This material contains an attempt in comparing the Czech and the Romanian way of building a kind of opposition to the communist dictatorship with the means specific to theater. The first part of the material proposes a parallel between the Czech and the Romanian personality at national and individual level, specifying that the differences are given not only by the different origins of those two nations, but also by the specific historical conditions they passed through. It is then specified that the author is aware of the little possibilities of the Czech and Slovak people interested in the filed have to find out how things were in the world of the Romanian theater during the communist regime, whilst materials about the Polish, Russian, East-German or Hungarian oppositional activity during communism is far better known. Then a presentation of the Romanian theater world after the Second World War follows, stressing the lack of alternative to the state theaters in Romania, by difference to what was happening in Czechoslovakia. Then the possibilities of developing a kind of oppositional activity is presented for each kind of theater show in Romania, stressing that the biggest theaters were the most active. Then a parallel is suggested between the oppositional activity of theaters in Czechoslovakia (mainly in the Czech lands) and Romania, by explaining likenesses and differences.
The article examines the conceptual history of the terms “dissent” and “dissidence” and their equivalents in English, French, German, and Czech. It demonstrates that each language has its own terminology with unique nuances of semantics and connotations that require attention when studying expressions of “left dissent” in different linguistic contexts. The second part of the text discusses how scholars and practitioners of dissidence/dissent in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have defined and understood these terms and their relationship to the semantically close concepts of “resistance” or “opposition.” The essay then gives a brief survey of research literature on left dissent in the West and under state socialism before concluding with some reflections on possible new approaches to the topic.
This entry in Contradictions’ ongoing “Conceptual Dictionary” examines the conceptual history of the terms “dissent” and “dissidence” and their equivalents, in English, French, German, and Czech. It demonstrates that each language has its own terminology with unique nuances of semantics and connotations that require attention when studying expressions of “left dissent” in different linguistic contexts. The second part of the text discusses how scholars and practitioners of dissidence/dissent in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have defined and understood these terms and their relationship to the semantically close concepts of “resistance” or “opposition.” The text then gives a brief survey of research on left dissent in the West and under state socialism, before concluding with some reflections on possible new approaches to the topic.
The article aims to give an historical survey over the seizing the political power by the communists in Albania in 1945. The discussion is focused mainly on the question whether the communist government enjoyed the support of the overwhelming part of the population, i.e. was a legitimate government, or they forced the Albanian population into accepting them. The Albanian communists were able to seize the power before the foreign armies left the country. However they lacked the international recognition of their government. The Yalta Conference conditioned the recognition of the new provisory governmental authorities in the liberated counties with the conduct of free and democratic elections. Relying to the Yalta agreement, the western Allies, USA and UK conditioned their recognition for the provisional government with holding of the free elections. The article deals widely with the Albanian communist leaders' efforts to ensure the victory during the elections of 2 December 1945. They used the propaganda to motivate their supporters and the terror to get rid to their political adversaries, hindering them to organize; they promulgated a legal framework that prohibited the opposition to participate in the election. Albanian Democratic Front ensured the victory in the elections of 2 December 1945, which in the final analyze was not as spectacular as they were propagandized.