in Eastern Europe (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), XX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar One ought to mention that Tökes ex plicitly denies that he or other contributors to his book are building “elaborate taxonomies and social science models of unorthodox political behavior in Eastern Europe.” According to him, the “rich complexity” of the phenomenon of dissent in the area prevents such a task from being done successfully.

9 Sharlet, , “Dissent and Repression in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,” International Journal, XXXIII (Autumn 1978), 763–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Kuron, , Misli O programie … Zasady ideowe … Uwagi o strukturze … [Thoughts on a Program … Ideological Principles … Considerations on Structures …] (Poland: Niezalezna Oficyna Wydawnicza, n.d.)Google Scholar; excerpts translated into French as “Pour une plateforme unique de l'opposition” [For a Unique Program of Opposition], in Erard, Z. and Zygier, M.G., eds., La Pologne: Une Société en Dissidence [Poland: A Dissident Society] (Paris: Maspero, 1979), 114Google Scholar (author's translation).

11 Personal interview with Ivan Szelenyi, New York, May 19, 1980.

12 Rakovski, , Towards an East European Marxism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), 47.Google Scholar

13 Bahro, , The Alternative in East Europe (London: Schocken, 1978), 246.Google Scholar

14 Casals, , The Syncretic Society (White Plains, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1980), 87.Google Scholar

15 See, for example, ibid., on “infallibility” (pp. 14–15) and “nonselectiveness” (p. 88); Konrad, György and Szelenyi, Ivan, Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, 1979), 162–68Google Scholar, 170–71, 182–83; and Michnik, Adam, “Vive la Pologne!”, in Ostoje-Ostaszewski, A., ed., Dissent in Poland (London: Association of Polish Students and Graduates in Exile, 1977), 178.Google Scholar

16 See, among others, Casals (fn. 14), on the “lack of measure,” throughout, but especially at pp. 14–19; Rakovski (fn. 12), 29 ; Havemann, Robert, Questions Answers Questions (New York: Doubleday, 1972), 33, 46–47Google Scholar; and “Charter 77,” in Riese, Hans Peter, ed., Since the Prague Spring (New York: Vintage, 1979), 12.Google Scholar

17 Konrad, and Szelenyi, (fn. 15), 188–92Google Scholar, 211–15, 218; Havel, Vaclav, “Letter to Gustav Husak,” in Riese (fn. 16), 25–28Google Scholar; Bahro (fn. 13), 213, 226–27.

18 Cf. Rakovski (fn. 12), 105–34; Dubcek, Alexander, “Letter to the Federal Parliament of Czechoslovakia and the Slovak National Council,” in Riese (fn. 16), 76Google Scholar; Lipinski, Edward, “Open Letter to Comrade Gierek,” in Ostoje-Ostaszewski (fn. 15), 35; and Havel (fn. 17), 29–31.Google Scholar

19 See, among others, Bienkowski, Wladyslaw, “Motory i halumee socializmu” [The Motors and Obstacles of Socialism], in Erard, and Zygier, (fn. 10), 155–66Google Scholar, esp. 155–62; and Bienkowski, , “Open Letter to the Authorities of the Polish People's Republic on the Normalization of Relations with the Soviet Union,” in Raina, Peter, Political Opposition in Poland: 1954–1977 (London: Poets' and Painters' Press, 1978), 367–71Google Scholar; Dubcek, (fn. 18), 64, 72, 74Google Scholar; Havemann, (fn. 16), 33, 64–65Google Scholar; Bahro, (fn. 13), 306Google Scholar; and Riese, (fn. 16), 12–13.Google Scholar

20 Havel (fn. 17), 24–33; Casals (fn. 14), 54, 84; Havemann (fn. 16), 51–52, 64, and “The Socialism of Tomorrow,” in Frantisele Silnitsky and others, eds., Communism and East Europe (New York: Karz, 1979), 175.

21 Kuron (fn. 10), 115–17; Lipinski (fn. 18), 28–29; Bahro (fn. 13), 305, 334, 336–40; Havel, and others, “A Ten-Point Declaration on the First Anniversary of the Occupation,” in Riese (fn. 16), 3–8Google Scholar; at 3–4.

