Higher Education in Communist Hungary 1948-1956

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Slavic and East European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Higher Education in Communist Hungary 1948-1956 Author(s): Elinor Murray Source: American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Oct., 1960), pp. 395-413Published by: {aaass} Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3001007Accessed: 21-06-2015 14:09 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 109.166.136.38 on Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:09:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HIGHER EDUCATION IN COMMUNIST HUNGARY 1948-1956

ELINOR MURRAY

THE HUNGARIAN COMMUNISTS placed great importance on higher education, especially in the years between 1948 and 1954.1 It was in the universities and other institutions of higher education that they hoped to train a new Communist intelligentsia and a body of technical experts. This group was to replace the old intelligentsia and play a key role in the building of socialism. Yet the university students took up arms against the regime in 1956. Does this imply a direct failure in Communist indoctrination or is it a more complex phenomenon?

Hungary has undergone a revolution in education in the past eleven years. After the nationalization of schools in 1948 and Communist control over the key university posts in the same year, the educa tional system became the servant of the state, or, more exactly, of the Com- munist Party. By 1951 the Hungarian educational system, which had formerly been based on the intellectual traditions of the West, had undergone a metamorphosis and was similar in content and emphasis to that of the Soviet Union. Humanistic education was pushed to one side by specialization and technological training. Hungarian history became the history of peasant rebellions, feudal and capitalist exploitation, revolutions and social reform. Intellectual contact with the West was severed and the Soviet Union became the intellectual mentor.

It was at the university level that the "unreliable" elements were weeded out. The Communists controlled the selection of students for all institutions of higher education, the number of students in each field of study, the curriculum and future employment of the graduate. Through this control over education the Communists hoped to create a new type of man. This man must be free of the taints of capitalist or anti-Communist thinking. He must be well acquainted with the works of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and their annotators. He must possess the "Communist morality" which implies a deep and constant loyalty to

1This article is a condensation of a much more detailed study written for the Special Seminar on The Problem of Hungary (Government 362A) of Columbia University in 1958. Those who took part in this seminar were the first to go through the completed mass of interview material accumulated after the Hungarian revolution of 1956 by the Research Program on Hungary of Columbia University. All statistics included below are based upon my research in this material. Each interview will be cited by number, when it is used as a specific reference.


396 American Slavic and East European Review

the party line and the ability to adapt to changes in the prevailing orthodoxy.2

The Communists used education as a tool in their struggle to found the Communist state on a permanent basis. They did not look to the older generation for continued and reliable leadership, for this group was still saturated with the values of the previous society. They looked instead to the youth of Hungary as a still unformed and uncommitted segment of society which could be molded into the desired pattern and from whom would come the new intelligentsia. When the Communists speak of the intelligentsia they mean not only those who are involved in intellectual work but also persons who are high up in the Govern- ment administration, industry or the Communist Party.3

Another goal of Communist education is the training of specialists. Technical experts are especially important in a country which is in the process of industrialization. The emphasis they placed on technical education becomes quite evident when we examine the new institutions of higher education. In addition to the sixteen universities and academies which existed before World War II, Hungary now has Agricultural Academies in Budapest, Godello, Keszthely and Magyar- ovar. There is a new Academy of Heavy Industry in Miskolc, an Academy of Industrial Chemistry in Veszprem, a University of Mining and Forestry in Sopron and Academies of Transportation in Szolnok and Szeged. In Budapest there is a new Academy of Domestic Trade, a Bookkeeping School, an Academy of Foreign Languages, a University of Economics and the Lenin Institute.4 Although the last three institutions are not geared to the training of industrial technicians they graduate interpreters, teachers of Russian and ideology and Marxist economists, persons who could be called ideological technicians.

At first glance the emphasis the Communists put on technical education may seem only the reflection of the needs of an industrialized society. Yet a student who is trained primarily in a technical subject may not easily be subject to doubt and skepticism as one trained in the humanities or social sciences. He must memorize certain facts and theories. He deals with the material world. If superimposed upon this is intensive training in Marxism-Leninism, a theoretical system which purports to give the answers to many of the questions which might arise

2 George S. Counts, The Challenge of Soviet Education (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1957), pp. 45-47.

3Hugh Seton-Watson, The East European Revolution (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1956), p. 282. 4 William Juhasz, "Education", Hungary, Ernest Helmreich ed. Published for the Mid-European Studies Center (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957), pp. 193-94.


Hungarian Higher Education 397

in the mind of a student, it is possible that the emphasis on technical education may also be a means of control.

