jan

From Anarchistická federace
June 17, 2025

A tireless fighter for equality, freedom and mutual aid, a lifelong fighter against authoritarianism and compromise, died on Monday, June 16. He was 92 years old.

The books of historian Jan Tesař are unique. And all personal meetings with Jan Tesař were unforgettable. His firm determination not to give in to the ruthlessness of the powerful was admirable and his enormous energy in the fight for a just world was very inspiring, it was literally contagious. Dear Jane, thank you. And we will continue your fight! RIP

* * *

The following interview for the anarchist magazine Existence was written twelve years ago. Let us use it to remember Jan Tesař, a personality of whom there will never be enough...

Do not recognize any authority

We met with historian Jan Tesař sometime in the early summer of 2013 to ask him questions that seem so urgent to us and to which we needed to hear an answer from a man who, with his entire life's work and personal attitudes, guarantees the principles and values he speaks about. It is then up to the reader to consider how great the differences actually are in the real struggle against power that each of us leads. As Jan Tesař noted at the end of our meeting: "We are closer to each other than we probably think." It is certainly no coincidence that his former cautious colleagues from the dissenting party have already labeled him a romantic, an anarchist, an adventurer, or an extremist...

Twenty years of demagogic propaganda condensed into the slogan of anti-communism has established a clear black-and-white understanding of the past in today's public opinion. Such a primitive simplification can then prevent many people from talking about their own past...

This certainly applies to most of my former colleagues-historians from the period before August 1968 and at least some of the dissidents from the 1970s and 1980s, but not to me. On the contrary, I emphasize that I fundamentally and sincerely agreed with the post-February regime, which, although not socialist according to our ideals of that time, undoubtedly eliminated capitalism, which I thought then and still think today, was the misfortune of humanity. What I liked about the communists in the pre-February and post-February periods was that they defined themselves as the spokesmen of the exploited and oppressed, not those who evoke sentimental tears and charity, but those who rose up and went to take what was theirs. I fundamentally supported their regime, and that is why I wanted to eliminate what I considered its "shortcomings", i.e. mainly the injustices against the so-called "small" working people. I fought for this with all my might and in every way possible until 1968, and the narrow-minded buffoons of the regime therefore considered me an enemy. I had to try many things, but it is also true that I often succeeded in obtaining justice for those I fought for, and ultimately for myself.

I can, however, afford to tell the truth because I have a completely clean shirt. Not only did I not suppress anyone or support repression, even with my consent (as most people were supposedly "forced" to do by forced resolutions), but right after the first political executions in our country, at the age of 16, I sent a letter to the Minister of Justice, Čepička, proposing the abolition of the death penalty. And do you know what followed? Čepička, of course, did not answer me, he sent it to the district committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia for processing and they waved their hand about it, they did not even expel me from the gymnasium - the principal, who was terrified of what the party would think of him, just gave me a slap in the face. He wrote to my mother that I was pretending, that I did not want to be like the others. I had "educators" like that, they could not understand the purest motivation of a young person at all! And so I took revenge on these "educators", did everything worst to them, compromised them in their service to the communists, whom they secretly hated, and aroused their fear. Thus they managed to raise a rebel and destroyer of all so-called authorities out of me. So in the end I should be grateful to them for what gave my life charm! However, I must say that the main people who tried to eliminate me were the hidden anti-communists, painted red, fucked up by fear and willing to do anything they were told, and that I was usually pulled out of trouble by some tough communist who sincerely felt his faith, but was able to appreciate the pure motivation of my protests and my revolt; this happened several times in my life.

So you ended up in prison legally.

I was first imprisoned in September 1969. The essence of our crime at that time was the so-called ROH coordination committees: an idea by Rudolf Battěk, which I took over and appreciated as the best thing that could be done at that time. The basic trade union organizations freely elected their representatives and they immediately established themselves as new higher trade union bodies, freely without party supervision. In these new structures, I was the elected representative first of the ČSAV and then of the company Energetika Kladno United Steelworks. Unfortunately, our imprisonment caused panic among the representatives of this movement. They gave up everything and betrayed us during interrogations. Anyone who is even slightly interested in the workers' movement knows that it is a fairly common story from its beginnings (otherwise, I recommend the beautiful film It Happened in Turin by director Monicelli to everyone ).

