Magyarorszg, AKA Hungary

The Magyars, known as Hungarians in English, are an ethnic group with origins going
back to the Urals in Russia. They migrated far and wide for many years, until settling in
Magyarorszg, known as Hungary in English, in 895. [1]

Part One: The Kingdom of Hungary (1001-1946)

Hungary first became a unified country in 1001 with the crowning of Stephen I as King
of Hungary. Hungary would play an important role in Medieval Europe for the next five hundred
years. However by the Sixteenth Century, the Habsburgs, an influential political dynasty from
Austria, made themselves the Kings of Hungary, putting Hungary under the foreign rule of
Austria. This would remain so for the next three hundred years until 1848. That year, waves of
Revolutions broke out across Europe, with the Revolutionaries demanding an end to corrupt
feudal and monarchical institutions. This Revolutionary wave spread to Hungary, with the
Hungarians demanding more autonomy from Austria. The Hungarian Revolutionaries seized
control of the government and declared Hungarian independence from the tyranny of the
Austrian Habsburgs. By 1849 however, the Habsburg armies, with the help of Tsarist Russia,
swiftly put down the Hungarian Revolution. [2][3] However, it became more clear to the
Habsburgs that they would have to give more concessions to Hungary to prevent a future
Revolution. Therefore in 1867, the dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary was created, in which
Austria and Hungary were supposed to be equal partners. (See Part Seven, Other Sources Used)

In 1914, World War I broke out, and Austria-Hungary was not just dragged into the
conflict,but they were the first nation to get involved aside from Serbia. The war proved to be
brutal for Hungary. Not only did many Hungarians die off at the war, but the standard of living at
home saw a significant decline. In 1918, the war was over, and Austria-Hungary found
themselves on the losing side. The diverse and multi-ethnic nation quickly collapsed into
post-war chaos. In 1919, the Hungarian Communist Party, which was founded a mere year
earlier, took advantage of this chaos, seized power, and proclaimed the Hungarian Council
Republic. They proclaimed a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and socialized much of the industry.
However, the Hungarian Council Republic only lasted a mere few months. The Monarchists
defeated the Communists and forced them into exile. [4] Since the man they wanted to crown
King of Hungary was not in Hungary, they made Admiral Miklos Horthy Regent instead. (See
Part Seven, Other Sources Used)

The immediate post war years for Hungary were rough. The economy was in shambles.
The Treaty of Trianon forced Hungary to give up much of their territory, and they also had to
pay reparations to the winning powers of World War I. [5] In the later 1920s, Hungarys
economy recovered under Capitalism. The new Prime Minister Bethlen put tariffs on finished
goods and subsidized industry to help industrialization. He pushed agriculture harder to export
more, and used foreign currency earned from those exports to modernize industry to speed up
industrialization. High international commodity prices for agricultural products helped this
growth. Loans were also taken from the League of Nations to propel this growth. The number of
factories increased by 66% and the national income rose by 20%. However, this Capitalism had a
darker side. The standard of living for the workers and peasants remained poor. During this
period, 60% of peasants were landless or owned land too small to provide a decent living. Real
agricultural wages remained below pre-war levels, and the peasants had almost no political
voice. Calls for land reform were ignored, and the industrial sector did not expand fast enough to
provide new jobs. [6] It is also worth adding that this economic development was not entirely
sustainable for two reasons:

1. As mentioned earlier, it was supported by high international commodity prices for

agricultural products, which do not last forever. [7]
2. It was heavily reliant on foreign investment, so the foreign investors could simply leave
Hungary whenever their situation demanded it. [8]

In 1929, global Capitalism collapsed on itself and Capitalist Hungary was no exception.
World grain prices, which was one of the main sources of income for Hungary, dropped, foreign
investment dried up, and the loans Hungary took now had to be repaid immediately. In order to
get assistance from the League of Nations to recover, Hungary had to undertake austerity
measures, which worsened unemployment. By 1933, 18% of the citizens in Budapest (the capital
city of Hungary) lived in poverty, and unemployment rose from 5% in 1928 to nearly 36% by
1933. With these declining economic conditions, Right-Wing Populism arouse in Hungary. As
this attitude began to dominate in the 1930s, Hungary aligned themselves increasingly with Nazi
Germany and began to pursue more anti-semitic policies. [9] However, the Moderate Right
prevented the Populist Right from turning Hungary into a full-blown fascist one-party state.
During the 1930s, Hungary also became increasingly economically dependent on Nazi Germany.
For example, in 1928, Germany had accounted for 19.5% of Hungary's imports and 11.7 percent
of its exports, and by 1939 these figures rose to 52.5% and 52.2%. Hungary also experienced
industrialization during this time, with the number of industrial workers doubling from
1933-1943, and the percent of workers in agriculture going below 50% for the first time in
Hungarian history. [10] Even with the Populist-Right in the political system, the inequalities in
Capitalist Hungary that they protested were still glaring. On the eve of World War II, a mere 4%
of the population owned more than half of Hungarys wealth. [11]

In 1941, Hungary entered the war on the side of the Axis powers, and sent troops to fight
alongside the Nazis in Operation Barbarossa, which was a Nazi invasion of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR). As the war dragged on, the Workers and Peasants Red Army of
the USSR counter-attacked the Nazis and their allies. When the Red Army reached Hungary in
1944, Hungarian Regent Milkos Horthy tried to negotiate a peace treaty with the Soviets. When
the Nazis found out, they overthrew Horthy in Operation Panzerfaust. They replaced his
government with the Arrow Cross Party, which openly supported National Socialism, which is
more commonly known as Nazism. The Arrow Cross Party unleashed a reign of terror onto
Hungary. Over four-hundred thousand Jewish-Hungarians were deported to and exterminated at
Nazi concentration camps such as Auschwitz, [12] along with tens of thousands Romani People.
Hundreds of Hungarians were executed by the Arrow Cross Party for trying to protect Jews from
extermination. (See Part Seven, Other Sources Used)

Realizing the grim situation that Hungary was now experiencing under full-blown
Fascism, Communists, Social Democrats, and the Moderate Right all agreed to work together to
violently overthrow the Arrow Cross Regime. They formed the Hungarian National
Independence Front to coordinate their activities. The Hungarian Resistance went on to engage
the Arrow Cross Regime and their Nazi allies in battle. By 1945, the Hungarian Resistance and
their Soviet allies had fully liberated Hungary from the Arrow Cross Regime, and the Peoples
Democratic Revolution in Hungary against Nazism had emerged victorious. [13][14]