After the Communists established control over the educational system in 1948-49 all matters relating to education were supervised by the Ministry of Education. One of the first things the Communists did away with was the traditional autonomy of the Hungarian university. Each university had been a self-governing unit which elected its own administrative officials, regulated administrative and disciplinary matters, controlled the appointment of its faculty and determined the curriculum and qualifications for degrees.5 By 1950 this autonomy had vanished. The top administrative officials were no longer elected by their colleagues but appointed either by the Ministry of Education or the Communist Party. The powers of the Rector and Deans were greatly increased.6

At the same time the Communists introduced new centers of control within the universities and academies. In 1948 the Division of Studies was established and this soon became one of the most feared centers of Communist control. It was here that the kader sheet was kept, a record of the social origin and political activity of each individual. It con- tained information about his family, relatives abroad, reports from his previous schools and information submitted by various informers.7

Other centers of Communist control were the Committee of the Teachers Union, the University Personnel Department, the D.I.S.Z. and the Communist Party Organization. The Teacher's Union supervised the faculty. The University Personnel Department determined the salaries of the faculty members and distributed fellowships and scholarships.8 The Communist Youth Organization, D.I.S.Z., kept close watch on the activities of the students and took part in disciplinary action.9 There was a Party organization for every class, every faculty and for the entire university. The Party Secretaries of the various faculties formed the Council of the Faculty.10

In order to meet the increased number of students attending univer-

5 Joseph Somogyi, L'Instruction Publique en Hongrie (Geneve: Bureau International d'Education, 1944), pp. 82-83. 6 William Juhasz, Blueprint for a Red Generation (New York: Mid-European Studies Center, 1952), p. 56.

7 Interview # 610, p. 2. 8 Interview # 601, pp. 3-10. See also # 505, p. 10. The responsibility for action in disciplinary matters was shared by a student board,

controlled by the DISZ, and the Dean. Neal Buhler and Stanley Zuchowski, Discrimination in Education in the People's Democracies (New York: Mid-European Studies Center, 1955), p. 39. 0 Special interview made by E. Murray with Student A on July 21, 1958, p. 5 (in private files).



sities and to replace the professors who had been dismissed because of their class origin or political views, the Communists brought many teachers up from secondary schools. At the same time Communist faculty members were quite rapidly promoted. A great number of the older professors were retained in their posts but were carefully watched. Many faculty members joined the Party, some through conviction, others to hold their posts and others due to the pleading of their students." In some departments the percentage of faculty members who joined the Party is estimated as high as 70%, although few were active members.12

The faculty members seem generally to have felt insecure in their positions, especially the non-Communists who had been active members of the "old intelligentsia" and who held their jobs on the suffer- ance of the Party, knowing that new people were being trained to replace them. However, this was also felt by many of the new appointees whose promotions rested on the favor of the Party. They would usually follow Party dictates but as one professor said:

... The Party Members were often worried about the consequences of their actions... many of the non-members were frequently willing to do things more radical for the regime than the members would do. Much of the Party's power was built on these men.13

Faculty members were expected to watch each other. Often a professor would receive a letter from the Dean of his Faculty asking him to attend and report on a lecture of one of his colleagues. There were also confidential observers attending the various lectures. Some- times they were outsiders, but more often the observers were students or departmental assistants.14

All factual and interpretative material was controlled by the Ministry of Education. The professors of a certain discipline from all over Hungary would meet once a year for a conference. There they discussed, with representatives of the Ministry of Education and the Communist Party, the outline of courses to be given the next year. This plan would then be worked out in detail in the various universities or academies and sent to the Ministry of Education for approval.15

This program of studies stated what was to be lectured on each week. The professors delivered the lectures and the students had mimeo- graphed lecture notes against which the content of the lecture could be checked. By 1956 the professor was not expected to cover everything

U Interview # 412, p. 6. 18 Interview # 412, p. 13. 5 Ibid., pp. 3-4.

12 Interview # 107, p. 23. 14 Interview # 601, pp. 5-7.



in the syllabus but "patriotic material" could not be eliminated.16 Each class was divided into lecture and seminar periods. The departmental assistants conducted the seminars. The seminar material was even more carefully worked out and came under the supervision of the Dean.17

Higher education in Hungary under the Communist regime experienced a rapid expansion. In the 1948-49 academic year there were 22,700 students in institutions of higher education. By the beginning of 1954-55 this figure had more than doubled to 48,500 students.18 This rise does not seen to be related to an increase in the university-age population. In fact this group actually was smaller in 1955 in 1949.19 The Communists did offer more opportunities to receive a higher education, but these opportunities were not the same for all the talented youth.

