- Email: [email protected]
Hegedus, his views and his critics
DOCUMENTS
HEGEDUS,
HIS VIEWS
AND
HIS CRITICS
Andras Hegedus, former protege of Matyas Rakosi and Stalin% Prime Minister of Hungary from April 1955 to October 1956, is having political difficulty for at least the second time during the Radar era. As in August 1965, when he was dismissed from the chairmanship of the editorial board of Volosug, an influential sociological-political monthly published by the Society for the Propagation of Scientific Knowledge, his problem is the advocacy of excessively “right-wing” and “revisionistic” views.1 The postrevolutionary metamorphosis of Hegedus from “dogmatist” to “revisionist” was an astonishing phenomenon, but one which available evidence indicates was genuine. The transformation, though slowly maturing for many years, did not become publicly known until Hegedus became both the director of the Sociological Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the chief editor of V&sag in January 1964. Since that time, he has published numerous outspoken articles and books and delivered many unorthodox lectures-frequently abroad-vigorously supporting his progressive and reformist viewpoints. The following may sufhce to indicate the nature of his thinking: 1. Sociology-or, indeed, the whole of scientific and scholarly endeavoris not and cannot be the servant of any party or political creed. The constant search for truth is its only goal.? 2. Contlicts among interest groups, classes and other strata in a socialist society are not only legitimate but beneficial, provided that institutional forms are created for their constructive resolution and expression. The proper role of a trade union, for example, is the protection of workers’ rights and the satisfaction of their legitimate demands. For this reason, trade unions must be autonomous organizations with access to decision-making channels. 3 3. Marxist ideology contains a number of myths whose sole function is to galvanize the proletariat into revolutionary action. Once consolidated, however, the proletarian regime should confront these myths with reality lest they harden into dogma as under Rakosi. To do this, the social sciences (especially sociology) should be liberated to criticize all aspects of society, thus preparing the groundwork for gradual, continuous yet fundamental transformation in all lThe “Ideological Guidelines” approved by the Hungarian Party Central C?mmittee in March 1965 criticized VaZoaag for ‘erxmeous views,” an “incorrect,. boor eou” athtode, “oppositional” tendencies, and a ‘decadent” approach. See Tarmddma Szem G. April 1965. __ Hegedus ‘See Hegedus, “Sociol& in Hungary” lb&k Clui, April 1968, pI. 496-502; and Markus, “The Main Tendencies of’the Development of Marxist oaology in Socialist Counhies,” Kortors, December 1968, pp. 1965-1973. See Hegedus and Rozgonyi, “Social Con&t in Decision-Making at the Enterprise Level,” K?zggnz&so~i Szde, uly August 1967, pp. 863-871; Hegedus, ‘Social Conflicts m IndusL- ecember 1967 p. 32-41. Hegedus, “The Timeliness of the ‘Trade %!&%%1te~%f%.8, December 19ks: pp. 77-87.