In elections held in November 1945, the Independent Smallholders Party won with 57%
of the vote. The Hungarian Communist Party (MKP-Magyar Kommunista Prt) came in second
place with 17% of the vote. On February 1st 1946, after ruling Hungary since 1001 [Note 1], the
Hungarian Monarchy was abolished, and a Republic was declared. (See Part Seven, Other
Sources Used)

Part Two: The Anti-Fascist Revolution becomes a Workers Revolution

With their disappointing performance in the 1945 elections, it became clear that the MKP
would have to be more assertive in agitating Marxism-Leninism to the working people of
Hungary. By the 1947 elections, the MKP performed much better, coming in first place with
23.12% of the vote. While fraudulent behavior did taint the election, the MKP still comes in first
place when all the fraudulent votes are removed. [15] In 1948, realizing the flaws of their
ideology, the Hungarian Social Democrats joined together with the MKP to form the Hungarian
Working Peoples Party. [Note 2] In 1949, a new constitution was approved by the Hungarian
National Assembly. This constitution transformed Hungary into a Socialist Republic and
changed the official name of Hungary to The Hungarian Peoples Republic (HPR). The
constitution gave the Hungarian Working Peoples Party the role of the Vanguard of the
Hungarian Proletariat, making Hungary a one-party republic. [16]
Part Three: Consolidation of Socialism and the Counter-Revolution of 1956
With the founding of the Peoples Republic in 1949, Hungary began their construction of
Socialism. Over the next few years, much of the industry was nationalized and agriculture was
collectivezed. A considerable amount of investment was put into heavy industry. Those who
sought to overturn or dumb down the Revolution were brutally repressed by the police. [17]
Many socioeconomic achievements were made during the early years of Socialism in Hungary
from 1949-1956. Unemployment and illiteracy were eliminated. All children were given an
eight-year education, a right they did not enjoy under Capitalism. The number of teachers before
the war stood at twenty-six thousand, and by 1953 this figure had rose to forty thousand. Under
Capitalism, most school students were from the middle or upper classes of society, and by 1955
the majority were the children of workers and peasants, and they came from all religious
backgrounds, including Judaism, with no discrimination. Anti-Semitic legislation was repealed,
and Hungary was secularized, with all citizens enjoying religious freedom. [18] In 1949,
Hungarys industrial output 137.5% compared to 1938, and by the beginning of 1955 the
industrial output was three times what it had been in 1938. [19] From 1949-1955, the national
income grew by 50% and average real earnings had rose 6%. While 6% is not the most
impressive rate of growth, the gains in income benefited the average Hungarian worker far more
than they would have under Capitalism. [20]

In October 1956, protests broke out in Budapest. Overtime, the protesters and police
became increasingly violent towards each other, and the situation became chaotic. Taking
advantage of this chaos, a Counter-Revolutionary gang lead by Imre Nagy seized power. The
Counter-Revolutionaries sacked police stations, emptied prisons, and executed police officers.
His Counter-Revolutionary government promised to end collectivization, revoke the role of the
Hungarian Working Peoples Party as the vanguard of the Hungarian Proletariat, and even
looked to the Capitalist powers of the West for support (They were turned down). The
Counter-Revolution was very anti-semitic in character. Several pogroms against
Jewish-Hungarians were carried out, and many people were killed simply because they were
Jewish. Jews across Hungary were fearful of the Counter-Revolutionaries anti-semitism, and
some even fled the country out of this fear. By November 1956, the Soviet Red Army entered
Hungary and swiftly crushed the Counter-Revolution. Over the next few years, twenty-five
thousand people were imprisoned for taking part in the Counter-Revolution, and two thousand
were executed, including Imre Nagy and his destructive gang. [21][22] Despite the obviously
reactionary and anti-communist character of the Hungarian Counter-Revolutionaries of 1956,
some leftists have praised them. [23]
Part Four: Socialism Solidified (1956-1989)
Since the Hungarian Working Peoples Party lost their power in the chaos of the
Counter-Revolution, a new vanguard of the Hungarian Proletariat had to be founded. The
Hungarian Socialist Workers Party (I will refer to them by their Hungarian abbreviation,
MSZMP- Magyar Szocialista Munks Prt) was founded as a direct predecessor to the
Hungarian Working Peoples Party, and to take up the role as vanguard of the Hungarian
Proletariat that was held by their predecessor. On December 7th 1956, the Central Committee of
the MSZMP released a statement on what they believed to be the four causes of the
Counter-Revolution, those being:

1. High-ranking members of the Hungarian Working Peoples Party, such as Matyas

Rakosi, failed to recognize that Marxism-Leninism is a pragmatic and ever-changing
science, and instead incorrectly saw the principles of Marxism-Leninism as unchangeable
and to be dogmatically followed. Their dogmatism was a deviation from the principles of
Marxism-Leninism, and this deviation manifested itself in a ...sectarian and dogmatic
policy, a leadership method which did not tolerate contradiction; and a leadership that
was autocratic and bureaucratic. Many ruling Marxist-Leninist Parties at the time were
abandoning hardline Stalinism, as the centralized and authoritarian features of Stalinism
were no longer necessary after Socialism had been consolidated after a few years.
However, some of the top leadership of the Hungarian Working Peoples Party, such as
Matyas Rakosi, failed to realize this, and continued to pursue Stalinism even when it was
not longer necessary for building Socialism. Rakosis dogmatic continuation of Stalinism
after it was no longer necessary did not just divide the top party leadership amongst
themselves, but also divided the high-ranking party members from the lower party
members, and worst of all, divided the party from the workers and peasants, the people
that the party was supposed to serve. [24] If the newly-founded MSZMP wanted to
prevent another Counter-Revolution from happening and earn the trust of the working
people, they would have to understand that Marxism-Leninism is a pragmatic and
ever-changing science, and be prepared to adapt Socialism to whatever conditions they
would face in the future.
2. The Hungarian people had a understandable and justified discontent at the dogmatic
policies of Rakosi and his Stalinist gang. Taking advantage of this discontent, Imre Nagy
claimed that his Counter-Revolution just wanted to get rid of Stalinism and not Socialism
as a whole. His promises to end collectivization and have Hungry leave the Socialist Bloc
discussed in Part III prove that their goal really was to dismantle Socialism, despite their
rhetoric. However, some fell for their rhetoric. Therefore, it was the dogmatism of Rakosi
and his allies in the top leadership that allowed the leading Counter-Revolutionaries to
 disguise their Opportunism as necessary reforms. [25] The MSZMP would have to keep
this in mind in the future.
3. The Hungarian Bourgeoisie were a fundamental factor in sparking the
Counter-Revolution, hoping to see the Capitalist system restored. [26]
4. Western Imperialism sought to aid the Counter-Revolution for their own interests. [27]