One of the most important controls exercised by the Communist regime over education was their ability to sift out those they did not want to have educated in universities and academies. The admissions policy of the universities and academies was determined by the Ad- missions Division of the Ministry of Education. The decisions of the Admissions Division were based upon estimates submitted to them by the various ministries in which the ministries stated how many experts they needed to have trained in the specific field with which they dealt. From these estimates the Admissions Division set the maximum number of students who were to be admitted to each faculty.20

This figure was broken down even further into class origin groups. The Admissions Division set the percentage of the various class origin groups who were to be admitted to each class. The students were divided into the following classes: worker, peasant, middle class intelligentsia, kulak and "X" group. The definition of kulak varied but it usually meant a peasant who differed from the "working peasants" through greater wealth or by exploiting the labor of others.21 The "X" group, known also as those who were the "bad Kader," were children of the former aristocracy of title or wealth, of pre-Communist government officials and army officers, people who had been part of the "former exploiting classes." Young people of peasant and worker origin were given preference and from 1949-50 on they made up ap- proximately 66% of the total student body of the universities or

6l Ibid. 17 Ibid., p. 8. 18 Juhasz, "Education", op. cit., p. 204. 19 In 1948 there were 1,555,770 men and women between the ages of twenty and twenty-

nine whereas in 1955 there were only 1,528,629, a difference of 27,141 people. United Nations, Demographic Yearbook-1956 (New York: United Nations Statistical Office, 1956), p. 160. 20 Interview # 608, p. 39.

1 Seton-Watson, op. cit., p. 273.



academies. This was a great change for in 1930-31 only 11% of the total university population were children of workers, peasants or persons in the lower middle class.22

Anybody who had finished secondary school and successfully passed the matura, a comprehensive examination taken at the end of secondary school, was permitted to apply for admission to an institution of higher education. A student who was not of worker or peasant origin had less of a chance of gaining admission, for the quota of students of his class origin group was much smaller, and if he were of "X" group or kulak origin he had little hope. Such a student could be refused admision in several ways. He might receive a failing mark at the entrance examination or he might pass it only to be told that there was no more room in that faculty that year. However, there were various ways of getting around this admissions policy. A student might be admitted if his family had powerful friends. He might falsify his origin. Some students worked for a year or so in industry and entered the university as workers.23

Another method which was used to assure the two-thirds majority of peasants and workers was expulsion. Between 1948 and 1951 the universities and academies were "cleansed" of many students of middle class, intelligentsia, kulak or "X" group origin. Although such ex- pulsions continued up until 1956 the cases after 1951 were more isolated.24

The Research Project on Hungary interviewed eighty-one young people who were of university age. Of these seventy-two expressed the desire to receive a higher education. Only twenty-six of these students or 36% experienced no difficulty at all in continuing their education beyond secondary school. In all only forty-three or 60% were allowed to attend universities or academies. In Table I, I have divided these eighty-one young people into groups based upon class origin and this is shown in relation to their experience in receiving a higher education. This sample is heavily loaded with students of non-worker and peasant origin. There were twenty-eight students of middle class origin, twelve intelligentsia, five kulak, eight peasant, eleven worker and seventeen of the "X" group.

22 L'Office Central R.H. de Statistique, Statistique des Etudiants des Ecoles Superieures Hongoises en 1930-31 (Budapest: Stephaneum Nyomda R.T., 1932), p. 43.

23 See Interview # 457, p. 11 and # 509, p. 3. 24 Of the seventeen students in our interviews who had been expelled from an in-

stitution of higher education for political reasons or by fact of class origin, thirteen were expelled between 1949 and 1951.



TABLE I

Experience of Class Origin Groups in Receiving a Higher Education

Middle- Intelli- Class gentsia Kulak "X" Group Peasant Worker

No trouble at all. 57% 25 % 20% 12% 25 % 18% Some delay but final-

ly allowed to study. 14% 50 % 40% 29% - Unable to attend for

financial reasons - 8.3% - - 62.5% 55% Not admitted or ex-

pelled and not re- admitted. 18% 8.3% 40% 53%

Not interested in a higher education. 11% 8.3% - 6% 12.5% 27%

TOTAL 100 100 00 100 100% 100 100% 100% 100 100%

None of the peasants and workers fall into the second and fourth groups but more than half of these groups had to discontinue their studies for financial reasons. Some of them were the only working members of a family or had to continue working in order to contribute to family income. Others would have had to support two households. Although scholarships were available and peasants and workers received especially large ones between 1949 and 1952, in some cases they were not adequate.25

The middle class seems the next favored group after the peasants and workers. The intelligentsia seems to have received worse treat- ment; however, we must not forget that this refers primarily to children of the pre-Communist intelligentsia. The kulaks and "X" group, as expected, had the hardest time continuing their education.

Class origin and chance often determined what discipline the student was allowed to study. Peasants and workers were more often allowed to enter the field of their choice.26 A student who was denied admission to the faculty of his first choice would apply at other faculties until he found one that would accept him. Of the thirty-five students in our sample who attended universities and academies only fifteen were in the field of their first choice. In some cases the second or third choice was not so far removed from the first, as in the case of a young man who wanted to be a translator and became a Russian teacher. Other times the gap was quite wide as in the case of a student

25 Interview # 561, p. 6. 26 Interview # 115, p. 22 and # 214, p. 32.



who wanted to become a veterinarian but was accepted only by the faculty of law.