I then appeared before the court (which was only in 1972) as a "representative of the socialist and democratic opposition", but unfortunately no one recognized me as their representative, which may be related to the fact that the socialist idea evaporated from the anti-Husák opposition over time. I was released from prison after serving a full 6 years shortly before the proclamation of Charter 77, I was one of the first signatories, but I did not participate in the work on the text. I considered it to be worthless. Then I tried to expand it in terms of social rights, but I was unsuccessful. After all, it can be said that my almost complete isolation among the Chartists and the failure of most of my initiatives led me to the realization that I could no longer do anything at home, and therefore to the happy decision that I had stubbornly resisted since 1968 - to emigrate. So, when I was arrested again in May 1979, I decided that prison would not bring me any more knowledge, and I chose the path of emigration and learning about the "free world", which I had never known before.

I could not help but marvel at the wonders of the West! When I had the opportunity to speak to the Labour left in Britain, I pointed out to them that the indecisive blundering of Western socialists and their hesitation to side with the Kremlin or the “dissent” would cause the CIA-supported dissent to win, so that the situation they knew in the 19th century would return for Western socialists: Russia would once again be the support of reaction and the enemy of social progress in Europe; this time, however, anti-social regimes would be established throughout what was then Soviet Europe! “An interesting idea,” the then famous left-wing MP, whose name I no longer remember, blabbered in amazement. And a year after my arrival in the West and my exploration of all possible ideological environments, I sent a letter to the domestic dissidents stating that the only true ally for the authentic Czechoslovak movement for freedom were the radical socialists in the West. Fortunately, that letter was accidentally preserved for history. It is certain that this attitude of mine led to my complete isolation from domestic dissent dependent on emigration and its foreign protectors.

What did you mean by those radical socialists?

They were the former Young Socialists of Westphalia, comrades with whom I still work closely. (A few years ago I facilitated a discussion with them in the Ostrava Left Club.) I myself joined the exiled Czechoslovak Social Democracy in Germany in 1980 and later even became a member of its central committee. This probably allowed me to see things more closely, so shortly afterwards I called this party an instrument of foreign interests in an open letter, and that is why I left it. Since then I have not and will not be a member of any party. I work in the International Workers' Agreement, where I work with, among others, Trotskyists, anarcho-syndicalists, Russian New Trudoviks and other socialist radicals. But I myself do not accept any membership and no binding ideology.

This is an old sore point between me and most socialists (I am not referring now to members of parties that fraudulently call themselves “socialist,” but to genuine socialists): the problem between us is not this or that modern trend, but the unfortunate pseudo-religion of many socialists and, in my opinion, the significant cause of all the defeats of the workers’ movement, Karl Marx and his historical machine.

Are you referring to the "dogma" of class struggle?

Class struggle is not Marx's invention or discovery. It was already raging in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, it was the cause of its fall. Not recognizing it is like not recognizing microbes, for example. It also has similar consequences for the one who does not recognize it. Of course, it is not the only fact of history. But my reservations concern something else: the supposedly once "progressive role" of capitalism and Marx's actual fascination with capitalism and capital. In my opinion, Marx was a wretched man fascinated by the stock market, who lacked the courage to get involved. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that some modern capitalist economists discover and admire Marx. Vulgar materialism connects them.