Points three and four are questionable. With the abolition of Capitalism and the
construction of Socialism in Hungary, the Hungarian Bourgeoisie had either left the country,
were eliminated, or forcibly or voluntarily submitted to Socialism and gave up their roles as
being part of the Bourgeoisie. Therefore, there could not have been a Bourgeoisie in Hungary by
1956. Point four is also false, as the leading imperialist powers of Capitalism, the United States
and the United Kingdom, both refused to aid the Hungarian Counter-Revolution, knowing it
would probably trigger an all out nuclear war between the USA and USSR, which would
probably destroy human civilization as we know it. Points one and two however, are completely
valid. The dogmatic leadership of Rakosi was detrimental to the building of Socialism, and
served as the perfect scapegoat for Imre Nagy and his gang to gain support for their
Counter-Revolution.

Hoping to directly address the mistakes of the past, the MSZMP appointed a leadership
that had an improved mindset from Rakosis leadership. This was embodied in the MSZMPs
new General-Secretary, Janos Kadar. Comrade Kadar was the ideal leader for a Marxist-Leninist
Party. He was born to an ordinary working-class family and had been in the Hungarian
Communist Movement ever since 1931. He, like all Hungarian Communists, were persecuted
and imprisoned by the Horthy and Arrow Cross Regimes, and Kadar remained strong, even
managing to escape being sent to a Nazi concentration camp on the way there. In 1949, he
became the Minister of the Interior of the HPR. In 1950, he was wrongly accused of being a
secret policeman under the Horthy Regime and imprisoned. He was released and rehabilitated in
1954. At first, he worked with Imre Nagys government hoping they would make necessary
adjustments that Rakosi failed to make, but sided with the Soviet intervention after being
convinced by the Soviets on a trip to Moscow. He was known for a modest lifestyle and a strong
contempt for corruption. His main hobby was chess. [28] He understood Marxism-Leninism was
a science designed to be adjusted and changed based on material conditions, and this was
reflected in his policies which we will discuss shortly. To see what Hungarians today think of
Janos Kadar, see Part Six.

Over the next few years, the new leadership of the MSZMP undertook necessary
adjustments to Socialism. Now that Socialism had been solidified, the harsh measures taken
against Counter-Revolutionaries were no longer necessary. Many political prisoners were
released, and restrictions on speech were relaxed. Comrade Kadar declared Those who are not
against us are with us. There was an increased amount of dialogue and debate within the
MSZMP. Opportunists who joined the MSZMP for the benefits of membership as opposed to
actual dedication to Marxism-Leninism were purged. With industrialization complete,
completely centralized planning was no longer necessary, and measures were being proposed to
decentralize the economy in order to combat the Bureaucracy and make industries more
autonomous and efficient. [29] Some bourgeois analysts, while providing valuable information
on these reforms (which we will discuss more shortly), insist such measures were further from
Marxism-Leninism and brought Hungary closer to Capitalism. However, combating Bureaucracy
and decentralization is if anything, more Communist. After all, Communism is supposed to be a
classless and stateless society based on Direct Democracy. The goal of Socialism, at least in a
Marxian sense, is Communism, and in order to attain this goal, Socialism must become more
democratic and decentralized overtime, which was what these reforms did. These reforms were
not a more moderate form of Socialism, but rather the opposite.

The MSZMP held their Eighth Party Congress in November 1962. At the Congress, the
new and pragmatic leadership won the debate with those who favored the Stalinism from the
early 1950s. [30] Stalinism is arguably the first phase of Socialism, where economic planning is
highly centralized for industrialization and authoritarian and brutal measures are carried out
against Counter-Revolutionaries. By the Eighth Party Congress, Hungary had evolved past this
stage into a more advanced form of Socialism. We will now go on to discuss the political and
economic effects of Socialism in Hungary from 1956-1989.

The Proletarian Dictatorship in Hungary

In the HPR, political power was concentrated in three main bodies: the National
Assembly, the Council of Ministers, and the Presidential Council. The 352-member National
Assembly was directly elected by the Hungarian People. We will discuss these elections more in
the coming paragraphs. The National Assembly elected the membership of the Council of
Ministers and Presidential Council, enacted laws, and approved economic five-year plans. The
National Assembly met three to four times a year in sessions that lasted no more than four days
each. When the National Assembly as not in session, it was up to the Presidential Council and
Council of Ministers to assume their responsibilities. The Council of Ministers focused more on
managing the economy while the Presidential Council focused more on passing legislation. Most
of the members in all three of these bodies were members of the MSZMP, allowing them to
dominate the political system. [31][32]

In the HPR, trade unions were organized under the National Council of Trade Unions,
which was elected in a national congress. By the mid 1980s, 96% of all persons living on wages
and salaries belonged to unions organized under the National Council of Trade Unions. While
these trade unions had a historic inability to strike, they were able to represent Hungarian
workers in other ways. They had a legal right to veto government legislation concerning workers,
had a significant amount of control in the use of social and cultural funds of enterprises, and
controlled the administration of healthcare and holiday resorts for workers. By the 1980s, they
became much more outspoken for workers welfare, criticising austerity measure undertaken by
the government. [33]

The Hungarian National Independence Front mentioned in Part One later evolved to
become the Peoples Patriotic Front (PPF). It functioned as a broad and grassroots organization
which sought to generate public support and participation for the policies of the MSZMP. In
other words, the PPF served to bring the state and the masses closer together. [34] According to
the Library of Congress Country Study on Hungary (LOCCSH):

Approximately 130,000 grassroots committees elected by local citizens carried out PPF
policies on the local level. A congress of the PPF met every four years to elect its National
Council and to review the activities of the organization. The National Council elected the
National Presidency and the National Secretariat, which managed the PPF and set policy for it.
The PPF undertook a variety of tasks. Perhaps most important, it organized national and local
elections (see Elections to the National Assembly; County and District Government , this ch.).
The PPF served as an umbrella organization that united such bodies as the National Council of
Hungarian Women, the National Gypsy Council, and other bodies representing national
minorities in Hungary. The PPF also provided a framework for cooperation among different
classes and strata of society, between religious believers and nonbelievers, and between party
members and non-party members. Finally, the PPF attempted to protect citizens' interests by
leading the struggle against the corruption and abuse of power. [35]