While policies of admission and expulsion might create a two-thirds majority of peasants and workers at the universities, one of the major problems in the field of education which faced the Communist regime in 1948-49 was how to find enough properly qualified students of worker and peasant origin. It had not been economically feasible under the previous regime for many students of worker and peasant origin to attend the university and for this reason few had prepared for it. As an emergency measure to meet this problem Hungary under- went a period of proletarianization in higher education from 1948- 49 to 1953-54. This was similar to the period of proletarianization in Russia in the 1920's.27 I use the term proletarianization to mean the temporary adaptation of the university to the needs of peasants and workers who were admitted without the proper academic background.

For this reason the Communists introduced the "express matura." Under this plan any young person who had not completed secondary school, but was of university age, could enroll in a concentrated one- year preparatory course. At the end of this year he would receive a special certificate which allowed him to enter an institution of higher education without the admissions examination. It was almost solely workers and peasants who attended these courses.

The "express matura" students flooded the universities and academies in 1949-50 and 1950-51. During these years they received not only tuition and maintenance scholarships but often also had allot- ments for clothing and textbooks. In many cases the total income received by a worker if he studied at the university was greater than his factory wages.28 Many peasants and workers were tempted to continue their educations. Yet some could not meet the academic require- ments. At the Budapest Technical University in 1949-50 approx- imately 35-45% of the "express matura" students failed their course work. By 1953 in the same University the situation was so bad that the students were told that they would have to pay back their tuition and maintenance scholarship if they flunked out.29 It was in the same year that the scholarships awarded to peasants and workers were cut and made more equal to the grants awarded to the other groups.30

At the same time the faculty members were cautioned to handle the "express matura" students with special care.The professors soon learned to juggle their statistics and pass the necessary minimum number of "express matura" students. Another way this problem was met was

27 See Counts, op. cit., pp. 144-46. 29 Ibid., p. 7.

28 Interview # 561, p. 5. 80 Ibid., p. 18.



through the organization of twenty or thirty students into a study group. This was also a means of control for the students were carefully watched for any deviation from the accepted political views. Often a peasant or worker student who was having trouble with his course work would be assigned to a good student of less reliable origin to be tutored. The tutor was held responsible if the student failed.31

The standards of some of the universities, especially the technical schools, seem to have been lowered during this period. Yet it should not be assumed that all of the "express matura" students had difficulty with the work. Many became good students. While admission was based on class origin, intelligence, fortunately, was not.

By the summer of 1953 the Communists had begun to turn their attention from the accelerated expansion in higher education to the establishment of a network of good Communist schools from the nursery to the university. In 1954 Matyas Rakosi said in a speech before the Third Party Congress:

A few years ago the two most important tasks in the sphere of secondary and higher education were the securing of a majority of students of worker and peasant origin and the quick and intensive training of experts. We can consider this task as having been essentially solved.

In registration for university study, besides social origin, the require- ments of talent and outstanding marks must increasingly come to the fore- front. Our country in the building of socialism needs not only trained but excellently trained experts .. .32

Therefore by 1954 the period of proletarianization was almost over. A new group of peasant and worker youth had completed their secondary school training and were ready to enter the university in the usual way. Correspondence and Night Schools were established to carry on the training of those who had not finished secondary school as well as offering part time university study.33 Many talented students who might have been rejected in the earlier period because of class origin were allowed to enter institutions of higher education.

1 Ibid., p. 7. 33 "Speech by Matyas Rakosi to the Third Congress of the Hungarian Working People's

Party," New Hungary, Vol. 4 (June-July, 1954), p. 71. 33 It is interesting, however, that the Attila Joszef University which was established as

a Night School in 1954 with the primary purpose of providing workers with the possibilities for further education, had in its first year enrollment of 4,300 students only 500 workers. Juhasz, "Education," op. cit., p. 200.

It is possible that the Part Time Universities and Correspondence Courses serve as the catch-all for those who are unable to continue their education elsewhere and have an overproportion of those refused admission to the universities for political reasons or class origin.



The Communists had hoped to train a loyal intelligentsia by choos- ing to educate a majority of students who were of peasant and worker origin. They seemed to assume that, by training the youth who had been underprivileged under the former regime, these students would take on the cause of the People's Democracy. It might have been possible if the students of worker and peasant origin had been sure that conditions really were better. There were many aspects of life which might lead them to doubt Communist promises.

