The second day of the Fourth Congress of Czechoslovak Writers, June 28, 1967
Speech by Luvik Vaculik
Comrades, I will use this opportunity to say what you know even without me telling you, but I have few suggestions to add to that matter. According to the Pronouncement (Pronouncement of the Central Committee of the Union of Czechoslovak Writers to certain matters of Czechoslovak literature) the concept of socialism is to accomplish non-integration of people, people who are guaranteed the status of citizens. Citizen, a concept once considered a very celebrated and revolutionary word. A word which described someone that could not be uncontrollably ruled, only cleverly led so he would get the feeling he is ruling himself. To achieve such effect used to be the goal of a challenging work specialization called politics. In fact, the idea of citizens ruling themselves was and will only ever be a myth.
Somebody still kicking our butt! Enough is enough!
The Marxist critique of power brought to light the relationship between the ruling power and ownership of the instruments of production. This discovery, together with the interpretation of the history of mankind as a history of class struggle, set the ground for social revolution. The revolution was expected to solve the ancient problem of power. Social revolution in our country was successful – yet still the problem remains. Although we have “took the bull by the horns“, someone is still kicking our butt.
It appears that power has certain fixed rules, no matter who exercises it. Power is peculiar phenomenon of mankind given the fact that someone must rule even in the forest horde and in the society of noble souls someone must summarize discussion and define the inevitable. Power is a specifically human situation. It concerns and threatens both rulers and ruled. Hundreds years of experience with power led mankind towards trying to somehow set basic functional rules. It is that concept of formal democracy with feedback, checking features and limits. But rules themselves cannot prevent wrong when carried out by the people with abusive force based on capital ownership, possession of weapons, cronyism, monopoly of production etc. Even minor alterations of this pattern could, by a side door, result in the foul allegation that it is the very rules of formal democracy that are responsible for the wrong. However, those rules by themselves are neither capitalist nor socialist; they do not determine what to do but only how to reach decisions on what to do. It is humane invention which makes governing actually harder. It is on the side of the ruled ones but, in the same time, saves the falling government from execution. Keeping this formal concept of democracy does not bring very strong governments; it only offers hope that the next government can be better. The government falls but the citizen is redeemed. On the contrary, the citizen falls when the government stands too long. Where does he fall? I won’t satisfy the enemies by saying he falls at place of execution. That is only several dozens or hundreds of citizens.
Descent into fear and civic resignation
But even friends know that this is enough, as it could be followed by the descent of the whole nation into a state of fear, of political indifference and of civic resignation, into dependence on even smaller masters. In short, into servitude of a new type, this cannot even be explained to a visitor from another country. I believe there are no citizens in our country any more. I have plenty of reasons to believe it and don’t have to go far for one of them. This Congress was not convened after the members of the organization had decided to meet, but only after the rulers, having thought out all their problems, graciously gave their consent. In exchange they expect, as they have been accustomed to for hundreds of years, that we should show reverence towards them. I suggest that we should not. I suggest that we should examine the text of the Pronouncement and delete everything which reflects the spirit of servitude. In those countries which developed their culture by criticizing the regime, it is precisely the writers who should not forget their noble heritage.
I suggest that everyone who will speak here will also bring proposals for the matter which troubles them. So let’s play this game as though we were citizens, as if we had been given permission to use this playground. Let us act for the rest of the time here as if we were adults and had come of age.
Here I speak as a citizen of the country which I will never renounce but in which I cannot live contentedly. I have civic affairs on my mind, but I am in a tricky position. I am a member of the
Communist Party, and I would not, and moreover do not wish, to discuss party affairs. But it so happens that in our country there is almost nothing left which at some stage of the debate does not
become a party issue. What am I to do when both my party and my government have done everything to weld their affairs together? Personally I am of the opinion that this is disadvantageous for both of them. Moreover, it makes the position of the citizens assembled here difficult. Party members are bound not to talk about the crucial aspects of the majority of important questions
in front of non-members. The latter have no access to the meetings where one can seriously discuss these crucial problems in a way that both the party members and the non-members are equal in the limitation of their basic freedom as citizens to speak as equals. It is maybe even against the constitution. But I am speaking here as a citizen and will only talk of government. I will use the term “ruling circles “only where the word government will be inappropriate. The term ruling circles is older, well-established term which has always been used to indicate those who are in power regardless of their formal standing, those whose power came from different sources – wealth, cronyism, monopoly of production, possession of weapons etc. It includes deals closed before entering the place of the deal or laws voted through even before entering the parliament.
As a conclusion I would like to explicitly express the fact which, I hope, is clear from the whole speech. I do not blame socialism for my criticisms of the regime in this country because I am convinced that such a development was necessary here and because I do not identify this regime with the concept of socialism in the way in which it tries to identify itself. Not even does its fate need to be identical. And if the people who exercise this power – and I dethrone them for a while and rely on them as individuals with private thoughts and feelings - come here and ask us the question, is the dream is realizable? They must take it as the expression of our goodwill and simultaneously of our supreme civic loyalty if our answer is: We do not know.