121
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
social sectors. Only in this way can the “optimalization” of socialism be achieved4
and “humanization”
These and similar views were put forth even after Hegedus’s dismissal from the editorial board of V&sag. Despite the frequency of their appearance in print, hardly a voice was raised against them for the next two and a half Years. Then, in the May 1968 issue of Tursadalmi Szemle, a sweeping criticism of Hegedus’s whole attitude to sociology was made by Vilmos Meruk, a former secret police functionary and now head of the Marxism-Leninism section of the ministry of culture. This was followed by a spate of criticisms of Hegedus’s views of the late Soviet pedagogue Anton Semionovich Makarenko,” cuhninating in a strong and sarcastic attack by Mrs. Endre Szekely, chairman of the pedagogy department of the Budapest Technical University, published in the August 1968 issue of Budapest magazine. Hegedus responded to all of this in a mischievously cheerful tone, even though, as he himself recognized, “officially supported criticism” sometimes “lurked behind” the objections voiced against his works.6 Growing official disapproval of Hegedus failed to intimidate him, however, and shortly after the invasion of Czechoslovakia he lodged an outspoken protest (as did Gyorgy Lukacs), although he was careful to do so through party thannels. This was followed-at least, chronologically-by a strong attack on Hegedus’s thesis concerning the alternatives of social development which, according to Hegedus, are open to Hungary at the present stage of its social grow&l Published in the October 1968 issue of Korrars, the critique was written by Idvan FIGS, a member of the Central Committee and a long-time Stalinist. As former head of the Central Committee’s economics department and current director of the Institute for Economic Science, he is the most important individual critic of Hegedus to have yet appeared on the scene. Although it cannot be determined when exactly Friss wrote (or was commissioned to write) this essay, the fact that it appeared four months after the publication of Hegedus’s article, and well after the Hegedus protest against the invasion, leads one to assume that the inspiration behind it was much broader than the target would seem to justify. It is clear from Friss’s own words that his objections were primarily political rather than scholarly. The next link in this chain of events was the official reprimand of Hegedus and his Sociological Research Group contained in the commtmiqu6 of the CC Secretariat adopted on November 18. s Although, by simultaneously criticizing 4See H edus, “Reality and Necessity,” Kortars, July 1987, p. 1011-1019; William F. Robinson, T-l ungary’s Turn Toward Revisionism,” East Europe, 1967, pp. 14-17. B eptember &See Hegedus, “A Very Attractive, and Therefore Very Dangerous, Illusion,” Budapest, May 1968, pp. 10-11. ~Budapest, August 1988, p. 28. Hegedus’s reply to Men& appeared in the October 1968 issue of Tarsaddmi Szede, pp. 93-99. Bee Rmturs, June 1968, pp. 843-854. 0’he document was not published until December 1968, when it appeared in Part&t, pp. 36-38.
122
DOCUMENT$ Jomef Sxigeti and Janos Sipos (“sectarian” leaders of the Philosophical Jnstitube), the party attempted to portray this move as a fair application of its policy of the “struggle on two fronts” (i.e., against both revisionism and dogmatism), the fact of the matter is that the Sxigeti-Sipos problem is a completely different affair having little relation to this policy. This may be seen from the nature of the charge leveled against the two men, for they are reprimanded not for their views, as are Hegedus and his followers, but for their behavior, which, as described in the communique, has been a source of bitterness in the academic community and an embarrassment to the party. Since the influence of the academic world derives solely from the acceptance of its published opinions and findings, and not from any power base, it is obvious that the “two-front struggle,” as applied to this arena, would entail a struggle against viewpoints, not against arbitrary behavior of little consequence for society as a whole. Historically-and in practice--the Kadar regime has accepted this distinction, confining itself to fight dogmatism in the deed especially among lower-level party and government officials, where it appears most frequently, and “revisionism” in the fhought especially among writers, scholars and intellectuals, where it is most preva1ent.O Since the invasion of Czechoslovakia, however, the emphasis of the struggle, previously placed on the “danger from the left,” has clearly shifted. The communique of the CC Secretariat puts a greater stress on the “danger from the right,” listing this subject as its frrst order of business and specifically accusing both the Philosophical Institute and the Sociological Research Group of “harmful” right-wing views. The next important item is the endorsement of the expulsion from the party of Maria Markus, Gyorgy Markus and Vilmos SOS, signers of the Korcula resolution condemning the military intervention in the C.S.S.R. This leaves the detailed discussion of “sectarian” activities in the Philosophical Institute as the last and least significant item of business, which, with respect to numerical length and political importance, it most assuredly is. The attacks against Hegedus and his views continue, providing further evidence that “revisionism” is officially considered the main danger in Hungary. Dr. Laszlo Molnar, for example, who holds the chair of sociology at the Political Academy of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, has engaged in a rather scholarly and muted dispute with Hegedus, concentrating on his i&as conceming the development and role of sociology as a discipline.10 On the other hand, Professor Gyorgy Jenei and Andras Knopp, the editor of Tarsadalmi Szemle, have formulated their reservations in terms of Marxist ideology, stressing its role in guiding and synthesizing the social sciences.11 Janos Lances, however, ‘JThe logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that the revisionist element among local officialdom, and the dogmatist element among the intellectual set. are either absent, quiescent and small, or are being ignored for some reason. 1OMobmr. “Thoughts About the Social Functions of Sociology,” T~r~adalmi Szsmls December 1968, pp. 87-91; and “Current Marxist Sociology and Historical Materi&,” ParteZet, February 1969, pp. 42-47. 1lJemi and Knapp, ‘The Social-Critical Function of Marxist Theory,” Tarscrdalmi SzmJs. February 1989, pp. 61-69.