One of the major changes noted by a student of architecture in 1953, during the period of the "New Course" when there was a marked relaxation of the most rigid of the Stalinist controls, was that the peasant-origin students in his university began to complain quite openly that their parents were being exploited by the regime. He goes on to say that it was the students of worker and peasant origin who were most critical of the regime in the heated debates of the Marxist-Lenin- ist seminars of 1955-56.34

The statements concerning the peasants and workers at the university of the following two students present an interesting contrast. The first student is describing the situation at his university in 1949-50, while the other is speaking of the situation after 1953-54:

(1949-50): The average Hungarian student came from the slums of the working population or from the small hamlets of the poor peasants. He ar- rived at the university in his pristine ignorance, enraptured by the humani- tarian and great ideals of Communism .. .35

(1953-65): The students were ... to a great extent of peasant and worker origin. Through their natural logic and from home they brought to the university a rejection of the regime. They came to the university with disillusionment and pain. By the third year of their university career... they realized that their troubles were not accidental but stemmed logically from the nature of the regime.36

The students give conflicting pictures of life at the university. Almost all comment on the increased informality. In many cases students of the same origin or similar background tended to form friendship groups.37 Others insist that groups were formed by interest alone and cut across class boundaries.38 It is revealing, however, that the descrip- tions of class origin differences at the university were completely void of any reference to class conflict along Marxist lines.

34 Interview # 501, pp. 26-30. 3 Interview # 505, p. 11. 38 Interview # 226, p. 59.

85 Interview # 561, p. 17. 37 Interview # 213, p. 65.



Only 25% of the students interviewed by the Research Project on Hungary were of peasant or worker origin. While the Project made a conscious effort to get a representative sample, these students were very hard to find. If our experience is typical it would indicate that most of the students of worker or peasant origin remained in Hungary. Is it possible that they had less knowledge of the West and could not think of uprooting themselves from the land they knew? Is it possible that they did not want to leave because they would have a favored role under the regime? Perhaps they felt they would be rejecting responsibility for their people if they left. Whatever the case may have been, it seems that a great number stayed in Hungary. Yet these students participated in the Revolution and from information gathered from the students who emigrated, a great part of this new Communist intelligentsia is neither loyal nor reliable in the sense that the Com- munists wanted.

Another important phase of Communist control over the students was the great emphasis placed upon indoctrination in the principles of Marxism-Leninism. A department of Marxism-Leninism was set up in each faculty. Every student had from four to six hours of Marxism- Leninism per week.39 In the first two years the student would learn of the history of the Bolshevik Party. In the third year he would study Political Economy and in the fourth year he would be trained in Dialectical Materialism.

Aside from the formal ideological training all other susceptible material was presented through the lens of Marxism-Leninism. Only mathematics and pure science were excepted. It was not only in the schools that the youth were taught the theories, slogans and promises of Communism. The same words stared out at them from posters. They were repeated over the radio, in newspapers, in the theatres and movies and in the new literature.

One of the most irritating aspects of indoctrination seems to have been the program of Russification which reached its peak about 1951 and gradually subsided after 1953. Hungarian students became famil- iar with Russian literature, Russian history, science and geography. Even the lectures at the medical school had to be filled with references to Russian medical progress.40

89 Most university students had only four hours of Marxism-Leninism a week but those in the Economics University and Lenin Institute had six hours per week.

40 Even in 1955 a professor reports that it was the visiting Russian agricultural expert who had the last word to say on the value of a new Hungarian invention, a weeding machine. The Russian was heard to say, "We no longer have weeds in the Soviet Union and in three or four years time you will not have in Hungary either. Therefore the machinery is superfluous." Interview # 412, p. 16.



Every student from the upper grades of General School, the eight year compulsory grammar school, to the last year of university training was forced to study the Russian language. Russia had been a traditional enemy of Hungary after 1848, or at least was not a special friend.41 Russia had traditionally been regarded as a place of backwardness and lack of intellectual culture. Suddenly after 1948 she became the model after which Hungary should pattern herself. This was resented by most students and as a reaction few learned Russian well. The teachers would let them pass the courses with very little work and in some cases the teachers themselves were badly prepared.42

At the same time there was little opportunity to study any other foreign language. It was only after 1953 that instruction in a second foreign language was offered in secondary schools.43 This instruction was not offered everywhere and in some cases the classes met after school hours, although they were a regular part of the curriculum.44 This lack of linguistic training was serious for the Hungarian students, for Hungarian is a non-Indo-European language and connot be used as a stepping stone language to any of the major European tongues. This necessarily limited students to the use of Hungarian, Russian, and possibly, other Slavic materials.