In my opinion, capitalism is a deviation of modern civilization and will possibly be the cause of its complete collapse. It is difficult to discuss this in depth within the framework of our discussion. Instead, I would recommend that you look at the alleged “progressive role” of capitalism during its turbulent development from the perspective of comrades from black Africa. Go to the museum set up in the huge market hall in the port, from where hundreds of thousands of slaves were taken to plantations in America like animals. Try lecturing them there about the progressive role of early capitalism. You wouldn’t be able to do it, it would be a shame; but you would have to be a complete log not to feel it. Some socialist theorists don’t feel it. Here you have an existential explanation why “pure” Marxism does not get along well with black skin. It is interesting, however, that Heinrich Heine had already formulated essentially the same reservation about his friend Marx: "The charterer of the ship, mynheer Van Cook, sits in his cabin and counts how many tons the cargo weighs and what profit it brings him... I will get my five thousand percent if half of them are left alive." - But whoever can do it without blushing, whoever, even in the face of these horrors (which are beyond the standards of the previous European Dark Ages), will speak of the "progressive role of capitalism", should be consistent and also praise the progressiveness of, for example, Stalin's canals or the polar railway: what a sleeper is, so is human life; the factory as progress built on the enslavement of labor; collectivization as a true feast of Death: it is still the same absolute preference for economic considerations and ignoring the basic criterion of humanity , which is the main thing with which socialism begins and ends and what unites all of us who adhere to it.

For this reason, I also think that until the new workers' movement gets rid of this capitalist-materialist pseudo-religion of its own, it will always be threatened with a deviation similar to Stalinism. Capitalism is a deviation of our civilization, and Marxism is a materialist deviation of the workers' movement.

As anarchists, we agree with you on this.

Yes, and I will add right away: let us not recognize any authority, not even the dead, and certainly not the living! Everyone is responsible for themselves and no one will relieve them of responsibility, everyone has their own brain and heart, therefore they must have their own reason and conscience. Sometimes it is quite difficult when you go out into the open and suddenly see that you are all alone, a game to be shot. So tell yourself that it is better to be shot like a wild boar for your own mistake than to be sheared like a stupid sheep. Support in authorities is treacherous, and to have authority in a living person is the worst thing. When someone starts behaving like a so-called authority, even if they have a respectable past and perhaps good intentions, from the moment they want to be an authority, they betray themselves and actually lose themselves – and they lead those who blindly followed them into despair. Look at what happened to the former “velvet” youth: they end up in cynicism. And when you have an authority in the dead (say, a philosopher or an artist), it is only a matter of time before you find yourself in a situation for which none of the old authorities can give you a prescription. But if instead you look at the ancient dead as your friends, once just like you today, desiring, searching, and making mistakes (I mean, of course, those dead whom we choose from the past as our own), if you try to empathize with their inner struggle and their decisions, then you will find that – regardless of external circumstances, which are secondary – you have countless close friends across the centuries, starting with, for example, Spartacus (and thousands of his friends whose names we do not know), and this will strengthen you. Countless "humanities of the rivers" (as Jan Neruda says) gathered around the red banner , all living by the same ideal and holding on to it as a life-giving source that lifted them above the filth of the world of violence and money and offered them the same eternally beautiful idea of all people as inalienably free and equal, of their fraternity and mutual assistance.

This ideal will never pass away, even if it were to be trampled on for another thousand years. And I am proud to have joined the relay of many millions of people captivated by this magnificent idea, in all modesty.

What do you think we can do if we don't want to keep getting defeated?

To create cooperatives of all kinds, in the broadest sense, not just economic ones. No matter how utopian it may seem today, socialism cannot arise except from below, as a people's movement. Of course, we will also need these free people's associations not to be crushed by state power, as is the case up to now. Anyone who remembers the time twenty years ago knows that cooperatives were deliberately, systematically and violently destroyed (instead of being liberated from bureaucratic tutelage). This is one of the greatest crimes of the gaol and what came after it. Unfortunately, we allowed it without sufficient resistance. But we have political civil rights, and our ancestors fought for them precisely so that we could use our collective strength to influence political power in support of social rights. It begins with the struggle for unions and political associations that are supposed to serve wage workers and not so-called general prosperity or so-called economic progress.