123
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
the editor of the foreign-language version of Szakszervezefi Szemle, a trade union journal, has criticized Hegedus from a political viewpoint and in a fairly blunt and high-handed marmer.la The lowest form of attack came in an article which ma& personal accusations against Hegedus and carried, appropriately, only the author’s initials.ls Meanwhile, no one has come forward to take issue with “sectarian” views or, indeed, “sectarian” activities within the intellectual community. The next step in the battle against the right was the dismissal of Hegedus from his post as director of the Sociological Research Group and the appomtment of a “centrist”Dr. Kalman Kulcsar-to replace hirr1.1~ The switch was accomplished without fanfare and even without an official announcement. The dismissal came to light when Hegedus published an article in the February 1969 issue of Tarsadalmi Szemle; there he was described as a “leading scientitlc member” of the Research Group for Industrial Economy of the Academy of Sciences. The name of his successor, also a genuine scholar,16 was revealed in the March issue of the same journal, where he had written an article on “The Social Functions of Sociology and Politics.” Taken together with the resolution concerning research in the social sciences adopted by the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences,1B Kulcsar’s essay presents a good picture of the future of Hungarian sociology. The burden of the Presidium’s resolution is twofold: first, to refute the validity and political propriety of any tendencies toward Marxist relativism and pluralism, and second, to insist that a sharp line be drawn between “complete creative freedom” in the research process and “great social responsibility” in the application and utilization (i.e., publication) of the results of research. The latter is of particular importance to the Presidium; the resolution implies that only harm can result from the “popularization” of “hypotheses and semi6nished results” which have not stood the test of “professional criticism.” Kulcsar’s essay is complementary to the resolution, for if the latter deals with research in the social sciences in general, the former attempts to define the place of sociology as a specific component within that framework. Kulcsar draws a distinction between Marxist and “bourgeois” sociology. In “bourgeois” countries, he asserts, sociology has succumbed to the illusion that it is the science of shaping society, and thus capable of both irdluencing social development in a certain direction and solving social problems. This conception, however, not only neglects the irrational characteristics of man, but also ignores the existence of classes and groups with conflicting interests.
124
DOCUMENTS
\
Marxist sociology, on the other hand, does not conceive of its task in this manner, Kulcsar maintains. It does not seek to lead or guide society, but to “serve” the decision-makers by exploring and becoming acquainted with the processes of society and then supplying a body of systematized “knowledge” on the basis of which political decisions may become more “rational” and “optimal.” This function is performed not only by the factual description of social phenomena, but also by the development of a more generalized, theoretical understanding of their nature. But it is not performed by attempting to prescribe possible trends of development for society or laying down the altematives of political action. In other words, the function of Marxist sociology is descriptive and analytical, not prescriptive or normative. Although he is not mentioned by name, it is clear that both the Presidium’s resolution and the Kulcsar essay are directed at Andras Hegedus and his colleagues. Hegedus, in the official “centrist” view, has thus overstepped the political limits which the social sciences will henceforth have to observe. His drift to the “right” is now checked and, along with it, other Hungarian social scientists are being pushed back to the “middle” of the road. The reimposition of the “two-front struggle” in the social sciences cannot