In many cases the stress on indoctrination and isolation within the Soviet orbit led not to acceptance but irritation. It seems to have awakened in the younger generation an intense curiosity about the West. This does not seem to be a curiosity which was the result of many years of being part of the West and the common tradition of culture, but more an interest in what was forbidden and unknown. Although some students were quite interested in Western literature and ideas, the Western popular culture, movies, fashions, jazz and fads seem to have had wider audiences.45

Although indoctrination was directed at the student from all con- trollable media, the regime could not keep him isolated from the rest of society. The older generation could remember the times before the War and painted them often as a "golden" period. In some homes there was formal counter-indoctrination where the parents attempted to break down the attitudes built up in school.46 Although many books were out of circulation and "forbidden"47 some of these could be found

41 Juhasz, Blueprint, p. 16. 42 Student A, op. cit., p. 2. 48 Interview made by E. Murray with Dr. William Juhasz on May 3, 1957. In Elinor Murray, "The Student in Communist Hungary" (Term Paper for Government 162, Columbia University, 1957), p. 46 (unpublished).

44Interview # 115, p. 24. 45 Interview # 218, p. 18. 48 Murray, op. cit., pp. 16-18. 7 In 1952 and 1953 the Ministry of Education published lists of over 700 pages of

"antiquated books" which were not to be circulated in Hungary. One student who was



in the private libraries of friends or colleagues. Such books were passed from hand to hand.48 A teacher could also influence a student by the inflection of a sentence or a mocking tone, even though he repeated the words of the text.49

The student was also faced with the reality of every day existence. If he lived in a crowded student dormitory and ate the food served at the student cafetaria, he knew that his living standard was not rising. If he lived at home he saw his wife or mother spending long hours in line for food and other necessities. His family probably lived in a crowded apartment with other families. He possibly knew people who had been arrested by the secret police. It was common knowledge at the university that there were informers scattered through the student body and there were informers in the streets, the apartment houses and other places. A student learned to protect himself. He knew when to talk and when to keep silent. He did not necessarily learn to believe in the slogans or trust the promises of the regime. He was intelligent enough to be able to contrast the theory he learned with the reality in which he lived.

Until 1953-54 very little time seems to have been spent in discussing current affairs in the Marxist-Leninist seminars. Most of the work seems to have been the laborious taking of notes from the Marxist- Leninist classics and memorization of theories.50 After 1953-54 discussion of contemporary problems became a usual part of the seminar work and in 1955-56 one whole semester was devoted to study and discussion of the Twentieth Party Congress.61

By 1955-56 questions were being asked in the Marxist-Leninist seminars which resulted in arrests in former years. They asked about Stalin, Tito, the living standards in Hungary, the problems of the peasant and while they were not yet directing attacks at the regime they asked questions which showed up some of the blind spots of the ideological system. In some cases the instructor would have to consult with his Party superiors before he answered a question.52 These debates had a cumulative effect:

At the university in the Marxist-Leninist seminar debates one could tell with absolute certainty who was Marxist and who was not-at least until

well acquainted with the town librarian reports that the librarian estimated that in that library only 1/3 of the books were allowed to circulate. The other 2/3 were forbidden. Ibid., pp. 27, 61.

48 Interview with Student F, ibid., p. 52. 49 Interview with Student G, ibid., p. 54. 0 Interview # 560, p. 8.

51 Interview # 561, p. 16. 2 Ibid.



the ideological chaos began. Then one brick was pulled out and the whole building collapsed. Finally everyone asked questions and it was impossible to know whether a person didn't know the answer... or merely asked the question as provocation.53

By the beginning of the 1956-57 academic year the atmosphere at the universities was one of intellectual ferment. It was only five weeks after the beginning of the first semester that the Revolution broke out.

Does the 1956 Revolution indicate that indoctrination failed? It is still much too early to be able to measure the effectiveness of Com- munist indoctrination in Hungary. The generation who were attending the university in 1956 had only experienced eight years of Com- munist indoctrination. The long-range effect of this training can only be measured after fifteen or twenty years, if the Communists are still in power, when the students who leave the institutions of higher education and take up posts of leadership in their society have received their entire education in Communist schools.

The students interviewed by the Research Project were asked to comment on the effectiveness of Marxist-Leninist indoctrination on the basis of their own experience:

TABLE II The Effectiveness of Marxist-Leninist Indoctrination as

seen by Thirty-Eight Hungarian Students Effect Number of Students

A. Marxism-Leninism did have an effect but one opposite to that intended. It gave the students tools with which to criticize the faults of the regime. 10 B. There was some effect in the teaching of Marxism-Leninism. Students accepted certain parts of the ideology and became more aware of social issues. 9 C. The action of the students in the Revolution shows the effect. 4 D. Communist education led to a struggle between the home and the school. 4 E. The standards of higher education were lowered by the introduction of Marxist-Leninist indoctrination. 2 F. There was no effect at all. 9

TOTAL 38 53 Interview # 501, p. 30.