And what everyone can do, right now and every day, is to convince the people around them that the crisis into which everything is plunging, and before everyone's eyes, is a general crisis of capitalism, which cannot be resolved except by the socialization of the large means of production. Everyone can read in the available statistics that during this crisis the sale of all luxury goods is increasing. The richest people are happy with the crisis. How can it be believed that those who are the masters of everything will rid themselves of their advantages? The world crisis will not end until capital is expropriated. Our first task is to overcome the prevailing resistance to this idea, to break the de facto spiritual monopoly of the defenders of capitalism or even to prohibit the promotion of socialist ideas by law. International capital, which has succeeded in a far-reaching restoration on a global scale, is striving to criminalize the very slogan of expropriating capital. It is comfortable not saying this openly for the time being. All the more so, we must draw attention to this and not act as if we do not notice it (as many communist parties, among others, are doing today). We must fight for this key part of our practical program today and every day. The fact that we did not do so forcefully enough during the time of so-called "communism" is our share of the blame for the catastrophe that occurred after 1989. The answer to this sad truth is not to remain silent about it today!

Furthermore, I think that from the perspective of this main practical question – what now – we can also return to our reflection on what we should and should not see as progress, or what is the essence of our ideal as socialists. Is it really the so-called “higher economic efficiency”? Or is it the preferences of the human perspective that should unite us (and distinguish us from others) ?

For no matter how hard the clowns in picture boxes and magazines try, the rotation of the globe will not stop. Before long, a new (Western!) fashion will begin to prevail, and gradually everything will be red again, this time not only in the East. It would be a source of new endless suffering for our descendants if the aforementioned question remained unclear until the future transformation. We can understand this task of our generation as a great chance for us: Stalinism and then especially the capitalist restoration brought everything that was not otherwise quite obvious to absurd consequences. We, thanks to the fact that we live in this otherwise sad time, can perfectly recognize what remained hidden from our ancestors. Thanks to this, we also understand that, firstly, for socialists, the decisive criteria must be human and not economic, and secondly, our enemy is ideology, which proclaims the opposite, but not sincerely thinking comrades, who have so far been indebted to the incorrect ideology: also the promotion of a comprehensive plurality of approaches among socialists is a prerequisite for true socialism, the foundations of which must be laid today, right now.

* * *

J an Tesař was born in 1933 in Skutč. At the age of six, he was first confronted with “absolute evil” – the Nazi occupation. He belonged to a family that responded to it with resistance. He welcomed February 1948, and soon after began to react actively and in his own way – with constant proposals for “improvement” and then with a solitary struggle against individual injustices. He studied history and chose the history of the partisan movement in the Bohemian-Moravian Highlands as the topic of his diploma thesis. On this basis, in 1956 he was accepted as a researcher at the Military Historical Institute. When he was expelled from the Military Historical Institute in 1958 for political reasons, he first continued to study the history of the partisan movement as an unemployed person, then devoted himself to his studies privately. At the end of 1961, he was politically rehabilitated and returned to the Military Historical Institute. Before that, together with Zdeněk Štěpánek and Václav Kural, he wrote the first overview historical work on the Czech partisan movement (Kural – Benčík /ed./, Partizánské hnutí v Československé za druhé svéte války , 1961). He later followed it up with a collection of documents Slovak National Uprising and the Czech Land, which he also presented as an example of solving archeographic problems (1964). In the meantime, in 1964 (in view of the innovative approach to the question), he was awarded the rank of Candidate of Sciences for the previously published article Notes on the Problem of the Occupation Regime of the So-Called “Protectorate” . He was among the first members of the Committee for the History of the Anti-Fascist Resistance, which coordinated the study of our resistance in an international context. Thanks to the connections thus established, especially to Poland, Yugoslavia, Italy and France, the Committee also became an important base for spreading the ideas of the so-called “Czechoslovak Spring”. Jan Tesař participated intensively in the scientific and political work of the Committee. One of his historical works from that time was paradoxically published when the author was already in prison: he probably forgot about the ban on publishing it for that very reason (see From the Beginnings of the Resistance , 1969, it was actually published only in 1970).

