Rendon 1

Damian Alfredo Rendon

Eliza Wood

World Views in 1968

April 29, 2019

Ludvík Vaculík: A Worldview Analysis

Ludvík Vaculík, a Czechoslovakian dissident writer, wrote the political manifesto named

“Two Thousand Words for Workers, Farmers, Scientists, Artists, and Everyone” the 27th of June

1968. In this text, Vaculík criticizes the KSČ’s rule because of its inhumane leaders and because

of the party’s totalitarianism. He then advocates liberalization through a questioning of the

Communist regime and calls for public action. Finally, his text also indicates his hopes for

revisionism through collaboration with progressive leaders and preservation of peace. The

inception of Communism in Czechoslovakia and the ensuing totalitarianism and repression

formed Vaculík’s world view. Along with that, the Czechoslovakian struggle for political

liberalization, which culminated in 1968 and came to be known as the Prague Spring, greatly

affected his view of the world.

In his political manifesto, Vaculík portrays the despair experienced by the

Czechoslovakian population, who, deceived by the hopes of a functional Soviet socialism,

finished living in twenty years of an unopposed rule based on political repression. Consequently,

he exposes the country’s deterioration: he explains the general poverty, distrust, and indifference

experienced by citizens (Vaculík 160). Disenchanted with the status quo, Vaculík’s manifesto

encourages the people of Czechoslovakia to join him in the “revival process of democratization”

(161): he aims to reform the country’s current socialist system to achieve a pluralist democracy

based on humanity.
 Rendon 2

Vaculík opposes the Communist party because of the leadership’s inhumanity,

megalomania, and reluctance towards change. He feels disappointment because the party

apparatus has become “a power organization” that “[decides] what one might or might not do”

(Vaculík 159-160). He also condemns the apparatus for having manipulated people by providing

them with a unilateral interpretation of the situation, which helps inhibit their freedom and their

civil rights. Vaculík’s attitude towards the leadership shows his complete disapproval of the

current regime. He considers its totalitarianism, its repression, and its deception to be a threat to

the country’s “spiritual health and character” (Vaculík 160). Additionally, it explains the mistrust

that he and his compatriots feel for the current government, since he thinks that party officials

are more mindful of maintaining power than gaining the people’s trust. Vaculík also criticizes

the officals for lacking “common sense and humanity” (159) and calls for the election of

“capable and honest people, no matter what their party affiliation is” (164). In fact, these

passages show that he considers experience, knowledge, and ideological alignment to be

unimportant qualities for governance; instead, he values leaders who show goodness,

trustworthiness, and understanding. Vaculík’s text thus shows the disappointment he feels due to

the rulers’ unprincipled attitudes and the value he puts towards humane leaders.

Vaculík believes that the country’s character will be redefined through critical thinking,

popular involvement in public affairs, and freedom of speech. He believes that the country’s

deterioration has been a cause of regime the people’s passivity and compliance. Due to this,

Vaculík encourages them to ponder the country’s issues and to “[arrive] at [their] own

conclusions” (162). This demonstrates that he values critical thinking through a questioning of

the country’s leadership and of its conditions. He finds it equally important for citizens to be

involved in public affairs: he encourages them to express their opinions openly and “to display
 Rendon 3

personal initiative and determination” (Vaculík 163). In fact, he considers that the open criticism

and the ideas from citizens, students, writers, and the press is imperative “to complete [their] aim

of humanizing this regime” (Vaculík 162). Vaculík thus values independent political thinking,

public action, and freedom of speech. He believes that such behaviors from citizens will avail the

process of democratization.

Unlike other leaders of the New Left who believe in revolution, Vaculík believes in

reform. Indeed, he believes that change should be brought up within the framework of

cooperation and order. Thus, he discourages people to antagonize the Communist party and

instead asks them to “support the progressive wing within them” (Vaculík 163). Furthermore, he

requests the rejection of “improper or illegal methods” (Vaculík 164) and “spiteful politics

(Vaculík 165). This shows that Vaculík opposes the idea that a new system should be induced

through a forcible overthrow of the current government. Instead, he shows optimism towards

revisionist leaders and progressive laws: he thinks that they have “the right to this time so that

they can either prove their worth or their worthlessness” (Vaculík 163). Given these points,

Vaculík does not intend to bring radical change through insurgence and anarchy, but rather

through an orderly revision of Czechoslovakia’s political system that is based on new forms of

laws and concrete changes.

Vaculík’s world view has been significantly affected by Communism. Czechoslovak

communism was ushered in February 1948, as a coup d’état moved the country “from political

pluralism to communist rule” (Prečan 1659), which was led by the Soviet-backed Communist

Party of Czechoslovakia’s (KSČ). The population of Czechoslovakia supported the Communist

ideology and considered cooperation with the Soviet Union beneficial (Prečan 1663). Sharing

these beliefs, Vaculík himself supported the KSČ in his early life, inasmuch as he was an active
 Rendon 4

member of the party. Leftist ideology and participation in communist politics were thus

important factors for forming his world view.

