Croatian scholars made important contributions to the work of the Pugwash Movement by gathering primarily around the Institute for the Philosophy of Science and Peace of the Yugoslav (after 1991 Croatian) Academy of Sciences and Arts (JAZU/HAZU). In 1966, a group of Croatian intellectuals from the Institute, led by Ivan Supek, in 1966 launched the journal Encyclopaedia moderna: časopis za sintezu znanosti, umjetnosti i društvene prakse. It was published in all Yugoslav languages and dialects, but there were also articles in English. In addition to the central editorial office in Zagreb, it had editorial staffs in Belgrade, Ljubljana, Sarajevo, Skopje and Titograd. It was issued quarterly, although occasionally deviated from this schedule. The editor in chief was Ivan Supek (except in 1975, when the editor was Eugen Pusić). Since the mid-1980s, Supek was assisted by Nikola Zovko and Bojan Marotti (interview with Marotti, Bojan).
As a multidisciplinary journal, it promoted universalism and a humanistic orientation for science and the arts, as well as the complete disarmament and the creation of world peace. The first issue began with the “A Word from the Editors,” in which they stress: “we stand between military, economic and ideological blocs, and it is clear that in the event of a [global] conflict there can be no victory, but only a general disaster” (p. 1). They insisted on the universality of humankind: “Although the world is so fatally disunited, in every corner of it peaceful, humane and progressive thought is smouldering" (p. 3).
The goals of the journal were almost identical to the goals of the Pugwash Movement, and Supek insisted that every issue must contain something about the movement. “Pugwash” or “Peace Studies” or some column with a similar name was published in almost every issue. It would usually convey information, documents, declarations, or reports from Pugwash Conferences and other meetings. All of the contributions in the column were in English, in attempt to make the journal accessible to international scientific currents.
In the 1960s, Encyclopaedia moderna was relatively popular due to the prominent intellectuals who contributed articles to it. The journal strived for academic freedom and was even open to topics that the communist government considered undesirable, as was the case with religion (Kolarić 1973). The Yugoslav communist authorities did not like such intellectual independence, and the government reduced the funding for all of Yugoslavia's Pugwash organisations and publications. In 1976, Encyclopaedia moderna was forced to shut down because the government completely severed its funding (Knapp 2013, 99). In the 1980s, the very existence of the Pugwash organisation in Yugoslavia was questionable, mainly because Supek was out of favour with the communist regime. Still, the movement survived those trying years.
The journal was re-launched after the fall of communism in 1991, with Nikola Zovko as editor-in-chief, but its scope was oriented more towards Central Europe. It was published until 1998, and Marotti believes the journal was "naturally extinguished" because the themes of the journal were no longer as current as during the Cold War (interview with Marotti, Bojan).
Upon receiving the highest French order of merit for military and civil merits – the National Order of the Legion of Honour (Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur) in 1989, Croatian sociologist Rudi Supek (1913-1993) granted an interview to Radio Zagreb in which he talked about his life and, among other things, about his opposition activities. He was awarded due to his activities as one of the organisers of resistance in the Nazi concentration camp in Buchenwald and due to his contribution to the development of sociology as a science and his cultural work with France. In the interview, he said that five years earlier (1984), he was awarded for his scholarly work, which was, in his opinion, even more important. But that fact was ignored in Yugoslavia at the time. He stated that the authorities did not like him because he insisted on the stance that there is no socialism without democracy. He said that he was a sympathiser and a member of communist parties (CP of Yugoslavia and CP of France) from the mid-1930s to 1948, but that he later did not want to be involved in Stalinist and Comintern-type of parties.
He stated that he returned from France to Yugoslavia because for patriotic reasons, although he had much better conditions to continue his academic career abroad, in France, the USA or Canada. He also spoke about the problems of socialist systems in which there is a negative selection of personnel, stating that the monopoly of a single party promotes careerists and mediocrity. According to Supek, the advancement of society, especially in the economy, requires a free democratic political system. He also talked about his engagement in the environmental movement and his book, which had just been published in its third edition. He said that the crisis of socialism was a result of the fact that socialism had remained wedded to the concept of industrial society. He felt it necessary, globally, to transition to a post-industrial society that would not be based on exploitation of nature and humanity itself, to enter into a new type of socialism.
