During the conference, 24 scholars shared their insights on the significant but understudied diversity within communist states. Special emphasis was placed on the strategies of adaptation and survival employed by communist states in different geopolitical contexts, emphasizing the importance of informal practices and the role of national identities. The idea for this conference came from the Varieties of Communism working group, which was founded in the United States and met for the first time in Europe. Thus, the conference also aimed at establishing a transatlantic network.

The conference provided an in-depth and multifaceted exploration of the diversity and evolution of communist regimes worldwide. It was divided into four thematic blocks that addressed both theoretical foundations and specific historical and geopolitical contexts. At the same time, speakers offered insights into the long-term impact of past and present communist regimes on political, economic, and social structures worldwide.

DAN SLATER (Ann Arbor) and MICHAEL BERNHARD (Gainesville) set the stage for this discussion by introducing the conference and its first focus area with a conceptual framework for comparing communist regimes. They explained how, despite a unifying ideology, significant differences in the practice and development of these regimes could be understood. Key factors included the timing of power acquisition and the importance of informal practices in explaining long-term developments, particularly the adaptability and persistence of communist regimes compared to other authoritarian regimes. This theoretical foundation was essential for placing the subsequent presentations in a broader conceptual context. STEFFEN KAILITZ (Dresden) continued this approach by examining the specific characteristics of communist regimes in comparison to other autocracies, emphasizing their unique stability due to ideological cohesion and close ties between the elite and the regime. He argued that communist regimes must be clearly distinguished from other autocracies because of their ideological foundation based on the creation of a classless society, their centralized economic planning, and their extensive party control apparatus. THOMAS LINDENBERGER (Dresden) focused on the comparison of communist regimes in the European states dominated by the Soviet Union after World War II – from the perspective of a historian. He argued that the implementation of the Soviet model varied in different countries of the Eastern Bloc, leading to the development of national characteristics that resulted in diverse forms of communism over time. In particular, Lindenberger examined the differences in administration, culture, and social structure among these states and discussed whether these differences allow to speak of a common communist project in Europe.

The second major focus of the conference was the critical reflection and reevaluation of Western perspectives on communist regimes. IZA DING (Evanston) highlighted how Western views of communist (and authoritarian) societies have often been steeped in "othering." This is evident in attempts to explain the legitimacy and resilience of authoritarian regimes through seemingly irreconcilable dichotomies between authoritarian states and their citizens. She called for theoretical classifications to be more grounded in empirical observations and to allow more room for positionality and reflexivity. ANJA OSEI (Berlin) and MARIANNE KNEUER (Dresden) focused on communist systems in Africa and South America, analyzing, among other things, the communist legacy in Africa and its impact on current political regimes. Osei emphasized that the links between African independence movements and the communist bloc during the Cold War contributed significantly to the emergence of dominant parties in some countries, while Kneuer examined Hugo Chávez's inspiration and promotion of a new wave of leftist ideology in Latin America. AUREL CROISSANT (Heidelberg) emphasized that stable and effective party-military relations have played a crucial role in the survival of communist regimes in countries such as China, Vietnam and North Korea. He pointed out that these relationships have evolved over time and that the differences in these relationships are key to understanding the resilience of these regimes.

China, by far the largest and most powerful communist country today, was the focus of a separate panel. PIERRE F. LANDRY (Hong Kong) and ZHENG ZHANG (Hong Kong) examined the long-term effects of party membership on local development and governance capacity. They argued that the size and number of Chinese Communist Party members at the local level have a significant impact on the quality of local governance and socio-economic development. They showed that the disparities in party membership that emerged after the revolution often persist to this day, influencing the way political and economic processes are implemented at the local level. The political and social transformation of Hong Kong since 1997 and the transnational intellectual networks that led to the development of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the 1980s were also closely examined. THOMAS B. GOLD (Berkley) argued that the Chinese government, led by the Chinese Communist Party, has gradually sought to integrate Hong Kong more closely into China's authoritarian system, surprisingly without necessarily following traditional communist ideologies. Another focus was on examining China's strategies for countering ideological threats from Western influences. MARTIN DIMITROV (New Orleans) emphasized that China pursues a dual strategy that includes both hard defensive measures to ensure cultural security and soft offensive measures to promote its own culture. These strategies were further intensified after the Tiananmen Square protests and the collapse of communism in Europe, with the Chinese leadership placing particular emphasis on protecting cultural security as a crucial component of national security.

The largest thematic block of the conference dealt with communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. This included discussions on the long-term impact of these regimes on political, economic, and social structures, such as the development of the concept of citizenship in the communist-ruled countries of Central and Eastern Europe. AGATA ZYSIAK (Vienna / Łódz) showed that citizenship in these societies should be understood not only as formal belonging to a political community but also as part of a social imaginary designed to enable the inclusion and social advancement of previously marginalized groups. MICHAEL BERNHARD (Gainesville) examined the economic dominance that the Soviet Union established over Eastern Europe after World War II, describing this system as a form of " inverted imperialism" in which East-Central European countries were made economically dependent on the Soviet Union, particularly through the supply of natural resources. Lectures such as the one by KATARZYNA GRZYBOWSKA-WALECKA (Warsaw) demonstrated how contacts between communist and social democratic parties in Europe facilitated long-term transformations, while FELIX WEMHEUER (Cologne) examined the transnational intellectual entanglements that led to the development of a "socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the 1980s. He particularly emphasized the importance of exchanges between China and East-Central European countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as well as the role of international economists in shaping the Chinese reform agenda, arguing that understanding the reforms of the 1980s requires a look at earlier reform debates in East-Central Europe.

