Editorial k druhému letošnímu číslu Securitas Imperii: Časopisu pro studium moderních diktatur.

The presented study first summaries the development of Czech anarchism (independent socialism), or its nationally orientated part before World War I and its becoming mainstream in Czech politics between 1914 and 1918 culminating in a merger with national social party. It further describes the marginalisation of this stream in Bohemian politics in 1918–1923 given the calming of the post‑war situation and the radicalisation of this group, which culminated in its exclusion from the ranks of the socialist party. The main theme of the text is an analysis of the attempt by this group to build its own party entity in 1923–1925. In looking for the cause of the failure of this attempt, I argue that the Czechoslovak political landscape was stabilised, which made it difficult for new parties to form, even though they could rely on several nationally known personalities and several thousand activists. As a result of the radical left‑wing orientation of the independent socialists, they did not aim for social democracy after realizing their failure, but for the ranks of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ), which was close to it mainly because of the Czech anarchists’ admiration for the Bolshevik revolution. In conclusion, I argue that the people representing this stream did not have much success in the Communist Party, because they differed from the members of this party in their rather middle‑class habitus and, as former members of the Socialist Party, they had biographies that were suspicious for the KSČ and they did not gain much respect as it was a group that had been unsuccessful in previous years and was quite small compared to the membership base of the KSČ. The failure of the Czech independent socialists does not deviate from European trends, where the political groups between the Social Democrats and the Communists did not gain a foothold even in other countries in the 1920s and 1930s, because the dilemma of going with Moscow or remaining on the platform of parliamentary democracy did not allow for compromise.

This study deals with the tactics, means and methods by which the Communist Party of Slovakia, as a regional branch of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, politically fought for a monopoly of power after the Second World War. First, it briefly describes the development of this party and its acceptance by the Slovak society in the interwar and war period. Then, it presents a picture, analyses and compares the ways in which the Slovak Communists tried to disqualify their insurgent partners and post‑war rivals for power in the political struggle – the Slovak Democrats. It notes the relations between the Slovak and Czech Communists, the transformation of communist propaganda and tactics, conditioned by a single goal – the gain of totalitarian power, the introduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the replacement of capitalism by communism. Until the communist takeover in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, the Communists used a variety of democratic, semi‑democratic and outright violent and undemocratic practices to win – from hyperbolizing the party propaganda, via the abuse of mass social organizations and the secret police, to purposeful investigation and intimidation and the threat of using a forceful solution of the political struggle.

In the mid-1950s, communist Czechoslovakia established diplomatic relations with several of the newly emerging states in the decolonising world and with states that were leaning towards socialism themselves. In building bilateral relations, Czechoslovak diplomacy often benefited from earlier, interwar cooperation and from traditional interests in the local knowledge of these “exotic” regions acquired during previous trade relations. Whilst the region of Southeast Asia lay largely on the periphery of these interests, the situation radically changed from the middle of the twentieth century. The ideology of “proletarian internationalism” played a key role here, and after 1956 it gave a new impetus to engagement with developing countries, signalling a shift in Soviet (and thus Czechoslovak) foreign policy. Although the Vietnamese are one of the largest national minorities in the Czech Republic today, in the late 1950s high expectations were placed on another state in the region: Indonesia. This study provides a brief reconstruction of the mutual relations between the two countries and the student communities that were formed in Czechoslovakia within this foreign policy context.

The study examines the phenomenon of searching for internal party “enemies” at the regional level of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ) in 1950–1951. It describes and compares the course of the campaign in four regional party organizations (Ústí nad Labem, Plzeň /Pilsen/, Olomouc, Prešov), in which it observes the actions of central, regional and district level actors. It monitors general trends and local specifics. It analyses which factors determined the course of the search for “enemies” in the leadership of the regions of the KSČ and its results.

The following study deals with those members of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Komunistická strana Československa, KSČ) who had to face expulsion from the Party at the beginning of the 1970s. It aims to present the perspectives of the rank‑and‑file members of the KSČ who were excluded or expelled after the military intervention of the Warsaw Pact troops in August 1968. Using the example of those expelled from two districts in South Bohemia (Český Krumlov and Prachatice), we will try to show the communist regimeʼs principled openness to redress among those affected who demonstrated their loyalty to the normalisation regime. The Party sanction, or rather the hope of improving their disadvantaged position, thus motivated some of those affected to various expressions of loyalty, manifested not only in official requests for re‑admission to the Communist Party, but above all through increased activity and public engagement. Also, many highly qualified workers were not significantly affected by the vetting due to their privileged status.

The paper is based on an analysis of Czech anti‑communism. It starts with a brief definition of anti‑communism. Then it presents six possible typologies of anti‑communism based on various questions: type of political mission, political background, actual political function, proposed cure, and spatial scope. There then follows a presentation of various phenomena that are framed in an anti‑communist way: the Communist Party, Social Democrats, liberals, the young generation, but also the contemporary West with its “progressivist” tendencies. In the two final sections the paper focuses on comparison in the Central European context. It shows that in the Czech context the transfer of German experience was (in)adequate for different reasons than in the Polish and Hungarian cases, namely because of the dynamics connected with the different trajectories of post‑communist political subjects.

Jacques Rupnik discusses different approaches to the history of the KSČ.

Libora Oates‑Indruchová summarises her research on academic’s experiences of censorship and self‑censorship.

Tim Haughton reflects on the shadows cast by communism on Czech and Slovak politics since 1989.