Those giving answer E, that the standards of higher education had lowered, had spent only an average of 1.5 years in Communist schools and this was during the proletarianization period. The highest average number of years spent in Communist schools was found in the group giving answer D. This group which felt that Marxist-Leninist indoctrination led to a struggle between home and school had spent an average of 7.0 years in Communist secondary schools and universities. This group may have felt these tensions more for they were probably only entering secondary school or, perhaps, even in the upper grades of General School in 1948 and they were at an age where the family had more influence over them. Students who were already in the university in 1948 might tend to state the problem in a more theoretical fashion. Groups A, B, C and F average 5.6, 4.9, 4.6 and 4.6 years respectively. Those giving answer F felt little need to qualify their answers, they merely stated that they hadn't been influenced by indoctrination, an interesting statement but hard to measure.

A closer examination of answers A and B may help to indicate some of the ideological problems facing the Hungarian students:

(A) Marxism-Leninism did have an effect, but one opposite to that intended. It gave the students tools with which they could criticize the faults of the regime.

The constant repetition of Marxist theories and promises served only to keep certain questions alive in the minds of the students and re- mind them of the contrast between theory and reality. It was not too difficult to turn the concepts of feudal and capitalist exploitation to fit what he thought he saw in his own society and speak about "Com- munist exploitation."54 The increased awareness of social and economic problems, which was stimulated by the study of Marxism- Leninism, in many cases, only made the student more aware of the economic and social problems of his own country.55

Perhaps the most eloquent statement of this problem was made by a young man of peasant origin. This student should have been a loyal member of the new intelligentsia by grace of his class origin and educational opportunities. Instead he reported:

In 1945 Communism was an unknown ideology in our country, at least it was unknown to the youth. The Communists achieved only relative success in teaching it to us. We learned about its origins and principles, but

4 Interview # 112, p. 51 and # 213, p. 46. 65 See Interview # 107, p. 31.



saw that in real life it consisted of lies... They achieved the opposite: getting the youth to hate Comunism.56

Those who responded with answer B give a much different point of view:

(B) There was some effect in the teaching of Marxism-Leninism. Students accepted certain parts of the ideology and became more aware of social issues.

It is revealing to see what parts they did accept and what they rejected:

... many students were of the opinion that Communism was a good idea but not a practicable one. What we thought good in Communism were the ideas of equality, general welfare, freedom for all... What the regime did was exactly the opposite.. .7

or:

It gave many answers to young people who were searching for truth. It also helped us to realize how much injustice there was in human society. We no doubt liked the idea of equality. We could not understand why a regime which calls itself superior must rely on terror.58

These comments indicate the effect of intellectual isolation within the Communist world. The students quoted above did not seem aware that the same ideals were shared by other ideological systems.

Any young person who is curious and eager to use ideas will, most probably, begin his search and questioning within the ideological system in which he has been trained. If he is not exposed to any conflicting ideology he may be forced to do all of his intellectual work within this system. This does not necessarily mean that he accepts the ideological system in its entirety. It may only indicate that he knows no other way of expressing himself:

Communism and its words and expressions creep into your mind. When you are outside a Communist society it is almost like learning a new language... Not that you believe the meanings of these words but because you are accustomed to them.59

These statements show the dilemma in which a Communist student may find himself. He may disagree with the practicality of Marxist-

66 Interview # 226, p. 45. 67 Interview # 106, p. 6. 58 Interview # 211, p. 19. 59 Interview with Student F, Murray, op. cit., p. 50.



Leninist theory, but he knows no other. It is extremely difficult to measure the amount of what may be called superficial indoctrination, words and intellectual constructs which are used by habit and can be replaced, and the amount of deeper indoctrination which may deter- mine the attitudes and actions of the individual throughout his life.

Some students became devout Marxists and/or Leninists. To certain of these young people the Revolution of 1956 occurred within a Marxist framework. They believe that training in the principles of Marxism-Leninism made the students see the need for a Revolution and prepared them for their role in it.60

In the spring of 1956 a series of articles appeared in a Hungarian journal which accused the youth of being cynical. The younger generation, it said, was lacking in ideals and patriotism.61 That sum, mer in one of the Petofi Circle debates Gyorgy Lukacs, a leading Marxist philosopher, said the youth were cynical but through no fault of their own. They could easily see the discrepancy between theory and reality.62 This period of criticism was accompanied by discussions of the need for educational reform.

Many of the students interviewed by the Research Project mentioned this cynicism. This was not in answer to a specific question but came out in the course of the interview.63 The youth lacked firm beliefs, they said, and rejected responsibility:

Hungary's youth is cynical. It is not Communist. It is nothing. The young people are exposed to constant pressure, opposition between the family and school. They have a don't care attitude... they rarely have views nor showed them. They are... ready to accept the good and the beautiful in their weaker moments.64

Life was hard for the student in Hungary. It was not safe for him to express his views openly and it was probably better to appear as if he had no strong beliefs at all. He had to learn to protect himself and one of the most effective devices was learning how to tell a convincing lie:

One of the effects Communism had on youth was that it taught them how to lie. They had to lie in school. They had to mouth the Communist slogans they didn't believe in....