be characterized as a reactionary or sectarian move, but rather as a retreat to the center. There is nothing in either the Presidium’s resolution or Kulcsar’s article to indicate that it goes any further. Indeed, both documents condemn the rigidly dogmatic and bureaucratic approach to scholarship which was the hallmark of the Rakosi regime, insisting that no obstacles be placed in the way of research, nor “excessive controls” nor “lengthy delays” in the path of publication. Neither document limits the social sciences to the resolution of merely practical problems (social work) or to work on government commission alone. Instead, they are expected to generate their own projects and engage in basic research for the purpose of developing new theoretical insights. This leaves the new boundaries substantially undefined, and thus it would be unjustified to assert that the opportunity for genuinely creative work has ceased to exist. Nepszabadsug, the Hungarian party daily, disclosed in its issue of March 25, 1969 that a three-year plan for sociology has been completed. The research projects to be undertaken include subjects such as urbanization, the social problems connected with law enforcement and the relationships among social strata. While hardly concerned with trivial matters, Hungarian sociology will thus be involved with less dynamic, less significant and less exciting topics in the future. One may assume that revisionist writings have been tolerated in the past because of their utility, especially in the party’s struggle against the bureaucracy (whose determined enemies included Hegedus and Lukacs and their supporters in the Philosophical Institute and Sociological Research Group) and in its attempt to plan and implement sweeping reforms in the economic sphere (i.e., the New Economic Mechanism). l7 Moreover, in the interests of domestic 1TThe
arty has adopted a number of Hegedus’s theories as ik for interest-group con&t, including that between unions in their protection of workers’ rights.
mscy an2 need tonomy
of trade
own policy, e.g., the legitistate bodies, and the au-
125
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
peace and genuine cultural progress, the party has found it worthwhile to allow debate and research to be conducted within fairly broad limits. While these considerations retain their validity, the invasion of Czechoslovakia has introduced two new elements. The tirst is the need to avoid straining Hungary’s relations with the Soviet Union, which may be endangered by debate reminiscent of the Cxechoslovak “deviation.” The second, implied by the communiqu6, is the broad nature of disillusionment and protest engendered within the intellectual community by Hungary’s participation in the occupation of Czechoslovakia. While, except for the Korcula declaration, this has been kept discreetly within the family and thus out of the public’s eye, there is the danger that it might spill over, in one way or another, and find expression in print. There is also the regime’s concern with the emergence of Marxist pluralism, that is, the concept that one may, by building on basic Marxist principles, arrive at a variety of valid Marxist political systems. Marx himself accepted this assumption and, consistent with his general theories, explained in his early writings how both feudalism and the city-state of antiquity developed from the very same socio-economic roots. 18 But these and other related manuscripts have never been published in Eastern Europe for the sound political reason that they might provide strong ideological grounds on which to challenge the existing communist system, something which Hegedus has already come dangerously close to doing. Finally, the texts of the Secretariat’s communiquC and the Presidium’s resolution also point to a fear of Marxist relativism. In a sense, the party has itself to blame if such a development ensues, for its explanations of various changes in policy and practice have often been blatant exercises in relativism. When justifying the introduction of the New Economic Mechanism, for example, it was never admitted that the old command economy had