The 1985 elections to the Hungarian National Assembly are an ideal model of the
Proletarian Dictatorship in action. In the HPR before 1966, voters in national elections were
presented with a single slate of candidates, and they could vote for or reject the official
candidate. In 1966 however, a new law was introduced that allowed several candidates to contest
elections. The goal of this was to encourage political pluralism. This resulted in a system in
which some elections had multiple candidates and most had only one. In 1983, a law was
introduced to require that most elections have more than one candidate. This was done give the
HPR more legitimacy, convince the Hungarian People that the HPR was genuinely democratic,
and to test the popularity of the MSZMP. [36] The LOCCSH describes the first election held
under this law:

The new rules compelled the nomination of several candidates in single-member districts. Both
residents of the district and workers employed in the district but living elsewhere could
participate in the nomination meetings. At the meetings, voters could ask questions of the
candidates and comment on their programs with support or objections. The PPF organized the
meetings and proposed the candidates. Nominations could also be submitted by other social and
political organizations or persons in the district. All candidates, however, had to accept the PPF
program to be eligible for nomination. Thus the procedure favored regime candidates and
minimized the chances for an independent. For a candidate to gain nomination, 33.3 percent of
the persons present at the meeting had to cast a "yes" vote. If no candidate received the required
percentage, another nomination meeting was held. In addition, the rules stipulated that the
number of nomination meetings equal the number of candidates, but each parliamentary district
had to have at least two candidates and therefore two meetings. All proposals for the nomination
of independent candidates had to be resubmitted at the next meeting. The rules also allowed each
citizen to vote for several nominees. Because the regime could use the PPF to mobilize large
numbers of people against undesirable candidates, this rule discriminated against independent
nominees.

The efforts of the dissident Laszlo Rajk to gain nomination illustrate the barriers faced by
independent nominees. On April 18, 1985, at the first of the two required nomination meetings in
the southern constituency of Budapest's fifth district, Rajk gained the support of about 40 percent
of the 223 people present. At the second electoral meeting on April 22, the regime attempted to
thwart Rajk's nomination. HSWP (HSWP is the English abbreviation for the MSZMP) activists,
plainclothes police, and factory workers filled the hall. Rajk's speech raised such controversial
issues as conscientious objection to military service, the fate of the environment, and the problem
of Hungarian minorities abroad (see Relations with Other Communist Neighbors , this ch.). At
the second meeting, only about 27 percent of the of the 1,388 voters present supported Rajk.

In addition to the obligatory multiple candidacies, the new electoral system called for the
establishment of a national list of thirty-five candidates to be elected without opposition.
Politburo member Mihaly Korom justified the national list by arguing that "important interests
demand the representation of leading personalities" from society, culture, science, and the
churches. Korom maintained that the "character of their work, the province of their activities go
far beyond the boundaries of their electoral districts." The law was successful in promoting
multiple candidacies throughout the country. In addition, some independent candidates gained
nomination and election. Of the 352 National Assembly constituencies in the 1985 election, 298
had two candidates each, 50 had three candidates each, and 4 had four candidates each. Most of
the triple and quadruple candidacies occurred in Borsod-Abaj-Zemplen, Fejer, and Pest
counties and in Budapest. Of the 152 people who were not originally on the PPF list and were
nominated from the floor, 70 received the necessary one-third votes at two or more nominating
meetings, and 51 of them had been proposed in addition to the 2 nominees successfully
nominated by the PPF.
About 1.5 million people, or 20 percent of the country's eligible voters, participated in the
nominating meetings for the 1985 elections to the National Assembly and the local councils.
Approximately 150,000 people asked to speak out at the meetings in support of the proposed
candidates. [37]

Of the 352 electoral districts, 42 required runoff elections because no candidate could muster
the required 50 percent plus one of the valid votes. Another eighty constituencies had close
contests. Of the seventy-eight independents who gained nomination, forty-three won seats after
runoff elections. Nevertheless, thirty-three of these forty-three candidates were party members.
The proportion of independent candidates was quite low, but, according to American political
scientist Barnabas Racz, their nomination marked an unprecedented development in the history
of East European elections. [38]

The following statistics from the Inter-Parliamentary Union display the results of the elections as
far as turnout goes:

Number of registered voters*: 7,568,480

Voter turnout**: 7,103,146 (93.85%)
Blank or void ballot papers 386,759
Valid ballot papers: 6,716,387
*7,728,208 for the national list of 35 candidates.
** 7,265,915 (94%) for the national list of 35 candidates.
Source: [39]

Despite its flaws, the democratic and grassroots procedures in the 1985 elections to the
Hungarian National Assembly stand in sharp contrast to the Bourgeois Republic in Capitalist
America. Only 53% of Americans can name the political party of their representative in
Congress, [40] and in the 2014 American Congressional Elections, only 36.4% of eligible voters
actually voted. [41] To make matters worse, most of the voters who did not turn out said it was
due to time, work, or legal constraints, and not a purely voluntary decision. [42]

The economy and living standards in the HPR

As mentioned in Part Three, economic planning in the HPR was very centralized at first
for the sake of industrialization. However by the 1960s, Decentralized Planning began to look
more appealing. On January 1st 1968, the New Economic Model (NEM) was introduced, with
the hope that it could overcome some of the inefficiencies that arise from Central Planning and
Bureaucracy. According to the LOCCSH, the main goals of the NEM were to ...overcome the
inefficiencies of central planning, to motivate talented and skilled people to work harder and
produce more, to make Hungary's products competitive in foreign markets, especially in the
West, and, above all, to create the prosperity that would ensure political stability. There were
two main features of the NEM. The first was that profit should replace plan fulfillment as the
main goal of enterprises. The second was that the central government was supposed to influence
industry to act a certain way instead of directly command it. This policy was fully in place from
1968-1972, on partially in place for the mid 1970s, and fully reinstated once more in the late
1970s and 1980s. The economy generally performed when the NEM was in place. [43] Another
policy change the MSZMP pursed was they realized they would have to trade with capitalist
countries out of necessity. Even though Hungary could trade with other socialist countries,
capitalist countries still had access to valuable natural resources Hungary needed. This trade did
not represent an endorsement by the HPR of Capitalism. By the 1980s, economic growth slowed
down as a result of burdensome foreign debt and shortages of raw materials. [44]

Before we go into further details, we should examine the GDP per person of Hungary
over time. For this, we will turn to British economic historian Angus Maddison. Here is the GDP
per person (Often called the GDP per capita) of Hungary compared with other economies in
Eastern and Central Europe in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars: [45]

[By Miacek (Own work) (CC BY-SA 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 or

GFDL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), via Wikimedia Common]
 We see the economy grow steadily under the first few years of Socialism, and sharply
decline with the Counter-Revolution. After that, it rebounds and experiences greater growth than
ever during the 1960s and 1970s. In the early 1980s, it stagnates, but then rebounds and grows
faster again. It sharply declines in the early 1990s, and then rebounds quickly.

