symbolic elements of everyday culture - MTA Szociológiai ...

● KAPITÁNY ÁGNES – KAPITÁNY GÁBOR ● Theses about “Kadarism” ●
replaces by a new medium stratum of bureaucrats equipped with only formal requirements of ideo -
logical faith (which became increasingly secondary compared to the basic requirement of smooth
execution). 14 On the other hand, the individual people were transformed: the obedient cadres
shaped by the party discipline of the labour movement after 1945 became part and parcel of an
administrative structure in power. Under the Kadar regime, militant elements in the appa ratus
diminished, and the main task of bureaucrats was to „administer away” the everydays of peace
times. Moving towards the centre, politics strengthened and increased centre strata and simply
ignored extremes (thereby supporting the self-consciousness of the middle strata: „we are the real
people”).
All this relied on a peculiar structure of ownership which is best described by the symbiosis of cooperative
farm-household farm prevalent in Hungarian agriculture. The basis of the economy was public or
public type property. But this public property is „rented out”, or if not rented out, at least used to a
large extent for personal benefits. In its declining stage, the much-denounced atheist paternalism allowed
individual entrepreneurship in many areas from sub-leasing low rent apartments through tourist trade
exploiting the difference in price levels and using state-owned machines for private work to gaining
wealth through various manipulations by managers of state-owned companies. 15 The common
feature in all these dealings was that while the legal system could reign these „black” endeavours
never entirely legalized relatively large groups of society could gain economic strength by these
opportunities. State property was a safe guarantee protecting the „enterprising” individual from total
bankruptcy free enterprise never actually provides such guarantees); on the other hand, it limited the
scope of growth. This created a dual conscience in middle strata: on the one hand they were
dissatisfied with the system (which does not let them get really rich: demanding a political
transformation was primarily based on this public feeling). On the other hand, this dissatisfaction was
compensated by a relative sense of security (which in turn gave rise to subsequent nostalgy for the old
regime).
This middle class development had another characteristic fea ture. It was determined by its
„bureaucratic” nature not only in that it heavily relied on a large administrative apparatus but also in
the sense that it presupposed a „bureaucratic” attitude of all the social agents. (Also, it contributed to
shaping such attitudes). There are three major mobilities in modern societies: capitalist, intellectual
and administrative. Capitalist mobility was curbed by the system; intellectual mobility was allowed
within very strict boundaries whereas administrative upward mobility was open in virtually all areas
14 The author was told by a high-ranking party official in the early 1970s that the major revelation of „Kadarism” was that
socialism could not be built with “clean people”: they were few and far between and they were not accepted by society.
The functionary emphasised that he found it difficult to come to terms with the necessity of relying on corruptible
„nonbeliever” but efficient cadres (which at the same time meant the reconciliation with the middle classes, middle
peasantry and petit bourgeois). He finally admitted that „Kadar was right”.
15 In fact, unemployment inside the factory also belongs here as work undone is paid from state property: in this way nonworking
workers actually received income on the basis of state property. (This income obviously differs from other forms of
income mentioned above in that it results in the expansion of capital in a very peculiar way: on the basis of state capital
but at the hands of private individuals. This, however, is not a major difference as workers also had the much analysed
opportunity of deploying his labour force, saved during his proper working hours „in his free time”. Therefore, workers
also had an opportunity to cumulate capital through paid idling.) It is of course a different matter whether the much
denounced in-company unemployment was more of a drain on the state than unemployment benefits payment, the
latter certainly being disadvantageous and less humane from the point of view of the employee.
26