simply been an error. Rather, it was asserted that it had been successful in its time but that conditions had changed and had thus made it obsolete for the solution of tasks which emerged at a different stage of development. The party has always restricted such relativistic explanations to the sphere of policy and practice. But this is an arbitrary device, and no good reason exists why it should be excluded from applying to ideological principles. This is precisely what Hegedus is doing when he refers to certain aspects of ideology as Marxist mythology, emphasizing that they are essentially untrue but useful for specific purposes during a limited time span. Thereafter, he says, they have no utility and are a hindrance to progress. To allow such freedom of reinterpretation and rethinking in the area of ideology is to open the way for a potential challenge to the basic sources of the legitimacy of any communist regime. William F. Robinson mCrundri.sse f5yge Lichtheim,
126
ckr
Kdtik ManiRn:
tier P&f.wh An Hi.&rfcnl
Oekono+ and Crihcal
din, 1953 pp. 375-395. P Hardy (New lkmk, 1961). pp:
and 141-
HEGEDUS,
HIS VIEWS
AND
HIS CRITICS
Andras Hegedus, former protege of Matyas Rakosi and Stalin% Prime Minister of Hungary from April 1955 to October 1956, is having political difficulty for at least the second time during the Radar era. As in August 1965, when he was dismissed from the chairmanship of the editorial board of Volosug, an influential sociological-political monthly published by the Society for the Propagation of Scientific Knowledge, his problem is the advocacy of excessively “right-wing” and “revisionistic” views.1 The postrevolutionary metamorphosis of Hegedus from “dogmatist” to “revisionist” was an astonishing phenomenon, but one which available evidence indicates was genuine. The transformation, though slowly maturing for many years, did not become publicly known until Hegedus became both the director of the Sociological Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the chief editor of V&sag in January 1964. Since that time, he has published numerous outspoken articles and books and delivered many unorthodox lectures-frequently abroad-vigorously supporting his progressive and reformist viewpoints. The following may sufhce to indicate the nature of his thinking: 1. Sociology-or, indeed, the whole of scientific and scholarly endeavoris not and cannot be the servant of any party or political creed. The constant search for truth is its only goal.? 2. Contlicts among interest groups, classes and other strata in a socialist society are not only legitimate but beneficial, provided that institutional forms are created for their constructive resolution and expression. The proper role of a trade union, for example, is the protection of workers’ rights and the satisfaction of their legitimate demands. For this reason, trade unions must be autonomous organizations with access to decision-making channels. 3 3. Marxist ideology contains a number of myths whose sole function is to galvanize the proletariat into revolutionary action. Once consolidated, however, the proletarian regime should confront these myths with reality lest they harden into dogma as under Rakosi. To do this, the social sciences (especially sociology) should be liberated to criticize all aspects of society, thus preparing the groundwork for gradual, continuous yet fundamental transformation in all lThe “Ideological Guidelines” approved by the Hungarian Party Central C?mmittee in March 1965 criticized VaZoaag for ‘erxmeous views,” an “incorrect,. boor eou” athtode, “oppositional” tendencies, and a ‘decadent” approach. See Tarmddma Szem G. April 1965. __ Hegedus ‘See Hegedus, “Sociol& in Hungary” lb&k Clui, April 1968, pI. 496-502; and Markus, “The Main Tendencies of’the Development of Marxist oaology in Socialist Counhies,” Kortors, December 1968, pp. 1965-1973. See Hegedus and Rozgonyi, “Social Con&t in Decision-Making at the Enterprise Level,” K?zggnz&so~i Szde, uly August 1967, pp. 863-871; Hegedus, ‘Social Conflicts m IndusL- ecember 1967 p. 32-41. Hegedus, “The Timeliness of the ‘Trade %!&%%1te~%f%.8, December 19ks: pp. 77-87.