Proponents of Capitalism would state that the GDP per capita of Hungary, and Socialist
Eastern Europe as a whole, lagged behind that of Capitalist Western Europe. However, we need
to bear in mind that Capitalist Western Europe got a significant amount of aid (billions of US
Dollars) in the Marshall Plan from the USA, whose economy was largely unaffected by WWII.
When we compare the HPR to Capitalist Latin America, a part of the world that did not get
significant aid, we see the HPR perform much better in terms of GDP per capita. [46][47] The
following table compares the GDP per capita (in 1990 International 1990 Geary-Khamis Dollars)
of Western Europe, Hungary, and eight Latin American countries:

GDP per 1938 1945 1949 1955 1970 1990 2003

capita in
International
1990
Geary-Khamis
Dollars

Western $4398 $3806 $4319 $5740 $10,195 $15,965 $19,912

Europe

Hungary $2543 No data $2354 $3070 $5028 $6459 $7947

Argentina, $2108 $2304 $2682 $3026 $4309 $5465 $6278

Brasil, Chile,
Colombia,
Mxico, Per,
Uruguay,
Venezuela
(For source, see citation 45)

By 1987, 70.5% of active earners worked in the public sector, 23.8% worked in the
cooperative sector, and 5.4% worked in the private sector. [48] In Socialist Hungary,
unemployment was nearly non-existent for many decades. Even by the 1980s when
unemployment began to appear, it was <4%, which is often considered full employment under
Capitalism. [49]
 In the Hungarian construction of Socialism, two important errors were committed that we
should bear in mind; the first was that they wrongly assumed a socialist country like Hungary
would be immune to capitalist economic crises. With the oil crises in the 1970s, they were
proven wrong, and paid for this mistake. Another mistake committed was they borrowed a
significant amount of money in the late 1970s and 1980s, and this debt did nothing but burden
the economy. [50] For peoples in the future who look to build Socialism, it is important to know
and avoid the mistakes of the past such as these. Here are three tables from the LOCCSH that
give us a clue of economic performance: [51]

Table 4. Infant Mortality, Selected Years, 1921-86 [Note 3]

Year Total Year Total

1921 192.7 1980 23.2

1930 152.5 1981 20.8

1938 131.4 1982 20.0

1948 94.1 1983 19.0

1960 47.6 1984 20.4

1970 35.9 1985 20.4

1975 32.8 1986 19.0

Table 9. Output of Selected Agricultural Products, 1976-87

Product 1976-801 1981- 851 1986 1987

Wheat2 5,186 6,066 5,740 5,674

Corn2 6,374 6,977 7,029 6,987

Potatoes2 1,567 1,446 1,264 1,270

Sugarbeets2 3,979 4,461 3,760 4,224

Sunflowerseed2 300 615 857 787

Cattle3 1,926 1,919 1,766 1,725

Hogs3 7,805 8,953 8,280 8,687

 Poultry3 63,002 65,082 61,570 67,010

Sheep3 2,560 3,044 2,465 2,337

Beef and Veal3 203 204 196 200

Pork2 922 1,097 1,048 1,038

Poultry Meat2 328 320 440 470

Milk2 2,283 2,752 2,778 2,786

Eggs4 4,475 4,351 4,290 4,120

1
Average.
2
By 1,000 tons.
3
By 1,000 head.
4
By million prices.

Table 14. National Economic Indicators, Selected Years, 1950-86

Indicator 1950 1960 1970 1980 1986

National income 100 177 300 467 501

National income in industry (percentage of total) 27 37 46 48 46

National income in agriculture (percentage of total) 48 31 22 16 19

Industrial output 100 228 456 804 919

Agricultural output 100 106 103 115 124

Investment (excluding private) 100 197 448 708 618

Investment in industry (percentage of total n.a. 41 34 31 29

investment)

Production per person in state industry 100 148 226 381 462

Agricultural hauling power (in thousands of kilowatts) 302 1,325 3,824 7,461 8,509

Fertilizer per hectare (in thousands of kilograms) 5 23 122 211 212

 Now that we have thoroughly discussed the general state of the economy, let us move on
to examine something of greater historical importance: the living standards. After all, the ability
to provide people with a happy and fruitful life is truly one of the most noble and heroic thing a
leader, political party, or government can do. The LOCCSH offers the following description of
the living standards in the HPR by the 1980s:

In 1989 the supply and selection of food and other consumer goods in Hungary exceeded those
in most other East European countries, and Hungarians as a whole suffered nothing similar to
the hardship that the Romanians and Bulgarians endured in the 1980s as a result of
government-ordered energy cutbacks. In 1986 Hungary's per capita meat consumption was the
highest in Eastern Europe, while its egg consumption ranked among the highest. Per capita
consumption of meat, fish, milk and dairy products, eggs, vegetables, potatoes, coffee, wine,
beer, and hard liquor all increased significantly between 1950 and 1984. In 1960 the majority of
households had both a bicycle and a radio, 20 percent owned a washing machine, and a few
even possessed a television, a refrigerator, or an automobile. By 1984, 96 out of 100 households
owned a washing machine, every household owned a refrigerator, and the ratio of television sets
to households was 108 to 100. The quality and variety of durable consumer goods on sale has
also improved. As in other societies, purchase of luxury items was the prerogative of
higher-income groups. For example, in the late 1980s automobiles were owned mostly by upper-
and middle-income households. As of 1984, only 34 out of 100 households owned an automobile.

In 1986 the total disposable income of all Hungarians was the equivalent of US$17.2 billion.
Hungarians spent 88 percent of that income, saved 6.2 percent, and invested 5.8 percent in
building their own housing. Foodstuffs accounted for 27.1 percent of personal spending;
services, 26.6 percent; beverages and tobacco, 14.6 percent; other consumer goods, 11.6
percent; clothing, 8.2 percent; durable goods, 7.9 percent; and heating and energy, 4 percent.
The state paid the cost of medical and other social services (see Health , ch. 2).