From the early 1960s, he was also strongly involved politically within the Committee: he collaborated in the creation of a nationwide network of historians, participated in many discussions with Slovak intellectuals (he supported Slovak demands for the federalization of the state from the beginning) and participated in negotiations with colleagues abroad (especially in Yugoslavia). When the easing of the social atmosphere allowed his acceptance into the Communist Party of the Czechoslovak Republic, he became a member of the party without hesitation in 1966. In the revolutionary year of 1968, he was even the vice-chairman of an important departmental organization in the Military Historical Institute and was instrumental in its radically reformist positions. However, after Dubček and his colleagues signed the capitulation in Moscow in August 1968, he refused any further discussions and left the party. For this reason, he had to leave the VHÚ immediately in the autumn of 1968; Academician Macek accepted him into the Historical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. Thanks to this, he was able to be elected as a delegate to the Academy's General Assembly in the spring of the following year (and become one of the two delegates who voted against supporting Gustáv Husák). Little known is the completely unique act of Academician Mack, who, in his capacity as director of the Historical Institute, signed the so-called social guarantee for the accused Tesář – which on the one hand contributed to the delay of the political trials by more than a year, on the other hand was the immediate cause of Mack's dismissal and then the dispersal of the entire Historical Institute.

In the summer of 1972, Tesař was sentenced to 6 years (including the previous imprisonment without trial). The following year, he, Vašíček and Šabat managed to do the best “subversive” act ever: in conditions of strict isolation, they organized a collective letter of prisoners to the World Peace Congress in Moscow, which was then read there by the Dutch and French delegates. The message was limited to stating that the political prisoners in Czechoslovakia support the peace movement and reminding that the basic prerequisites of peace include respect for the rights of nations and the civil rights of each individual; however, this was enough to provoke a fierce controversy at the Congress and, as a result, permanently free the peace movement from the Kremlin’s tutelage.

After serving his entire sentence, Tesař returned just in time to become one of the first signatories of Charter 77. He made a significant contribution to further development, particularly through his initiative to establish the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted. However, in connection with the repression of the VONS, he chose to emigrate.

In emigration (first in Germany, then in France), he published his own magazine Dialogy , worked on the editorial board of the Polish monthly Kontakt , and as secretary of the Polish organization supporting the Afghan resistance, edited the Polish-Czechoslovak Afghan Notebook . From the beginning, he also collaborated with the French Trotskyist group around Pierre Lambert, which, during the first Gulf War in 1990, based on the Manifesto Against War and Exploitation, united with anarcho-syndicalists (Alexandre Hébert) and splinter groups from communist and socialist parties from all over the world to jointly create the International Workers' Agreement. For many years, Jan Tesař continued to publish its Bulletin in Slovak and Czech.

In 1988, he wrote a study privately for friends, The Munich Complex , which sparked lively discussions when it was published as a book in 2000 at the insistence of colleagues. After 1989, he became involved in political debates, but did not return to Bohemia permanently, preferring to settle in Slovakia, in Brezová pod Bradlom. In 1995, he published a collection of journalistic texts in Bratislava entitled We Are Authentic Heirs . He returned to the Czech public sphere after 2000, when, in cooperation with the Triáda publishing house, collections of his older texts began to be published, the books The Hidden Diagnosis (2003), A Treatise on the "Rescue of the Nation". Texts from 1967–1969 about the Beginning of the German Occupation (2005) and What to Do in the Belly of the Wolf with the subtitle Work on Creating Civil Society Structures 1968–1980 (2018). In 2016, Jan Tesař also published a critical edition of the memoirs of the Romani partisan Josef Serenko, Czech Gypsy Rhapsody , supplemented by an extensive commentary and a final study that places Josef Serenko in the context of the Czechoslovak anti-fascist resistance. Czech Gypsy Rhapsody is considered a significant milestone in Czech historiography and Romani studies.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Q
3
A
d
V
g
A
s
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.