22 Havel, Vaclav, ‘The Age of Chicanery: Technical Notes on My House Arrest,” Encounter, Vol. 53 (September 1979), 32–40Google Scholar, at 40.

23 Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 47ff. Their “models of economic integration” explicitly focus on the “legitimization of social authority” (p. 47). Cf. Rigby, T. H., “Politics in the Mono-Organizational Society,” in Janos (fn. 5), 31–80Google Scholar, and “Traditional, Market, and Organizational Societies and the USSR,” World Politics, XVI (July 1964), 539–57.

24 Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 87–127, 133–42. Cf. Havemann (fn. 20), 180; and Bahro (fn. 13), 49–119, 131–36.

25 Rakovski (fn. 12), 29–38; Casals (fn. 14), throughout (esp. 76–77); Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 65–142; Havemann (fn. 20), 174–75; Havemann (fn. 16), 44; and Bahro (fn. 13), 49ff.

26 Bahro (fn. 13). See Wolter, Ulf, ed., Rudolf Bahro: Critical Responses (White Plains, N. Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1980)Google Scholar, for commentary on Bahro's work by West Europeans attending a special Berlin conference.

27 Casals (fn. 14) also accepts this justification. Neither he nor Bahro seems to be embarrassed by the echo of Stalin's argument of the 1930s about the necessity to strengthen the state.

28 Bahro (fn. 13), 163–202, 247, 320, 326, 362.

29 ibid., 271–74, 313–26.

30 It is interesting to note that there is a similar perspective among Western social scientists who have abandoned the concept of “totalitarianism.” Cf. Johnson, Chalmers, ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar, esp. the selections by Johnson and Lowenthal.

31 For explicit uses of the term, see Kuron (fn. 10), 113–16, 121–22; Michnik (fn. 15), 179–80; Dubcek (fn. 18), 64; Vilem Precan, “Letter to the Participants of the World Congress of Historians,” in Riese (fn. 16), 123, 125; and Miklos Haraszti, “What is Marxism?” (from the samizdat collection 0.1%), in Silnitsky (fn. 20), 148–55, at 154. Others have described the system as “monolithic” (see Casals [fn. 14] and Rakovski [fn. 12]) “centralist,” or “centralist monopolization of all … decisionmaking” (see Bahro [fn. 13], 246). Also cf. Bieckowski (fn. 19).

32 Wildt, , “Totalitarian State Capitalism,” Telos, XLI (Fall 1979), 48, n. 74.Google Scholar

33 Trotsky is mentioned by Rakovski (fn. 12), 10, 115–20; Szelenyi in his introduction to Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), XIV; Havemann (fn. 20), 176; Bahro (fn. 13), pp. 19, 20, and throughout; and “Introductory Lecture to The Alternative” in Silnitsky (fn. 20), 226. Djilas is referred to in Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), XIV–XV, and Bieckowski (fn. 19), 162. Interestingly, Bukharin is cited in Rakovski (fn. 12), 118–22, and Bahro (fn. 13), 85 and throughout. Lukacs' name can be found in Rakovski (fn. 12), 131, and Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 4–5. Even Bakunin is cited: see Havemann (fn. 16), 133; and Bahro (fn. 13), 40–41, and throughout.

34 Rakovski (fn. 12), esp. 98–104; Bahro (fn. 33), 202; Kuron, “Interview” by M.Lucbert, in Ostoje-Ostaszewski (fn. 15), 170–76. However, see Havemann (fn. 16), 160, for the idea that the working class must finish its revolution—distinctly a minority position among the dissidents.

35 Shoup, Paul, “Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: Convergence and Divergence in Historical Perspective,” in Morton, Henry W. and Tökes, Rudolf L., eds., Soviet Politics and Society in the 1970s (New York: Free Press, 1974), 340–68.Google Scholar

36 Kux, , “Growing Tensions in Eastern Europe,” Problems of Communism, XXIX (March-April 1980), 21–37.Google Scholar See also Paul Maurer, “The Economic Aspects,” and Jacques Rupnik, “The Political Aspects,” papers for the panel on “The Impact of the World Economic Turmoil in Eastern Europe,” American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Philadelphia, November 7, 1980.

