REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

140
Remembrance in Time
- the horizon of those who do not know communism (people born after 1980-1985);
their horizon could be artificial, influenced by the environment and the leading
paradigm, by the family/parents’ or the clique horizon; at best, they have built theirs
through analyses and intuition.
Between these horizons there are interceptions but at the same time their overlapping
does not diminish the process of producing fictitious concepts, mythology stories and
after all – the image of an unreal reality.
The existence of horizons facilitates the distribution of different more often than not
opposing but on the whole one-sided claims about the communist period.
The different horizons form the historians’ attitude to the period in question. The
research hypothesis are proved through manipulative presentation of facts, where a major
argument is the regime’s assessment based on political views; these are often justified by
a deliberate axiological argumentation (this in most of the observed examples does not
allow a presentation of the true functioning of the regime). By the way, such research
behavior is not an exception. The practice of the historical research of communism shows
that for almost a quarter of a century (the late 1940s through early 1970s) the assessment
of the “bourgeoisie period” of the Bulgarian history fall into the category of the axiology.
(in this case: negativism).
6. In my understanding, one cannot research (reconstruct) the communist regime, unless
one first and foremost looks into its own logic, behavioral motifs, real aims and visions of
the future, as well as their presentation in the public sphere. Such a research standpoint
places in the middle the topic of reality and its package, the combination of personal
goals and essence of the regime, utopist ideology and particular aims and real results and
respectively – the image that the regime would like to create of itself. It is of great
importance how the regime justifies its decisions and actions (i.e. what explanations and
justifications it gives society). From such a research point of view we could distinguish
the typical of ideology and regime behavior hypocrisy and cynicism.
Secondly, I ask the question how motifs of behavior, aims and visions, connected with /
stemming from the communist regime are perceived, assessed (especially totally
confidentially), criticized in the course of history as well as the reasons why dissidents
come out of the communist circles. This is the time to place the emphasis on the image
(images) of the regime which are built and circulate in society throughout the existence of
this regime. The existing in different periods concepts of the regime are greatly
influenced by separate momentary facts depending on the audience before which they
have been exposed and on the environment they originate from.
In the context of the topic of the image and the concepts lies the usually dismissed by
researchers question on the consensus between authorities and society. It comprises a
general topic which includes both the attitude of the intellectuals towards the regime and
the inclusion (in certain stages of its development) of separate social groups and bigger
social circles. Consensus as a form of personal choice and social attitude expresses the
condition necessity/need/forcefulness in which each individual or social groups fid
themselves, as well as the fact that the regime rules. At the same time consensus is an
expression of different forms of conformism.