Official Hungarian sources reported that the average per capita monthly wage was 6,000 forints
in 1988, about 14 percent above the officially recognized poverty level of 5,200 forints
($US84.00). Economists estimated that between 25 and 40 percent of the people lived below the
poverty level. [52]

Now while the poverty is distasteful, it is not as bad as what Hungarians experienced
under Capitalism during the Interwar Period (1920-1939), which we discussed earlier in Part
One. The GSE also provides us with a description of the living standards in the HPR that while
being a bit too rosy, still gives us valuable information:
The growing national income (the 1969 level was 2.93 times that of 1950) has contributed to a
considerable increase in the consumer base of the population (the 1969 level was 2.5 times that
of 1950). Per capita consumption more than doubled between 1950 and 1969. During this same
period the turnover of retail trade increased by 346 percent. The monthly wage level of workers
in the state sector has tripled. The real per capita wages of the population in 1969 were 2.5 times
those of 1950 (including a rise in industrial and office workers real wages by a factor of 2.5 and
in peasants real wages by 2.25). Between 1968 and 1970, working time in industry was reduced
from 48 to 44 hours a week; about 2 million industrial and office workers shifted to a shortened
work schedule. In 1968 twice as many apartments were built for the population as in 1950.

The compulsory state social insurance system is being extended to every worker. In 1968 it
included 97 percent of the population; 10.4 percent of the national income was allocated to
expenditures for social insurance (1969). Working women are entitled to 20 weeks pregnancy
leave, during which time they are paid their full average monthly wages. Beyond maternity leave
(since 1967), a mother is entitled, at her discretion, to take a leave for three years; during this
period she receives a monthly maternity allowance.

Men 60 years of age and women 55 years of age with ten-year work records are entitled to
pensions. With more than 25 years of service, a worker receives not only the pension due him
based on his length of service (which corresponds to 50 percent of his average wages) but also a
supplementary pension: after each year of service, 1 percent of the basic sum of the pension. In
addition to the old-age pension, every worker is entitled to receive a pension for disability, as
well as an allowance in the event of an accident. The government guarantees various monetary
allowances to the members of the family of a deceased worker.

At the beginning of 1969, pensions and state grants were being paid to 1.3 million people. In
1955, 2 billion forints were paid for pensions and other grants; by 1969, the sum was 11.2
billion forints. [53]

Another area of improvement in living standards was housing. Housing built under
Socialism gave people access to modern convinces such as flush toilets, heating, and hot piped
water for the first time. [54] We should also examine the Human Development Index (HDI),
which measures living standards. According to the 1990 Human Development Report, Hungary
had a HDI of 0.915, putting them in 29th place out of the 130 countries in the report. This
number even put them ahead of many Capitalist countries such as Singapore, Portugal, and South
Korea. [55][Note 4][Note 5]
Part Five: Modern Hungary (1990-Present)
In 1990, elections were held under a new constitution. Capitalist parties won the election.
During the early 1990s, Hungary became a politically stable Bourgeois Democracy. Living
standards declined during this period due to the difficulty of a newly capitalist economy
adjusting to one that was just recently socialist. [56] Formerly socialist industries during this
period were privatized. By 1995, the economy was thoroughly capitalist. To this day, Hungary
remains a Bourgeois Democracy whose economy operates under Capitalism. In more recent
years, Right-Wing Populism has arisen in Hungary, largely due to Euro-Skepticism and a fear of
migrants. This trend has been represented by represented by the nationalist Fidesz Party. [57][58]
An example of their nationalist anti-immigration policies are the asylum-seeker detention camps.
Anyone [Note 6] trying to seek asylum in Hungary has to wait months for their request to be
processed, and most are rejected. If they actually decide to wait, they have to live in guarded
detention facilities on the Hungarian-Serbian border that are essentially prison. [59] In order to
understand their recent economic performance, lets look at this graph from the World Bank [60]
that displays the GDP per capita of Hungary and two other Eastern European countries in current
US Dollars from 1991-2015:

Lets more thoroughly examine the effects of Capitalism in Hungary since 1990. In the
1990s, Capitalism in Hungary had its good and bad sides. The good sides saw greater foreign
trade and investment and more foreign currency reserves. The downsides saw rising
unemployment and inequality as well as falling industrial and agricultural production. [61]
Lastly, lets look at the Human Development Index (HDI), which measures living standards. In
2015, Hungary had an HDI of 0.836, putting them in 43rd place out of the 188+ countries in the
2016 Human Development Report. [62] (See notes 4 and 5)

Part Six: What do the Hungarians think?

A Fall 2009 Pew Research Center poll found the following: [63]

72% of Hungarian believe they were better off economically under Socialism then they
are now, while 8% said they were worse off and 16% said things are the same. [Note 7]
94% of Hungarians think their economy is doing badly.
When asked to evaluate their nations switch to capitalism, Hungarians are divided-
46% said they approve of the move from a state-controlled economy to a market
economy, while 42% disapproved. In 1991, when the Times Mirror Center (the
forerunner of the Pew Research Center) asked this same question, 80% had approved of
the change. In another sign that support for the free market is relatively weak in
Hungary, only 31% in the 2009 poll agreed with the statement Most people are better off
in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor, a lower
percentage than in any other former Eastern bloc country surveyed.
77% of Hungarians said they are not satisfied with how Bourgeois Democracy is working
in Hungary.
As in much of Central and Eastern Europe, Hungarians are clearly disenchanted with
political elites. Nearly nine-in-ten (89%) said politicians have benefited a great deal or a
fair amount from the changes since 1989, but only 17% believed ordinary people have
benefited. And concerns about corruption are common 76% said corrupt political
leaders are a very big problem in Hungary.

Here are some of the more interesting results of another survey in Hungary:

As a point of reference, in 2001 53% of Hungarian adults thought that the years between World
War II and the change of regime in 1989 were the happiest time in Hungarian history. By 2008
62% thought so. According to a study right after the death of Jnos Kdr (July 1989), 50-60%
of adults judged Kdrs role in Hungarian history in a positive light. Moreover, this was the
opinion not only of people with minimal educational attainment but of highly educated people as
well. When asked what they liked about Kdr they pointed to his modest, puritanic lifestyle and
his informality. 87% declared that their impression of him was always positive. They considered
him one of the great benefactors of the Hungarian people and the greatest personality in
Hungarian politics. What did people appreciate in the old regime? That education and health
care were free and that the state provided pensions for everybody. People insisted that all these
benefits should remain even after the regime change despite the demand for a multi-party
system and a market economy. [64]

I am going to finish this off with an article from the Daily Mail by Zsuzsanna Clark about why
she describes her life under Socialism in Hungary [Note 8] as the happiest time of her life:

When people ask me what it was like growing up behind the Iron Curtain in Hungary in the
Seventies and Eighties, most 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 explain that
the reality was quite different, and communist Hungary, far from being hell on earth, was in fact,
rather a fun place to live.The communists provided everyone with guaranteed employment, good
education and free healthcare. Violent crime was virtually non-existent. But perhaps the best
thing of all was the overriding sense of camaraderie, a spirit lacking in my adopted Britain and,
indeed, whenever I go back to Hungary today. People trusted one another, and what we had we
shared.