121
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
social sectors. Only in this way can the “optimalization” of socialism be achieved4
and “humanization”
These and similar views were put forth even after Hegedus’s dismissal from the editorial board of V&sag. Despite the frequency of their appearance in print, hardly a voice was raised against them for the next two and a half Years. Then, in the May 1968 issue of Tursadalmi Szemle, a sweeping criticism of Hegedus’s whole attitude to sociology was made by Vilmos Meruk, a former secret police functionary and now head of the Marxism-Leninism section of the ministry of culture. This was followed by a spate of criticisms of Hegedus’s views of the late Soviet pedagogue Anton Semionovich Makarenko,” cuhninating in a strong and sarcastic attack by Mrs. Endre Szekely, chairman of the pedagogy department of the Budapest Technical University, published in the August 1968 issue of Budapest magazine. Hegedus responded to all of this in a mischievously cheerful tone, even though, as he himself recognized, “officially supported criticism” sometimes “lurked behind” the objections voiced against his works.6 Growing official disapproval of Hegedus failed to intimidate him, however, and shortly after the invasion of Czechoslovakia he lodged an outspoken protest (as did Gyorgy Lukacs), although he was careful to do so through party thannels. This was followed-at least, chronologically-by a strong attack on Hegedus’s thesis concerning the alternatives of social development which, according to Hegedus, are open to Hungary at the present stage of its social grow&l Published in the October 1968 issue of Korrars, the critique was written by Idvan FIGS, a member of the Central Committee and a long-time Stalinist. As former head of the Central Committee’s economics department and current director of the Institute for Economic Science, he is the most important individual critic of Hegedus to have yet appeared on the scene. Although it cannot be determined when exactly Friss wrote (or was commissioned to write) this essay, the fact that it appeared four months after the publication of Hegedus’s article, and well after the Hegedus protest against the invasion, leads one to assume that the inspiration behind it was much broader than the target would seem to justify. It is clear from Friss’s own words that his objections were primarily political rather than scholarly. The next link in this chain of events was the official reprimand of Hegedus and his Sociological Research Group contained in the commtmiqu6 of the CC Secretariat adopted on November 18. s Although, by simultaneously criticizing 4See H edus, “Reality and Necessity,” Kortars, July 1987, p. 1011-1019; William F. Robinson, T-l ungary’s Turn Toward Revisionism,” East Europe, 1967, pp. 14-17. B eptember &See Hegedus, “A Very Attractive, and Therefore Very Dangerous, Illusion,” Budapest, May 1968, pp. 10-11. ~Budapest, August 1988, p. 28. Hegedus’s reply to Men& appeared in the October 1968 issue of Tarsaddmi Szede, pp. 93-99. Bee Rmturs, June 1968, pp. 843-854. 0’he document was not published until December 1968, when it appeared in Part&t, pp. 36-38.
122
DOCUMENT$ Jomef Sxigeti and Janos Sipos (“sectarian” leaders of the Philosophical Jnstitube), the party attempted to portray this move as a fair application of its policy of the “struggle on two fronts” (i.e., against both revisionism and dogmatism), the fact of the matter is that the Sxigeti-Sipos problem is a completely different affair having little relation to this policy. This may be seen from the nature of the charge leveled against the two men, for they are reprimanded not for their views, as are Hegedus and his followers, but for their behavior, which, as described in the communique, has been a source of bitterness in the academic community and an embarrassment to the party. Since the influence of the academic world derives solely from the acceptance of its published opinions and findings, and not from any power base, it is obvious that the “two-front struggle,” as applied to this arena, would entail a struggle against viewpoints, not against arbitrary behavior of little consequence for society as a whole. Historically-and in practice--the Kadar regime has accepted this distinction, confining itself to fight dogmatism in the deed especially among lower-level party and government officials, where it appears most frequently, and “revisionism” in the fhought especially among writers, scholars and intellectuals, where it is most preva1ent.O Since the invasion of Czechoslovakia, however, the emphasis of the struggle, previously placed on the “danger from the left,” has clearly shifted. The communique of the CC Secretariat puts a greater stress on the “danger from the right,” listing this subject as its frrst order of business and specifically accusing both the Philosophical Institute and the Sociological Research Group of “harmful” right-wing views. The next important item is the endorsement of the expulsion from the party of Maria Markus, Gyorgy Markus and Vilmos SOS, signers of the Korcula resolution condemning the military intervention in the C.S.S.R. This leaves the detailed discussion of “sectarian” activities in the Philosophical Institute as the last and least significant item of business, which, with respect to numerical length and political importance, it most assuredly is. The attacks against Hegedus and his views continue, providing further evidence that “revisionism” is officially considered the main danger in Hungary. Dr. Laszlo Molnar, for example, who holds the chair of sociology at the Political Academy of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, has engaged in a rather scholarly and muted dispute with Hegedus, concentrating on his i&as conceming the development and role of sociology as a discipline.10 On the other hand, Professor Gyorgy Jenei and Andras Knopp, the editor of Tarsadalmi Szemle, have formulated their reservations in terms of Marxist ideology, stressing its role in guiding and synthesizing the social sciences.11 Janos Lances, however, ‘JThe logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that the revisionist element among local officialdom, and the dogmatist element among the intellectual set. are either absent, quiescent and small, or are being ignored for some reason. 1OMobmr. “Thoughts About the Social Functions of Sociology,” T~r~adalmi Szsmls December 1968, pp. 87-91; and “Current Marxist Sociology and Historical Materi&,” ParteZet, February 1969, pp. 42-47. 1lJemi and Knapp, ‘The Social-Critical Function of Marxist Theory,” Tarscrdalmi SzmJs. February 1989, pp. 61-69.