Lying became a perfectly natural every day act. It was quite laughable at the university that when students discussed the "low" Western technical

'o Interview # 508, p. 5. '6 Interview # 206, p. 4. 62 Interview # 408, p. 8. 63 Eighteen of the thirty-eight university students who were interviewed by the Research

Project mentioned this. 4 Interview # 101, p. 12.


412 American Slavic and East European Reviewz

standards with great enthusiasm, they were congratulated later by their fellow students for their cleverness in lying....65

Yet many of the statements of the students point to the conclusion that this cynicism was not all-embracing. It is interesting that while church-going was frowned upon by the Communists, many of the students attended church. Some young people looked to religion as a way of life to counterbalance Communism.66 Others attended church as a protest67 while still others went for solace.68 Most students would say that youth did not attend church for this was often something not even told to friends. It could be dangerous for a student if the authorities discovered that he attended church. For that reason they went to churches in parts of town where they were not known. Only fourof the thirty-eight students answering this question in the interview stated that they never went to church. Almost all of the students, as well, mentioned one or two close friends to whom they could talk freely and without fear.69

The cynicism of which the students talk seems most directly related to disillusionment with Marxist-Leninist ideology:

Communism is an attractive theory. It is logical and intelligent, yet its basic assumptions are wrong.... The theory becomes blurred and distorted when it is applied to human society. Yet after you have known it, it means, in a certain sense that you are no longer naive. I don't believe in the theories of the idealists and dreamers, in the "great men".... I do not trust idealists.70

There is a wide distance between distrust of idealists and theories and distrust of everyone, an attitude of complete cynicism. The Hun- garian students do not seem to have lost faith in the possibilities of sincerity and trust on an individual basis. That the Hungarian university students cared about the future of their country can be seen in the demands for reform which they drew up during the Revolution. Perhaps some of the students could be called cynical but the action of those who participated in the Revolution makes one doubt that all fall into the same category. An individual does not give up his life for

65 Interview # 213, pp. 45, 47. 66 Interview # 217, p. 39. 67 Interview # 229, p. 35. 68 Interview # 228, p. 42. 60 Of the twenty-seven students who were asked about friendship patterns, fourteen

mentioned close friends who they had known before entering the university, eleven had established close friendships while at the university and two had no close friends.

70 Interview with Student F, Murray, op. cit., p. 50.



something in which he does not believe. The Hungarian students were, for the most part, disillusioned with Marxist-Leninist theory and lived from day to day under a system they seemed powerless to change. When the possibility for change came, through violence and mass action, the students rose.


Article Contentsp. [395]p. 396p. 397p. 398p. 399p. 400p. 401p. 402p. 403p. 404p. 405p. 406p. 407p. 408p. 409p. 410p. 411p. 412p. 413

Issue Table of ContentsAmerican Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Oct., 1960) pp. 335-496Front Matter [pp. ]The Zubatov Idea [pp. 335-346]Factory Inspection under the "Witte System": 1892-1903 [pp. 347-362]State and Nobility in the Ideology of M. M. Shcherbatov [pp. 363-379]The Politics of the Danube Commission under Soviet Control [pp. 380-394]Higher Education in Communist Hungary 1948-1956 [pp. 395-413]Fedor Sologub's Postrevolutionary Poetry [pp. 414-422]Mickiewicz' Konrad Wallenrod: An Allegory of the Conflict between Politics and Art [pp. 423-441]ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 442-443]Review: untitled [pp. 443-445]Review: untitled [pp. 445-446]Review: untitled [pp. 446-448]Review: untitled [pp. 448-449]Review: untitled [pp. 449-450]Review: untitled [pp. 450-451]Review: untitled [pp. 451-453]Review: untitled [pp. 453-454]Review: untitled [pp. 455-456]Review: untitled [pp. 456-458]Review: untitled [pp. 458-459]Review: untitled [pp. 459-460]Review: untitled [pp. 461-462]Review: untitled [pp. 462-463]Review: untitled [pp. 463-464]Review: untitled [pp. 464-465]Review: untitled [pp. 466-467]Review: untitled [pp. 467-468]Review: untitled [pp. 468-470]Review: untitled [pp. 470-471]Review: untitled [pp. 471-472]Review: untitled [pp. 472-473]Review: untitled [pp. 473-475]Review: untitled [pp. 475-477]

Letters [pp. 478-483]News and Notes [pp. 484-491]Books and Periodicals Received [pp. 492-494]Back Matter [pp. ]

Higher Education in Communist Hungary 1948-1956

Documents

communist hungary

conditionshigher education

humanistic education

communist control

new communist intelligentsia

communist indoctrination

communist morality

university students