Besides Rudi Supek’s (1913-1993) cultural-oppositional activities as the initiator of the Korčula Summer School and as a member of the Praxis circle of intellectuals, he is also known for his engagement in the environmental movement. This was reflected in his book Ova jedina zemlja: idemo li u katastrofu ili Treću revoluciju? (This only Earth: Are we heading for disaster or the Third Revolution?) published in 1973. Supek was one of the first scholars in Yugoslavia who wanted to warn the public of the growing environmental problems of modern civilisation. This book shows Supek’s divergence from the then Marxist mainstream in Yugoslavia and most leftist philosophers, who insisted that environmental issues were, in fact, a capitalist ploy to diminish the revolutionary potential of the working class. The book critically considered the relationship between states and social systems in the field of ecology, and criticism was focused to socialist systems as well, especially the dominance of the state administrative apparatus (Cifrić 2016: 104). The book was successful, and two new editions were published (in 1978 and 1989).
In the foreword to the third edition, Rudi Supek explained that the first edition of his book was greeted with mistrust and scepticism “from both the left and the right”. The most of his leftist fellow philosophers and sociologists told him that he had “fallen for American propaganda,” while others were disappointed because they thought he would write about Croatia and its exploitation in Yugoslavia (Supek 1989a).
Limes a fost un cerc alcătuit din intelectuali disidenți maghiari, care a funcționat mai mult sau mai puțin viguros din 1985 până la schimbarea regimului politic din 1989. Scopul cercului a fost acela de a oferi o platformă pluralistă de cooperare pentru intelectuali maghiari, activități ce implicau întâlniri lunare/bilunare, respectiv publicarea unei reviste care să abordeze istoria și situația actuală a minorității maghiare din România, precum si rezultatele cercetărilor remarcabile din alte domenii, adică informații care au fost destinate să reprezente calitatea activităților științifice desfășurate în România. Având în vedere că nu a existat nici-o șansă de a trece textele prin filtrele cenzurii care a operat în România, planul a fost acela de a introduce manuscrisele prin căi secrete în Ungaria și de a publica revista acolo.
Inițiatorul proiectului-Limes a fost Gusztáv Molnár, care, datorită în primul rând postului său de editor literar la editura Kriterion (București), a deținut o rețea personală extinsă în rândul intelectualilor critici maghiari din Transilvania. Miezul grupului Limes a fost alcătuit din următoarele persoane: Vilmos Ágoston, Béla Bíró, Gáspár Bíró, Ernő Fábián, Károly Vekov, Levente Salat, Csaba Lőrincz, Ferenc Visky, András Visky, Péter Visky, Levente Horváth, Sándor Balázs, Sándor Szilágyi N., și Éva Cs. Gyimesi. Însă datorită procesului de editare al revistei, mulți alți intelectuali aveau cunoștințe despre activitățile Limes.
Între septembrie 1985 și noiembrie 1986 au avut loc șase întâlniri în patru localități diferite din România, la domiciliul membrilor grupului. Întâlnirile au cuprins o prezentare (de obicei a unui manuscris) urmată de o dezbatere, și toate procedurile au fost înregistrate cu magnetofon. Seria întâlnirilor a fost întreruptă de o percheziție efectuată de către Securitate la apartamentul lui Molnár din București, în urma căreia toate documentele legate de Limes au fost sechestrate și prelucrate de către autorități. Până la momentul respectiv au fost finalizate planurile editoriale a patru numere Limes, precum și au fost colectate manuscrisele pentru primele două. Numerele cuprindeau transcieri ale dezbaterilor, studii și documente, abordând subiecte precum "minoritate națională", "naționalism", "totalitarism", "autonomie", "transilvanism" (ca ideologie îndrumătoare pentru minoritatea maghiară din România), situația ceangăilor din România și altele.