DARIUSZ STOLA (Warsaw) dealt with the development of the communist regime in Poland from 1944 to 1989, arguing that the regime underwent significant changes during this period, reflected in various phases of indoctrination, terror and political mobilization. He concluded that the Polish communist regime developed significant diachronic diversity, shaped by internal tensions and external influences. RAFAL RIEDEL (Opole) concluded the two days of the conference with a look at recent developments in contemporary Poland: He compared the backlash of democratic institutions initiated in Poland in 2015 with the "people's democracies" of communist Eastern Europe, arguing that the populist course taken by Poland and other post-communist countries represents a return to a form of "people's democracy" characterized by anti-pluralism, anti-elitism, and authoritarian tendencies. Riedel concluded by showing how historical path dependencies and populist ideologies lead to the erosion of liberal democracy, and how these developments bear similarities to the authoritarian structures of the communist past.

The conference brought together international scholars to analyze and discuss the diversity and development of communist regimes from a comparative perspective. The presentations and discussions over the two days of the conference made it clear that despite a common ideological foundation, there were significant differences in the practice and historical development of communist regimes. The thematic structure of the conference allowed for a multifaceted examination of communist regimes from theoretical, historical, and comparative perspectives, taking into account both global and regional developments. Particularly noteworthy were the discussions on the influence of communist ideologies on post-colonial states in Africa and Latin America. The conference contributed to a deeper understanding of the internal differentiation and global impact of communism and underscored the need to incorporate historical and regional contexts more thoroughly into the comparative political science study of communist forms of government.

Conference overview:

Conceptual Considerations for Comparing Communist Systems I

Dan Slater (Ann Arbor) / Michael Bernhard (Gainesville): Varieties of Communism: Heterogeneity, Informality, Temporality

Iza Ding (Evanston): Communism, Authoritarianism, and the Comparative Imagination
Michael Bernhard (Gainesville), Martin Dimitrov (New Orleans) & Petra Guasti (Prag): Post-Crisis Adaptation in Communist Regimes

Discussant: Steffen Kailitz (Dresden)

Conceptual Considerations for Comparing Communist Systems II

Steffen Kailitz (Dresden): The Specifics of Communist Ideocracies in Comparison of Political Regime Types (1900 to the Present)

Jeffrey Kopstein (Irvine): The Common Economic History of Fascist and Communist German Regimes

Thomas Lindenberger (Dresden): Comparing European Societies under Communist Rule. A Historian’s Perspective

Discussant: Dan Slater (Ann Arbor)

Communism in Africa, South America and Asia – Long Overlooked Diversity?

Anja Osei (Berlin): Legacies of Communism in Africa? Party Dominance, Regime Types, and the Political Class

Marianne Kneuer (Dresden): Hugo Chávez’s Socialism of the 21 Century: a New Variant of Ideological Mission for the Latin American Continent?

Aurel Croissant (Heidelberg): Party-Military Relations and Regime Resilience in Communist Asia

Discussant: Pierre Landry (Hongkong)

The Specifics and Transformations in Communist China

Thomas B. Gold (Berkley): Communism with Hongkong Characteristics

Martin Dimitrov (New Orleans): The Political Logic of Cultural Security in Contemporary China

Pierre Landry (Hongkong) / Zheng Zhang (Hongkong): The Developmental Consequences of the Communist Revolution in China (1921–2011)

Felix Wemheuser (Köln): Market Socialism in Eastern Europe and China: Cycles of Economic Reforms of the 1960s and 1980s

Discussant: Iza Ding (Evanston)

Communist Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe I

Katarzyna Grzybowska-Walecka (Warschau): Cross-Iron Curtain Collaborations: The Role of East-West Party Contacts in the Communist Period

Matt Reichert (Cambridge): The Right to Write Badly: Failure and Success of the Communist Creative Union Model

Agata Zysiak (Wien / Lodz): The Varieties of Citizenship. Who Could Become a Citizen under State Socialism?

Discussant: Stefan Garsztecki (Chemnitz)

Communist Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe II

Piotr Kocyba (Leipzig) / Alexander Leistner (Leipzig) / Ales Michal (Leipzig): Civil Society Engagement in Communist Europe - Between Total Control and Mass Mobilization

Michael Bernhard (Gainesville): Inverted Imperialism: The Establishment of Soviet Economic Control of the Eastern Bloc

Dariusz Stola (Warschau): Varieties of Communism in One Country: From Creative Imitation to Decomposition of the Communist Regime in Poland

Discussant: Matt Reichert (Cambridge)

Communist Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe III

Kyle Marquardt (Bergen): Institutions, Language and Separatism in the Soviet Union

Stefan Garsztecki (Chemnitz): National Traditions as a Basis of Legitimacy? The CEE Communist Parties and Their Dealing with the Past

Rafał Riedel (Opole): Back into the Future or Forward into the Past? Democratic Backsliding Toward (what kind of) Communism – Lessons from Poland

Discussant: Michael Bernhard (Gainesville)