Hungary has had an atheistic government for the past forty years. Hungarians today seem happy, healthy, and prosperous. Is this proof of the effectiveness of Marxism, communism, and atheism?
The examination of this question is particularly timely because of a distinct break-point in history thirty years ago. In 1945 the Communist Soviet Union wrested the country from the Nazi Germans. The Soviets immediately began to transform a strongly Christian, and independence- and freedom-minded nation into one of their satellites. Thirty years ago this month — in October of 1956 — the population (60 percent Catholic) tried to shake off Communist rule.
Tiny as it was in comparison with its opponents, Hungary forced the Soviet-backed Communist government to abdicate and hand over power to the choice of the people, Imre Nagy. Nagy declared Hungary neutral and withdrew the country from the Warsaw Pact. He asked the United Nations to respect these decisions and support Hungary in her fight for freedom. The United Nations passed a resolution that Soviet troops had to leave Hungary. Those troops had actually started to move out when the British and French chose to disregard the United Nations in the Suez crisis. The Soviets used this opportunity to crush the Hungarian uprising, invading Hungary in full force on Sunday, November 4, 1956, two days before the presidential elections in the United States. This was perfect timing by the Soviets. They had their way.
Marxist atheism was again imposed on Hungary. Yet, today that country seems to enjoy a “good life.” Can this really be true? What hides within the outside glitter of Hungarian life?
The wealth so visible to tourists is made possible by the country’s threefold economy:
(1) State-run, slow-moving bureaucratic government offices and enterprises are the everyday workplaces for most Hungarians. People go to work mainly to have access to phones and connections through whom they arrange for their
(2) Moonlighting, Hungary’s second economy. Skilled workers, like plumbers or electricians, work their eight hours at their government job; then instead of going home, they continue to work at their private businesses. They make as much money, or more, in their much shorter private time than during official workhours. Skills are always in demand: people must repair their homes, build new additions and new houses. However, some white collar skills are in just as high a demand. The bureaucracy of the government-run agencies gives flexible private entrepreneurs a great advantage. At the same time, the government’s laissez-faire attitude is explainable. The government wants people’s savings to move out from their hiding places. (Saving money in the bank is foolhardy; the state can take it away anytime simply by changing policies.) The government allows people to invest in free enterprise because it yields considerable tax revenues. An extra tax is even imposed on government agencies stooping to do business with private companies. The mainspring of private enterprise, incentive, works wonders: despite this extra tax the government can often obtain cheaper service from private companies. People work harder and faster, cutting corners and overhead, when they work for themselves.
(3) The third economy is that of bribes. If one wants to achieve anything through the bureaucracy of the first economy, bribing is essential. The government takes bribes for granted to such an extent that salaries of people employed by it, especially in the service industries, are already taxed on the basis of their anticipated income from bribes. If people were honest they would have to pay this extra tax from their own pockets — and they cannot afford to do that.
The Hegelian dialectic of Marxism presupposes constant change. A population that grew up expecting constant changes in government policy does not trust the “good life” to last. So the people are greedily trying to acquire, one way or another, anything tangible. They are in a constant race against time — the time allotted them by the regime.
New generations grow up taking this way of life, and the lack of principles in their society, for granted. Religious education is scarce at best, even where parents were brought up as Christians, because of the constant urge to satisfy material needs. This, naturally, becomes a drain on time. To live a decent, comfortable life in Hungary today, one must live dishonestly. The children of the next generation see their parents straining for each new acquisition; they see them cheating. Moral principles are practically non-existent in the lives of average people.
As a result:
- Hungary is one of the world’s leaders in the suicide rate, with 45 for every 100,000 in population each year.
- The country has an alarming number of abortions, despite the strong and sensible efforts since 1974 to stop the destruction. Every three years there are enough unborn babies killed to re-populate Hiroshima. Father Bulanyi, a leading dissident priest, has declared: “Hungary has a ‘good life’ because it is eating up its own children: 5,000,000 abortions were performed since 1955” (in a country of 10,000,000). Thus in the space of one generation, Hungary has killed the equivalent of one-half its population.
- The rate of alcoholism is also one of the highest in the world. The government does not fight it seriously. The rulers are afraid that if the nation puts down the glass, people will see clearly and will start thinking seriously.
- The drug situation is equally bad and is steadily becoming worse.
- The divorce rate is at its highest because of the breakdown in family life. When material things dominate, spiritual and emotional life become bankrupt. The attitude of “I am Number One” predominates.
- Poverty cannot be officially recognized in Hungary (or indeed in any Marxist country) because “in socialism there are no poor people.” (The Communists condemned the previous regime for “having kept 3 million people in poverty.”) Yet, the government concedes that Hungary has made classes of the “less fortunate” and the “least fortunate” people. These classes consist mainly of young mothers who take advantage of paid maternity leaves for the first three years of their children’s lives, especially if they are single parents, and of retired people (2.5 million in a population of 10 million). These people all have one thing in common: they depend exclusively on the government. Not quite forty years ago the Soviet-backed Hungarian government confiscated — “nationalized” — all private enterprise in the name of eradicating poverty forever. The people who live under the “poverty threshold” number 4.5 million today: 1.5 million more than the Communists claimed the country had under the capitalist system.