Czechoslovakia supported socialism, but the enduring brutality of Soviet-controlled

communism prompted dissent from citizens. Indeed, Czechoslovakian General Secretary

Antonín Novotný had perpetuated Stalinist policies during the 1950s and early 1960s: his

totalitarian rule, which enforced repression with public trials, purges, and censorship, had denied

people of their civil liberties (Judt 436). Furthermore, the formerly advanced economic system of

Czechoslovakia had started experiencing economic difficulties under the socialist regime: they

were facing a “decline in GDP for the first time since World War II” (Prečan 1663). Under these

circumstances, revisionists sought “an alternative within the terms of Communism itself” (Judt

426). These individuals wanted reforms to liberalize Czechoslovakia and to rekindle its

economy, but they remained allegiant to socialist ideology. Like most Czechoslovakians,

Vaculík also directly experienced the issues of this regime: as he mentions in his manifesto, “the

faults […] of this system had to mature before they could be seen properly developed” (Vaculík

162). These events were provoking consciousness of the political repression and the national

deterioration caused by the Communist party. As a result, Vaculík knew that concrete changes

towards a democratic society with more freedom were necessary.

Like Vaculík, many Czechoslovakians had the same desire for reform and liberty. Under

Novotný’s administration, slight economic reforms were adopted, prisoners were released, and

the process of de-Stalinization had begun (Judt 437). These measures had marked the beginning

of liberalization, and citizens began questioning the regime: there was a “universally shared

belief in the need for fundamental change” (Prečan 1663). In 1967, this crisis had become

pronounced with events such as the criticism of the government at a writer’s conference and a
 Rendon 5

student demonstration for better living conditions (Judt 440). This widespread sentiment of

questioning also galvanized Vaculík into taking action; he thus participated in the writer’s

congress of 1967, wherein “he lamented that under Communism the country had descended into

apathy and selfishness” (Bilefsky B15). These events allowed him to believe that individual

involvement in public affairs is instrumental in bringing about progress.

Since Novotný was incapable of quelling this general unrest, he was replaced by

Alexander Dubček in January of 1968. Under his leadership, the period of freedom and

experimentation came to be known as the Prague Spring. In fact, Dubček acted as a catalyst for

the establishment of more reforms: with the adoption of the “Action Program,” he aimed to

humanize communism (Judt 440-441). As a result of this, censorship was abolished in February

1968 (Ruggenthaler 66). These measures provided the original impetus for liberalization, but it

was the people of Czechoslovakia who truly instigated the process of democratization throughout

the following months. People were forming a clear political profile, and they were discussing

ambitious ideas, such as pluralism and national sovereignty (Ruggenthaler 68). The freedom

caused by the events of the Prague Spring would likely incline Vaculík to feel hopeful, which

explains the optimistic tone of his manifesto. Since the Communist party had started to show

progress, he was also willing to cooperate with revisionist communists like Dubček. These

events led him to believe that it was possible to humanize the regime and achieve a democratic

system.

In conclusion, Ludvík Vaculík’s political manifesto presents Czechoslovakia’s state of

anxiety during its totalitarian Communist rule. Nevertheless, his text’s purport also includes

optimism towards the country’s future, as he invites all citizens to join him in his revisionist

struggle to achieve freedom and democratization. Vaculík’s declarations reveal that his
 Rendon 6

disapprobation of the Communist party’s tyranny, his belief in civil dissent and active

involvement, and his support of collaboration with revisionist leaders and preservation of peace

are considerable aspects of his worldview. Events like the formation of a communist party, the

twenty years of unimpeded Stalinist policies, the relaxation of the government’s oppression, and

the Prague Spring helped him form this perspective of the world. Although the Soviet invasion of

Czechoslovakia and the following period of normalization censored his work, Vaculík continued

to publish works defying the oppression from Soviet Communism. His fight for the instauration

of human rights in the Eastern Bloc remains an important part of Czech and Slovak history.
 Rendon 7

Works Cited

Bilefsky, Dan. "Ludvik Vaculik, 88, Leading Czech Dissident." New York Times, 16 June 2015,
p. B15(L).

Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. The Penguin Press, 2005.

Prečan, Vilém. “Dimensions of the Czechoslovak Crisis of 1967–1970.” Europe-Asia Studies,

vol. 60, no. 10, 2008, pp. 1659–1676., doi:10.1080/09668130802434299.

Ruggenthaler, Peter, et al. “The Prague Spring and the Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia
in 1968.” Lexington Books, 2010.

Vaculík, Ludvík. “Two Thousand Words for Workers, Farmers, Scientists, Artists, and Everyone
(27 June 1968).” The Global Revolutions of 1968, edited by Jeremi Suri, W.W. Norton &
Company, 2007, pp. 158-165.

Wood, Eliza. Worldviews in 1968: Week 12. Dawson College. Winter 2019.