Donate to my Legal Fund

Monday, October 23, 2006

Hungarian legacy

Today is the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. Here’s an article by my wife Zsuzsanna, from today’s Morning Star, (a revised version of an earlier Guardian piece), on why the uprising, popularly portrayed as a defeat, was in fact a victory.
ZSUZSANNA CLARK lived under communism in Hungary and has witnessed the effects of capitalism. It isn't progress, she argues.

When people ask me what it was like growing up in Hungary in the 1970s and 80s, many people expect to hear tales of secret police, bread queues and other nasty manifestations of life in a one-party state. They are invariably disappointed when I tell them that the reality was quite different and that communist Hungary, far from being hell on earth, was in fact a very good place in which to live.

Viktor Orban, the conservative politician and staunch anti-communist has described my generation - those whose fate was sealed by the "failure" of the 1956 uprising - as "the lost generation". But what pray, Mr Orban was lost to us? Drugs, social breakdown and Thatcherism? Hungarians like myself, who grew up in the years of "goulash communism", were actually the lucky ones. Popularly portrayed in the west as a heroic defeat, the Hungarian uprising was in fact nothing of the sort. The shockwaves of 1956 bought home to the communist leadership that they could only consolidate their position by making our lives more tolerable. Stalinism was out and "Kadarism" - a more liberal brand of communism (named after its architect, Janos Kadar)- was in.

Instead of a list of achievements in health, education, transport and welfare, let me offer some personal observations on what living under “goulash communism” was really like. What I remember most was the overriding sense of community and solidarity, a spirit I find sadly lacking in my adopted Britain and indeed whenever I go back to Hungary today. With minimal differences in income and material goods, people really were judged on what they were like as individuals and not on what they owned.

Anti-communists may sneer at such movements as the Young Pioneers, which sought to involve young people in a wide range of community activities, but they reflected an ambition to build a cohesive society - in contrast to the atomisation of most "advanced" nations today. I was proud to be a Pioneer; contrary to popular belief, we did not spend all our time sitting round camp-fires singing songs in praise of Lenin, but instead learned valuable life skills in social interaction and building friendships.

I was also privileged to be bought up in a society where the government understood the value of education and culture. Before the war, in the Hungary idolised by snobbish, reactionary writers like Sandor Marai, secondary education was the preserve of the wealthy classes. My mother and father had to leave school at 11; under the Kadar regime, they were given a second chance to resume their studies as adults. Communism opened up new opportunities for people of my background and led to a huge increase in social mobility.

A corollary of the government's education policy was its commitment to the arts. Again, the emphasis was on bringing the maximum benefit to the largest number of people, and not just the wealthy in Budapest. Theatres, opera houses and concert halls were all heavily subsidised, bringing prices down to a level everyone could afford. The government opened up "cultural houses" in every town and village, so that provincially based working class people, like my parents, could have easy access to the arts.

Book publishing was similarly supported, so that prices remained low and bookshops proliferated. With 1 forint (1.5p) editions of a wide range of classic works available, reading became a national obsession.

Now, 17 years after "regime change", much of this cultural heritage has been destroyed. Museums, theatres and galleries have had to sink or swim in the new economic "realism". As ticket subsidies have been withdrawn, once again it is only the rich (and tourists) who can afford to go to the opera. Hundreds of smaller art cinemas have been forced to close, while the big Hollywood multiplexes move in. Television has dumbed down, too. When I was a teenager, Saturday night prime time meant a Jules Verne adventure, a poetry recital and a Chekhov drama; now it means the same dreary diet of game shows and violent American action films as in Britain.

Reform politicans sarcastically refer to Kadar's "velvet prison", yet they have surely created a prison of their own, where large sections of the population have been sold to the foreign-owned multinationals, which control 70% of the nation's production and threaten to pull out of the country if wages or workers' rights are improved. My best friend's husband works for such a company, and tells how visits to the toilet are strictly timed and taking a full lunch break is seen as showing lack of commitment to the firm. It's all a far cry from the paternalistic state-owned companies of 20 years ago, with their nurseries, subsidised canteens, holiday homes and free sports facilities.

Communism in Hungary certainly had a downside. While trips to other socialist countries were unrestricted, travel to the west was problematic. Few Hungarians enjoyed the compulsory Russian lessons. There were petty restrictions and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Yet despite all of this, I firmly believe that, taken as a whole, the positives outweighed the negatives.

Today Hungarians have the theoretical right to travel to the west whenever they like, yet the fall in real wages has been so dramatic that few of them can now afford even to go to Lake Balaton. The "patriotic" politicians who shouted so loudly about Hungary's "occupation" by a foreign power under communism, are now strangely silent when the country is effectively controlled by New York based financial institutions and un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels.

As a young adult in Hungary, I grew accustomed to a diet of news stories about the "imperialist" west and its wicked plans for global domination and control of the world's resources. We were all aware that this was the official party line and so its effectiveness as propaganda was limited. Now, more than 15 years on, with the US (and Germany) having connived in the break-up of Yugoslavia, invaded Afghanistan and launched a vicious and deceitful war against Iraq in order to extend their hegemony in the Middle East, it is surely obvious that everything we were told about western intentions was true.

Cowboy George and his faithful side-kick Tony tell us that we‘re either with them or we’re with the terrorists. But there is an alternative. I know, because I was there.


1 comment:

Angry Economist said...

Interesting to consider how sustainable Kadarism was economically. One of the features of socialist paradises that you portray is that they are financed through debt. Even the scandinavian countries who have strong collectivist institutions have big streaks of capitalism.

I am not belittling the Hungarian way of life, or the strong community cohesion sentiments (sadly lacking in the UK), but the system of communist rule seems to me to have always been on borrowed time and money, and have not been sustainable. And the strong centralised state running a country or economy is also bound to ruin sooner or later.

For examples of communist states trying to make it on their own without support or subsidy - perhaps Cuba and North Korea offer examples?