I was born into a working-class family in Esztergom, a town in the north of Hungary, in 1968.
My mother, Julianna, came from the east of the country, the poorest part. Born in 1939, she had
a harsh childhood.She left school aged 11 and went straight to work in the fields. She remembers
having to get up at 4am to walk five miles to buy a loaf of bread. As a child, she was so hungry
she often waited next to the hen for it to lay an egg. She would then crack it open and swallow
the yolk and the white raw. It was discontent with these conditions of the early years of
communism that led to the Hungarian uprising in 1956. The shock waves brought home to the
communist leadership that they could consolidate their position only by making our lives more
tolerable. Stalinism was out and 'goulash communism' - a unique brand of liberal communism -
was in. Janos Kadar, the country's new leader, transformed Hungary into the 'happiest barracks'
in Eastern Europe. We probably had more freedoms than in any other communist country. One
of the best things was the way leisure and holiday opportunities were opened up to all. Before
the Second World War, holidays were reserved for the upper and middle classes. In the
immediate post-war years too, most Hungarians were working so hard rebuilding the country
that holidays were out of the question. In the Sixties though, as in many other aspects of life,
things changed for the better. By the end of the decade, almost everyone could afford to go away,
thanks to the network of subsidised trade-union, company and co-operative holiday centres.

My parents worked in Dorog, a nearby town, for Hungaroton, a state-owned record company, so
we stayed at the factory's holiday camp at Lake Balaton, 'The Hungarian Sea'. The camp was
similar to the sort of holiday camps in vogue in Britain at the same time, the only difference
being that guests had to make their own entertainment in the evenings - there were no
Butlins-style Redcoats. Some of my earliest memories of living at home are of the animals my
parents kept on their smallholding. Rearing animals was something most people did, as well as
growing vegetables. Outside Budapest and the big towns, we were a nation of Tom and Barbara
Goods. My parents had about 50 chickens, pigs, rabbits, ducks, pigeons and geese. We kept the
animals not just to feed our family but also to sell meat to our friends. We used the goose
feathers to make pillows and duvets.

The government understood the value of education and culture. Before the advent of
communism, opportunities for the children of the peasantry and urban working class, such as
me, to rise up the educational ladder were limited. All that changed after the war. The school
system in Hungary was similar to that which existed in Britain at the time. Secondary education
was divided into grammar schools, specialised secondary schools, and vocational schools. The
main differences were that we stayed in our elementary school until the age of 14, not 11. There
were also evening schools, for children and adults. My parents, who had both left school young,
took classes in mathematics, history and Hungarian literature and grammar. I loved my
school-days, and in particular my membership of the Pioneers - a movement common to all
communist countries. Many in the West believed it was a crude attempt to indoctrinate the young
with communist ideology, but being a Pioneer taught us valuable life skills such as building
friendships and the importance of working for the benefit of the community. 'Together for each
other' was our slogan, and that was how we were encouraged to think. As a Pioneer, if you
performed well in your studies, communal work and school competitions, you were rewarded
with a trip to a summer camp. I went every year because I took part in almost all the school
activities: competitions, gymnastics, athletics, choir, shooting, literature and library work. On
our last night at Pioneer camp we sang songs around the bonfire, such as the Pioneer anthem:
'Mint a mokus fenn a fan, az uttoro oly vidam' ('We are as happy as a squirrel on a tree'), and
other traditional songs. Our feelings were always mixed: sad at the prospect of leaving, but
happy at the thought of seeing our families again. Today, even those who do not consider
themselves communists look back at their days in the Pioneers with great affection. Hungarian
schools did not follow the so-called 'progressive' ideas on education prevalent in the West at the
time. Academic standards were extremely high and discipline was strict. My favourite teacher
taught us that without mastery of Hungarian grammar we would lack confidence to articulate
our thoughts and feelings. We could make only one mistake if we wanted to attain the highest
grade. Unlike Britain, there were 'viva voce' exams in Hungary in every subject. In literature, for
example, set texts had to be memorised and recited and then the student would have to answer
questions put to them orally by the teacher.

Whenever we had a national celebration, I was among those asked to recite a poem or verse in
front of the whole school. Culture was regarded as extremely important by the government. The
communists did not want to restrict the finer things of life to the upper and middle classes - the
very best of music, literature and dance were for all to enjoy. This meant lavish subsidies were
given to institutions including orchestras, opera houses, theatres and cinemas. Ticket prices
were subsidised by the State, making visits to the opera and theatre affordable.
'Cultural houses' were opened in every town and village, so provincial, working-class people
such as my parents could have easy access to the performing arts, and to the best performers.
Programming on Hungarian television reflected the regime's priority to bring culture to the
masses, with no dumbing down. When I was a teenager, Saturday night primetime viewing
typically meant a Jules Verne adventure, a poetry recital, a variety show, a live theatre
performance, or an easy Bud Spencer film. Much of Hungarian television was home-produced,
but quality programmes were imported, not just from other Eastern Bloc countries but from the
West, too. Hungarians in the early Seventies followed the trials and tribulations of Soames
Forsyte in The Forsyte Saga just as avidly as British viewers had done a few years earlier. The
Onedin Line was another popular BBC series I enjoyed watching, along with David
Attenborough documentaries. However, the government was alive to the danger of us turning
into a nation of four-eyed couch potatoes. Every Monday was 'family night', when State
television was taken off the air to encourage families to do other things together. Others called it
'family planning night', and I am sure the figures showing the proportion of children conceived
on Monday nights under communism would make interesting reading.

Although we lived well under 'goulash communism' and there was always enough food for us to
eat, we were not bombarded with advertising for products we didn't need.
Throughout my youth, I wore hand-me-down clothes, as most young people did. My school bag
was from the factory where my parents worked. What a difference to today's Hungary, where
children are bullied, as they are in Britain, for wearing the 'wrong' brand of trainers. Like most
people in the communist era, my father was not money-obsessed. As a mechanic he made a point
of charging people fairly. He once saw a broken-down car with an open bonnet - a sight that
always lifted his heart. It belonged to a West German tourist. My father fixed the car but refused
payment - even a bottle of beer. For him it was unnatural that anyone would think of accepting
money for helping someone in distress.