Activitățile-Limes par că au încetat după intervenția serviciilor secrete, iar anul 1987 a fost anul citațiilor și avertismentelor adresate membrilor grupului. Deși nu s-au mai organizat întâlniri, după un timp membrii Limes au reluat actvitățile privind editarea revistei. Molnár s-a mutat în Ungaria în 1988, dar actvitățile editoriale a fost continuate și în România, mai exact la Cluj, de către Éva Cs. Gyimesi și Péter Cseke. Primul număr Limes a fost publicat de către Molnár la Budapesta la sfârșitul anului 1989. Conținutul acestuia nu coincide cu primul volum editat în România, însă conține fragmente din dezbaterile primelor două întâlniri Limes.
Detalii neprețuite ale poveștii-Limes și alte evenimente din viața intelectualilor maghiari prominente sunt oferite de dosarele de urmărire informativă ale lui Sándor Balázs (1928 - profesor de filozofie la Universitatea Babe Bolyai) disponibile pentru cercetare la Colecția arhivistică a Fundației „Jakabffy Elemér Alapítvány”. Acest lucru se datorează faptului că activitățile-Limes desfășurate la Cluj au fost înregistrate de către inspectoratul județean al Securității în dosarele lui Sándor Balázs. Numele de cod pentru Balázs era "Sociologul", dar deja și cuprinsul de la începutul dosarului se referă la "Sociologii", numele de cod aplicat în cazul Cercului Limes.
Dosarul a fost deschis la începutul anului 1987, iar versiunea înmânată de către CNSAS spre cercetare are trei volume care conțin cca. 800 folii. Dosarul cuprinde diferite tipuri de documente: 1. Plan de măsuri, analize și completări ulterioare; 2. Fișă personală și listă legături; 3. sinteze, rapoarte și informări; 4. Materiale obținute în cadrul urmăririi informative; 5. Materiale rezultate din anchetă; 6. Procese verbale. După cum am menționat deja, dosarul conține copii ale documentelor care aparțineau dosarelor de supraveghere ale altor persoane legate de Limes: Éva Cs. Gimesi (nume de cod Elena), Péter Cseke, Gusztáv Molnár (Editorul), Lajos Kántor Lajos (Kardos), Ernő Gáll (Goga), Sándor Tóth (Toma), Edgár Balogh (Bartha).
- Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Piesă remarcabilă la:
Nadia Svitlychna embroidered this bookmark, while serving her sentence in the Mordovian political labor camp ZhKh-385/3 near the settlement of Barashevo in the Tengushevsk district of the RSFSR. While in the camps Svitlychna actively engaged in protests, hunger strikes, and creative acts like embroidery. This piece was made for her brother Ivan Svitlychny, while bother of them were serving lengthy sentences in separate Mordovian hard labor camps. She sent the bookmark in a letter, which luckily made it through censors, who left the gift undisturbed. Its arrival was a source of tremendous joy for both and also evidence of fluidity in the Soviet penal system.
Born in the Lugansk region, both Nadia and Ivan were central to the revival of Ukrainian culture after Stalin and the human rights movement in Ukraine. The embroidered bookmark includes the image of a Cossack, evoking national symbols and associations with the freedom loving people of the steppe. However, both Nadia and Ivan actively participated in protests, hunger strikes, and other forms of resistance that aimed to bring attention to conditions in the camps and arbitrary abuse at the hands of guards and administrators. Although national in theme, it is important to remember that the Ukrainian opposition was considered by figures like Max Hayward as “striking both for its moderation and high intellectual level,” as the historian Anna Procyk has noted in conference remarks. She also referenced Frederick C. Barghoorn, who wrote in his introduction to the Chornovil Papers that “although the preservation of Ukrainian cultural heritage and language are central features of the outlook of many young Ukrainian intellectuals, the latter perceive themselves as struggling, not against the Russian nation and probably not against socialist principles, but rather against dictatorship and police state.” This bookmark is the byproduct of precisely that movement and ethos which the Svitlychy’s helped found.