37 See fn. 7.

38 Leonhard, Wolfgang, “The Domestic Politics of the New Soviet Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 52 (October 1973), 5974CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 66–69; Liehm (fn. 7).

39 See the “Letter of 59” as analyzed by Kuron (fn. 10), 118–20; Adam Michnik, “The Church and the Left,” in Silnitsky (fn. 20), 51–95, at 54 and 83; Lipinski (fn. 18), 27, 32,Konrad and SzeJenyi (fn. 15), 245; Havel and others (fn. 21), 3; Dubcek (fn. 18), 84–85; of course, “Charter 77” (fn. 16); Frantisek Kriegel and others, “Letter to the Federal Parliament of Czechoslovakia,” in Riese (fn. 16), 86–90; Havemann (fn. 16), 32–35, 213–14; and Bahro (fn. 13), 302, 308–9 (albeit only as a minimal program).

40 Kuron (fn. 10), 120; Havel and others (fn. 21), 6; “Charter 77” (fn. 16), 13; Havemann (fn. 16), 214; Bahro (fn. 13), 274, 353; Konrad Szelenyi (fn. 15), 245 (for a “certain sort of pluralism”).

41 Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 226, 227, 230; Bahro (fn. 13), 260, 313, 448, 452; “Charter 77” (fn. 16), 13; Havel and others (fn. 21), 6.

42 “Charter 77” (fn. 16); Havel and others (fn. 21), 5; Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 231–32.

43 Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 245, call for the “democratization of political relations”; Bahro (fn. 13), 344, 365–76, calls for a new party in the form of a “League,” and for its separation from the state apparatus (370).

44 Here there are various indirect codewords: Kuron (fn. 10), 120–21 (“parliamentary democracy”); Lipinski (fn. 18), 33 (“political pluralism”); Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 232 (“contending political forces”); Zdenek Mlynar, “Letter to the Communists and Socialists of Europe,” in Riese (fn. 16), 135–45 (“political democracy” and the “rights and freedoms of the bourgeoisie”); Bahro (fn. 13), 303 (“political democracy of the great bourgeois revolutions”), and 300 (“political representation of … particular interests”). Yet at 344–48, Bahro wavers on the question, and at 350 he specifically rejects the notion of the revival of the Social Democratic Party. In general, he seems to endorse the idea of the acceptability of a multiparty system through the splitting of the ruling SED (see 250 and 380, for example). Havemann (fn. 16), 214, is one of the few to advocate the right to form new parties directly and without circumlocution (“right to form … organizations, and parties”).

45 Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 232–33, 249; Kuron (fn. 34), 172, 751; “Charter 77” (fn. 16), 13; Havel and others (fn. 21), 5–6; Bahro (fn. 13), 274–75, 426, 437, 438.

46 Lipinski (fn. 18), 33; Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 232 (“legitimate expression of different interests”); Havel and others (fn. 21), 5; “Charter 77” (fn. 16); Bahro (fn. 33), 220; Krokovay, Zsolt, “Reflections on Censorship,” excerpt from 0.1%, in Index on Censorship, IX (April 1980), 17–21, 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 See Kolakowski, Leszek, Main Currents of Marxism, III (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 458–62Google Scholar, for a discussion of the major demands of the dissidents of the 1950s.

48 Michnik, Adam, “The New Evolutionism,” Survey, XXII (Summer-Autumn 1976), 267–77.Google Scholar

49 However, Bahro (fn. 13), 98, 202, 307–9, and Bence-Kis (Rakovski [fn. 12], 32–34) express severe reservations about the trends embodied in the actual reforms espoused by the Czech Communist Party in 1968. They fear that, rather than widespread democratic control over industry, a new form of domination (technocracy) would result.

50 Tökes, Rudolf, “Human Rights and Political Change,” in Tökes (fn. 8), 19–22.Google Scholar

51 Havel and others (fn. 21), 6–7; the “Letter of 59” as discussed in Kuron (fn. 10), 118–20; Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 231–32; Bahro (fn. 33), 226, 232.

