symbolic elements of everyday culture - MTA Szociológiai ...

● KAPITÁNY ÁGNES – KAPITÁNY GÁBOR ● Theses about “Kadarism” ●
production and modern development). This path, however, (as it was also proved by the Prague
Spring which represented the same goal even more unequivocally), was unacceptable for the power
system of administrative-economist socialism, as was for the capitalist centres (which were
perfectly satisfied with the old type of Soviet system based on large scale production and
consequently becoming increasingly outdated and ultimately needing to be eradicated. A socialism
taking a turn towards intellectual production would have involved incalculable consequences:
perhaps a real alternative of capitalism could be emerging, an attractive and functional social
model could be found, 8 etc.) 9 In this respect, Kadar supported the 1956 uprising as a representative
of the administrative economist socialism represented by Khrushchev. On the other hand, he
pointed out the impossibility of continuing with the old model but questioned the limitations of
the administrative-economist „Soviet” socialism, thereby winning the willy -nilly support of the „old
guard”. After 1956, the Kadar regime laid emphasis on the policy of living standards, in unison
with the solution proposed by Khrushchev but also driven by its own rec ognition. It recognized that
the main cause for the 1956 upheaval was dissatisfaction with the living standards besides the uncertainty
of existence triggered by a terroristic exercise of power and the revolt against national oppression. This,
therefore, is what should be amended. However, this also meant the recognition of the supremacy of the
developed West and the necessity to tune the society to follow this centre. The subconscious strategy of
capitulation of „Kadarism”, of the bureaucratic state was to follow the pattern of the welfare model
incorporated by the compromise of social democracy; it was based on the premise of „converting the
working class into middle classes” in such a way that it retained the power positions it had captured
along the road, in the same way as social democracy had become a part of the power system. Slogans
of „market socialism”, „socialist democracy”, etc. earmark these ideas. 10 Kadar's Hungary was at
the same time a playfield for capitalist centres as well as for the Soviet Union at the frontline of
the two world systems: the Soviet Union, itself unable to change at the same taste as Hungary,
looked upon the Hungarian example as a sourc e of incalculable dangers. At the same time,
Hungary with its rising living standards played the role of the „subconscious” of the system. Capitalism, on
the other hand, used the changes of Hungary, the country which had the privilege of flexibility by
virtue of the progress made in 1956, for conveying Eastern Europe the message of a possible schedule.
(Obviously, all this was not automatic. It is an undoubted positive fact of „Kadarism” that it made use of
8 The orientation of the 1968 Western intelligentsia towards the Prague of '68 is an evident indication.
9 The response of capital was the following: the „Prague Spring” should be supported in that it weakened the Soviet Union.
However, it should not be protected from the Soviet Union. If, by miracle, the efforts of Dubcek and his followers prevailed
over a longer term, an immediate attempt should be made to be integrated into the capitalist world lest should develop
viable alternative, a „third road”. It was obvious for the superpowers that „brotherly help” was extended precisely at the
time when the newspapers reported on the negotiations between Czechoslovakia and the World Bank. The scenario of the
East European transformations of 1989-1990 had been written long ago.
10 Similarly to the „second world” it openly represented, „Kadarism” tried to play the same role in the balance of the world
system as social democracy in the developed countries. (Obviously, this was served by increasingly good connections with
social democracies.) At the same time, it always differed from social democracy particularly in terms of some dictatorial
elements but these differences were primarily situational and were rooted in the nature and antecedents of the
bureaucratic state it controlled.
24