123
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
the editor of the foreign-language version of Szakszervezefi Szemle, a trade union journal, has criticized Hegedus from a political viewpoint and in a fairly blunt and high-handed marmer.la The lowest form of attack came in an article which ma& personal accusations against Hegedus and carried, appropriately, only the author’s initials.ls Meanwhile, no one has come forward to take issue with “sectarian” views or, indeed, “sectarian” activities within the intellectual community. The next step in the battle against the right was the dismissal of Hegedus from his post as director of the Sociological Research Group and the appomtment of a “centrist”Dr. Kalman Kulcsar-to replace hirr1.1~ The switch was accomplished without fanfare and even without an official announcement. The dismissal came to light when Hegedus published an article in the February 1969 issue of Tarsadalmi Szemle; there he was described as a “leading scientitlc member” of the Research Group for Industrial Economy of the Academy of Sciences. The name of his successor, also a genuine scholar,16 was revealed in the March issue of the same journal, where he had written an article on “The Social Functions of Sociology and Politics.” Taken together with the resolution concerning research in the social sciences adopted by the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences,1B Kulcsar’s essay presents a good picture of the future of Hungarian sociology. The burden of the Presidium’s resolution is twofold: first, to refute the validity and political propriety of any tendencies toward Marxist relativism and pluralism, and second, to insist that a sharp line be drawn between “complete creative freedom” in the research process and “great social responsibility” in the application and utilization (i.e., publication) of the results of research. The latter is of particular importance to the Presidium; the resolution implies that only harm can result from the “popularization” of “hypotheses and semi6nished results” which have not stood the test of “professional criticism.” Kulcsar’s essay is complementary to the resolution, for if the latter deals with research in the social sciences in general, the former attempts to define the place of sociology as a specific component within that framework. Kulcsar draws a distinction between Marxist and “bourgeois” sociology. In “bourgeois” countries, he asserts, sociology has succumbed to the illusion that it is the science of shaping society, and thus capable of both irdluencing social development in a certain direction and solving social problems. This conception, however, not only neglects the irrational characteristics of man, but also ignores the existence of classes and groups with conflicting interests.
124
DOCUMENTS
\
Marxist sociology, on the other hand, does not conceive of its task in this manner, Kulcsar maintains. It does not seek to lead or guide society, but to “serve” the decision-makers by exploring and becoming acquainted with the processes of society and then supplying a body of systematized “knowledge” on the basis of which political decisions may become more “rational” and “optimal.” This function is performed not only by the factual description of social phenomena, but also by the development of a more generalized, theoretical understanding of their nature. But it is not performed by attempting to prescribe possible trends of development for society or laying down the altematives of political action. In other words, the function of Marxist sociology is descriptive and analytical, not prescriptive or normative. Although he is not mentioned by name, it is clear that both the Presidium’s resolution and the Kulcsar essay are directed at Andras Hegedus and his colleagues. Hegedus, in the official “centrist” view, has thus overstepped the political limits which the social sciences will henceforth have to observe. His drift to the “right” is now checked and, along with it, other Hungarian social scientists are being pushed back to the “middle” of the road. The reimposition of the “two-front struggle” in the social sciences cannot be characterized as a reactionary or sectarian move, but rather as a retreat to the center. There is nothing in either the Presidium’s resolution or Kulcsar’s article to indicate that it goes any further. Indeed, both documents condemn the rigidly dogmatic and bureaucratic approach to scholarship which was the hallmark of the Rakosi regime, insisting that no obstacles be placed in the way of research, nor “excessive controls” nor “lengthy delays” in the path of publication. Neither document limits the social sciences to the resolution of merely