52 Kuron (fn. 10), 117, 119, 135; Bieckowski in Erard and Zygier (fn. 19), 166; Rakovski (fn. 12), 138; Casals (fn. 14), 89–90; Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 251–52; Havemann (fn. 16), 166, 168–70, 177, 181–82; Bahro (fn. 13), 340–41, 363, 400.

53 “Charter 77” (fn. 16), 13–14; Bahro (fn. 13).

54 Kuron (fn. 34), 172; Havemann (fn. 16), 160. Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 174–75, suggest workers[ councils and Soviets as “the first order of business” of any workers] uprising.

55 Kuron (fn. 10), 117, 124, 130; Michnik (fn. 39), 93–95 (on the Catholic Church as an ally of reformers); Rakovsky (fn. 12), 69; “Charter 77” (fn. 16), 13–14; Bahro (fn. 13), 326, 371, 374.

56 Michnik (fn. 48), 276; “Charter 77” (fn. 16), 14; Bahro (fn. 13), 318–20, 325, 344. Cf. also Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), 234–52.

57 Kuron (fn. 34), 176; Havemann (fn. 16), 182; and Bahro (fn. 13), 333–34, are three major examples.

58 Bahro (fn. 13), 365–76. One could make the case that this optimism is tied to a pessimism about the vulnerability of the masses to “bourgeois” ideas, much in the way that “reformist” Tito continued to press the idea of class struggle despite the optimism of the establishment of “workers' self-management.” See Oleszczuk, Thomas, “Group Challenges and Ideological Deradicalization in Yugoslavia,” Soviet Studies, XXXII (October 1980), 561–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Dubcek (fn. 18), for example.

60 Rakovski (fn. 12), 28, 42, 47, 65–66, 99–104; Casals (fn. 14), 45–49, 52–53, and throughout.

61 Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966).Google Scholar

62 Goldfarb, , “Social Bases of Independent Public Expression in Communist Societies,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 (January 1978) 920–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 927. The term is from Berger and Luckmann (fn. 61), 85–88.

63 Nowak, Stefan, “Values and Attitudes of the Polish People,” Scientific American, Vol. 245 (July 1981), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Ibid., 47, 49.

65 Kolakowski (fn. 47), 467, 526 30, sees an “end of ideology” in Eastern Europe, which appears to be rebutted by the current dissidents.

66 Konrad and Szelenyi (fn. 15), XIV.

67 Bahro (fn. 13), 114, 339.

68 See fn. 57, and Pelikan, Jiri, The Socialist Opposition in Eastern Europe (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979), 61, 64–65.Google Scholar

69 For example, “Polska a my” [Poland and Us], as mentioned in “Culture Under Ground,” Encounter, Vol. 53 (September 1979), 35.

70 Kusin, Vladimir V., From Dubcek to Charter 77 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), 156.Google Scholar Note also the Hungarian interest in Poles as “radical reformers”; Bence, and Kis, in 0.1%, as translated and reprinted in Index on Censorship, IX (April 1980), 136–39Google Scholar; Robinson, William F. and Kusin, V. V., “Reaction by Charter 77 and Hungarian Dissidents to Polish Strikers,” Robinson, , ed., August 1980: The Strikes in Poland (Munich: Radio Free Europe Research, 1980), 148–51.Google Scholar

71 Ibid.; Raina (fn. 19), 431–32, n. 119; Connor (fn. 6), 11, n. 39, 40.

72 Kusin (fn. 70), 321; Robinson and Kusin (fn. 70).

73 Haraszti, Miklos, “The Willing Intellectuals” (introduction to 0.1%), in Index on Censorship, IX (April 1980), 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Pravozashchitnikam Pol'shi i Chekhoslovakii “To Human Rights Activists of Poland and Czechoslovakia” (New York: Center for Appeals for Freedom, document No. 119, n.d.).

75 Piccone, Paul, “Czech Marxism: Karel Kosik,” Critique, No. 8 (Summer 1971), 43–52.Google Scholar