When communism in Hungary ended in 1989, I was not only surprised, but saddened, as were
many others. Yes, there were people marching against the government, but the majority of
ordinary people - me and my family included - did not take part in the protests. Our voice - the
voice of those whose lives were improved by communism - is seldom heard when it comes to
discussions of what life was like behind the Iron Curtain. Instead, the accounts we hear in the
West are nearly always from the perspectives of wealthy emigrs or anti-communist dissidents
with an axe to grind. Communism in Hungary had its downside. While trips to other socialist
countries were unrestricted, travel to the West was problematic and allowed only every second
year. Few Hungarians (myself included) enjoyed the compulsory Russian lessons.
There were petty restrictions and needless layers of bureaucracy and freedom to criticise the
government was limited. Yet despite this, I believe that, taken as a whole, the positives
outweighed the negatives. Twenty years on, most of these positive achievements have been
destroyed.People no longer have job security. Poverty and crime is on the increase.
Working-class people can no longer afford to go to the opera or theatre. As in Britain, TV has
dumbed down to a worrying degree - ironically, we never had Big Brother under communism,
but we have it today. Most sadly of all, the spirit of camaraderie that we once enjoyed has all but
disappeared. In the past two decades we may have gained shopping malls, multi-party '
democracy', mobile phones and the internet. But we have lost a whole lot more. [65]

Part Seven: Citations

1. Magyars. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2013). Retrieved from
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Magyars
2. Revolution of 184849 in Hungary. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition.
(1970-1979). Retrieved from
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Revolution+of+1848%e2%80%9349+in+Hun
gary
3. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/21.htm
4. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/28.htm
5. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/28.htm
6. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/32.htm
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/33.htm
10. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/34.htm
11. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/52.htm
12. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/35.htm
13. Hungary, The fascist Horthy regime. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition.
(1970-1979). Retrieved from http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Hungary
14. People's Patriotic Front. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. (1970-1979).
Retrieved from http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/People%27s+Patriotic+Front
15. Wittenberg, Jason. Crucibles of Political Loyalty, page 248. Cambridge University Press
(2006), ISBN 0-521-84912-8. Retrieved from https://books.google.c
om/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rXDdB-4hmAoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA247&dq=Wittenberg,+Jaso
n.+Crucibles+of+Political+Loyalty,+pp.+56%E2%80%9357.+Cambridge+University+Pr
ess+(2006),+ISBN+0-521-84912-8&ots=fV3SvS_wyF&sig=bu5J6kuk8T6PuFgKi7E4G
7yRWCw#v=onepage&q&f=false
16. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/37.htm
17. Ibid.
18. Aptheker, Herbert, 1957, The Truth about Hungary, page 120-121, New York,
Mainstream Publishers. Retrieved from:
https://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-truth-about-hungary.pdf
19. Ibid, page 127
20. Ibid, page 129-130
21. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/38.htm
22. http://www3.sympatico.ca/thidas/Hungarian-history/Exodus.html
23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lAU-d9xfVY
24. Aptheker, Herbert, 1957, The Truth about Hungary, page 247, New York, Mainstream
Publishers. Retrieved from:
https://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-truth-about-hungary.pdf
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid, page 248
27. Ibid.
28. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Janos_Kadar
29. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/39.htm
30. Ibid.
31. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5884.html
32. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5881.html
33. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/60.htm
34. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5902.html
35. Ibid.
36. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5885.html
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/HUNGARY_1985_E.PDF
40. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/24/barely-half-of-americans-
know-the-political-party-of-their-representative/?utm_term=.9d6394d87e52
41. http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/
42. http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/12/little-enthusiasm-familiar-divisions-after-the-go
ps-big-midterm-victory/
43. http://countrystudies.us/hungary/40.htm
44. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5820.html
45. Maddison, Angus, Historical Statistics for the World Economy, 1-2003 - available at
www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls
46. Ibid.
47. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marshall_Plan
48. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5827.html
 49. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5828.html
50. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5874.html
51. http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/hungary/hu_appen.html
52. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-5873.html
53. Hungary, Standard of living. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. (1970-1979).
Retrieved from http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Hungary
54. Gbor Preisich: Budapest vrosptsnek trtnete 1945-1990, Mszaki Knyvkiad,
Budapest, 1998, pp. 77-116, ISBN 963-16-1467-0
55. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf
(See page 111 of the report)
56. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hungary#Free_elections_held
57. Hungary. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2013). Retrieved from
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Hungary
58. https://www.thenation.com/article/hungary-is-forcing-all-asylum-seekers-into-detention-c
amps/
59. Ibid.
60. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
61. Lazar, Istvan, Hungary: A Brief History, Page 226-227, Budapest: Corvina Books, 1997
62. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2016_statistical_annex.pdf (See page 198 of the
report)
63. http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/04/07/hungary-dissatisfied-with-democracy-but-not-its-i
deals/
64. http://hungarianspectrum.org/2013/05/28/a-public-opinion-survey-about-janos-kadar-and
-the-kadar-regime-from-1989/
65. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-commun
ism-happiest-time-life.html#ixzz4dypFc9Uj
Other sources used:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hungary#History
History: From the Dawn of Civilization to the Present Day: Updated and Revised Third
Edition, Page 543, DK Publishing
Lazar, Istvan, Hungary: A Brief History, Budapest: Corvina Books, 1997

Part Eight: Notes

1. There was a brief interruption from 1918-1920 with the political instability worldwide
that resulted from the end of World War I.
2. Some sources refer to them as the Hungarian Workers Party.
3. Some may suggest that infant mortality statistics are related more to healthcare than the
Economy. However, economics is the art of distributing resources the most effectively,
and healthcare is an essential resource.
4. In 2010, the way the HDI was calculated was changed, so pre-2010 HDIs may appear
higher than post-2010 HDIs when they really arent. If you calculate Hungarys 1990
HDI using the 2010 method, you get a HDI of 0.703, lower than the original. (See
citation 64)
5. Each Human Development Report uses data from the most recent year possible, usually
the year before.
6. It is important to bear in mind that almost all asylum-seekers are from the Middle East,
escaping war in the region.
7. The percentages may not add up to a hundred due to rounding and people who didnt
know or refused to answer not being included.
8. Going by the standard practice of Bourgeois Academia, she refers to Marxian Socialism
as Communism.