practical problems (social work) or to work on government commission alone. Instead, they are expected to generate their own projects and engage in basic research for the purpose of developing new theoretical insights. This leaves the new boundaries substantially undefined, and thus it would be unjustified to assert that the opportunity for genuinely creative work has ceased to exist. Nepszabadsug, the Hungarian party daily, disclosed in its issue of March 25, 1969 that a three-year plan for sociology has been completed. The research projects to be undertaken include subjects such as urbanization, the social problems connected with law enforcement and the relationships among social strata. While hardly concerned with trivial matters, Hungarian sociology will thus be involved with less dynamic, less significant and less exciting topics in the future. One may assume that revisionist writings have been tolerated in the past because of their utility, especially in the party’s struggle against the bureaucracy (whose determined enemies included Hegedus and Lukacs and their supporters in the Philosophical Institute and Sociological Research Group) and in its attempt to plan and implement sweeping reforms in the economic sphere (i.e., the New Economic Mechanism). l7 Moreover, in the interests of domestic 1TThe
arty has adopted a number of Hegedus’s theories as ik for interest-group con&t, including that between unions in their protection of workers’ rights.
mscy an2 need tonomy
of trade
own policy, e.g., the legitistate bodies, and the au-
125
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
peace and genuine cultural progress, the party has found it worthwhile to allow debate and research to be conducted within fairly broad limits. While these considerations retain their validity, the invasion of Czechoslovakia has introduced two new elements. The tirst is the need to avoid straining Hungary’s relations with the Soviet Union, which may be endangered by debate reminiscent of the Cxechoslovak “deviation.” The second, implied by the communiqu6, is the broad nature of disillusionment and protest engendered within the intellectual community by Hungary’s participation in the occupation of Czechoslovakia. While, except for the Korcula declaration, this has been kept discreetly within the family and thus out of the public’s eye, there is the danger that it might spill over, in one way or another, and find expression in print. There is also the regime’s concern with the emergence of Marxist pluralism, that is, the concept that one may, by building on basic Marxist principles, arrive at a variety of valid Marxist political systems. Marx himself accepted this assumption and, consistent with his general theories, explained in his early writings how both feudalism and the city-state of antiquity developed from the very same socio-economic roots. 18 But these and other related manuscripts have never been published in Eastern Europe for the sound political reason that they might provide strong ideological grounds on which to challenge the existing communist system, something which Hegedus has already come dangerously close to doing. Finally, the texts of the Secretariat’s communiquC and the Presidium’s resolution also point to a fear of Marxist relativism. In a sense, the party has itself to blame if such a development ensues, for its explanations of various changes in policy and practice have often been blatant exercises in relativism. When justifying the introduction of the New Economic Mechanism, for example, it was never admitted that the old command economy had simply been an error. Rather, it was asserted that it had been successful in its time but that conditions had changed and had thus made it obsolete for the solution of tasks which emerged at a different stage of development. The party has always restricted such relativistic explanations to the sphere of policy and practice. But this is an arbitrary device, and no good reason exists why it should be excluded from applying to ideological principles. This is precisely what Hegedus is doing when he refers to certain aspects of ideology as Marxist mythology, emphasizing that they are essentially untrue but useful for specific purposes during a limited time span. Thereafter, he says, they have no utility and are a hindrance to progress. To allow such freedom of reinterpretation and rethinking in the area of ideology is to open the way for a potential challenge to the basic sources of the legitimacy of any communist regime. William F. Robinson mCrundri.sse f5yge Lichtheim,
126
ckr
Kdtik ManiRn:
tier P&f.wh An Hi.&rfcnl
Oekono+ and Crihcal
din, 1953 pp. 375-395. P Hardy (New lkmk, 1961). pp:
and 141-