- Children are not taught to think for themselves. The official Party “line” must be accepted at all times. Young people do not know about free will or the right to dissent. They do not know that they can have an opinion different from the one their teachers present. They are not taught how to do research. They are unable to grasp logical connections, to fit things together in context. For example, one teenage girl was asked: “Is the human fetus a person?” “Yes,” she answered. “Is it evil to kill a person?” “Yes.” “Well, then is abortion evil?” “No,” she answered matter-of-factly.
The confusion of moral principles after forty years of atheism in Hungary can best be expressed through the musing of a child under the Christmas tree: “Grandmother says that Christmas is the little Jesus’ birthday and He brought us the tree. Mother says it’s Father Winter. Daddy says we go to the store and buy it ourselves, along with the presents. But, actually, I know they stole it from the park.”
Americans often ask freedom fighters: What could we have done in 1956? How can the free world help today? What should its attitude be towards countries that strive to be free?
Small countries have the same God-given rights as have big ones. Yet, they cannot acquire or maintain freedom if others do not respect their free will. Terrorists have proved the point: one person with a machine gun can keep the crew of a whole ship at bay. How can we expect small countries like Hungary, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, or the Falklands, to be able to withstand the pressure of a substantial outside force armed to its teeth?
The United Nations should have stood firm on the case of Hungary in 1956, insisting that the Soviet troops leave the country, recognizing Hungary’s neutrality and withdrawal of the Warsaw Pact before it was too late.
If there was a pact between the Allies about the “spheres of influence” — if the West agreed with Stalin on a certain division of the world — the affected countries had a right to know. Who gave the bargaining nations at Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam the right permanently to dispose of the fate of other countries?
Wiley T. Buchanan, ambassador to Luxembourg and chief of protocol during the Eisenhower era, quoted John Foster Dulles as saying: “If the Iron Curtain ever starts crumbling, it will go all the way and it will go quickly.” Buchanan then added: “I still feel in my own mind that it was a mistake not to aid the Hungarians and that this possibly could have started the crumbling.” There might have been a doubt about that in the minds of foreign diplomats. But there was no doubt among the populations behind the Iron Curtain. This is why it was crucial for the Soviets to keep Hungary, a tiny and bothersome portion of their empire.
Was it mistaken intelligence, or disinformation from the Soviets that caused the West to miss this opportunity? The West was hysterically afraid of a third world war. But the Soviets were definitely not ready for a war. Simple firmness on the part of the West would have brought the desired results.
The “crumbling” had in fact already started at that time inside the Soviet Bloc. The Hungarian Revolution began inadvertently, while people were marching peacefully in support of the demands of their Polish neighbors. Students in Leningrad, Kiev, and Moscow were rebelling. A peasant revolt occurred in North Vietnam in 1956. All Eastern European countries could have gone Hungary’s way in a matter of months. The chain reaction would have liberated the Baltic nations. Who knows how many of the small nationalities within the Soviet Union would have chosen freedom and independence. The Soviet Union might well have fallen to pieces, all on its own, as so many people in the West seem to be expecting still.
Unfortunately, this is no longer a likely scenario. The West demonstrated it could not be trusted to understand either the danger of condoning Marxist expansionism, or the opportunity to help two-thirds of the world to become free.
The West, according to many historians, never had any intention to do anything about the Hungarian Revolution, even while it was victorious. It is much less likely anything will happen in the near future; Hungarians will have to live under Soviet oppression for many years to come. Many will be born and many will die, without any independent democratic freedom in sight. They must simply make the best of it for their children and grandchildren.
Still, economic independence from the Eastern bloc may bring at least economic freedom. To establish this economic freedom, captive countries are in desperate need of fair trade between nations. For example: the Chernobyl radiation problem brought to the forefront a question irrelevant to radiation. Western Europe’s farmers cannot match the cheap prices of Hungarian agricultural products. When the radiation problem occurred, Western Europe declared an embargo on Hungary. They claimed “contamination,” even while the radiation levels in the countries declaring the ban exceeded those in Hungary. These countries did not shy away from buying each other’s goods — not even Sweden’s, although Sweden was the first to experience the radiation problem. This was economic and political discrimination, not a decision based on health.
The ban did not last for long, just long enough for the perishable, first-in-season vegetables and fruits to be lost for the foreign markets. For Hungary, the problem was much more than economic. The essence of Hungar’s present fight for freedom is her quest for economic independence. Her economic achievements brought about a compromise that makes life bearable.
What does this mean in terms of everyday living?
The winter of 1985 was a bitterly cold one in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union found it necessary to cut the energy supply to all the countries under its “sphere of influence” to one hour of electricity every afternoon.
In Hungary the government asked people to economize with energy, but with hard currency from her prosperous economy, the nation simply bought electricity from Austria. In one small measure Hungary became more independent; the Soviet Union could not cut off the electrical power. The same principle applies to acquisition of machine parts, modernization of factories, the economy — if the West keeps buying food from Hungary.
God works in mysterious ways. Even though the government continues to be atheistic, there is still hope. Young people’s eyes were opened by the way their parents were living. Life without ideals and principles, living only for material things, no longer satisfies those who grew up without God and religion. The young thirst for a purpose in life, for transcendence. Their quest for freedom is as strong as ever — and they know no fear. They do not have the experience of cold jail cells and the dreaded torture chambers of the security police, as do many of the middle generation. While the parents are often still reluctant to go to church, religion did not die out with the old, as the Marxists expected. A strong, young generation of dissenters is filling the pews.