Weekly Roundup - Living On Nothing Edition [Survival Today

Did you hear about the guy that lives on nothing? No seriously, he lives on zero dollars a day. Meet Daniel Suelo, who lives in a cave outside Moab, Utah. Suelo has no mortgage, no car payment, no debt of any kind. He also has no home, no car, no television, and absolutely no “creature comforts.” But he does have a lot of creatures, as in the mice and bugs that scurry about the cave floor he’s called home for the last three years.

To us, Suelo probably sounds a little extreme. Actually, he probably sounds very extreme. After all, I suspect most of you reading this are doing so under the protection of some sort of man-made shelter, and with some amount of money on your person, and probably a few needs for money, too. And who doesn’t need money unless they have completely unplugged from the grid? Still, it’s an amusing story about a guy who rejects all forms of consumerism as we know it.

How to Brew Your Own Beer and Maybe Save Some Money. A fantastic introduction to home brewing, something I’ve never done myself, but always been interested in trying. (@Generation X Finance)

Contentment: A Great Financial Principle. If I had to name one required emotion for living a frugal lifestyle it would be contentment. Once you are content with your belongings and your lot in life you can ignore forces attempting to separate you from your money. (@Personal Finance by the Book)

Use Energy Star Appliances to Save On Utility Costs. I enjoyed this post because it included actual numbers, and actual total savings, from someone who upgraded to new, energy star appliances. (@The Digerati Life)

Over-Saving for Retirement? Is it possible to “over-save” for retirement? Yes, I think so. At some point I like the idea of putting some money aside in taxable investments outside of retirement funds, to be accessed prior to traditional retirement age. (@The Simple Dollar)

40 Things to Teach My Kids Before They Leave Home. A great list of both practical and philosophical lessons to teach your kids before they reach the age where they know everything. I think that now happens around 13 years-old. (@My Supercharged Life)

Index Fund Investing Overview. If you are looking for a place to invest with high diversification and relatively low fees (for broader index funds with low turnover), index funds are a great place to start. (@Money Smart Life)

5 Reasons To Line Dry Your Laundry. My wife and I may soon be installing a clothesline in our backyard. In many neighborhoods they are frowned upon - one of the reasons I don’t like living in a neighborhood. I digress. One of our neighbors recently put up a clothesline, and we might just follow his lead. (@Simple Mom)

* 4 Quick Tips for Getting Out of a Rut * Young and Cash Rich * Embracing Simple Style * First Trading Experience With OptionsHouse * The Exponential Power of Delayed Consumption * How Much Emergency Fund is Enough? * 50 Questions that Will Free Your Mind * Save Money On Car Insurance

Part 1-

http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/30-5-75.shtml

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 30-5-75
TITLE: Problems of Class Struggle in the Present Phase of the Socialist Transformation of Agriculture
BY:
DATE: 1959-8-1
COUNTRY: Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT: Hungarian Evaluation and Research
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary—1956-1965, Collectivization—Hungary, Social Policy

-— Begin -—

“E” DISTRIBUTION - 400 1 AUGUST 1959

RFE NEWS & INFORMATION SERVICE - EVALUATION & RESEARCH SECTION

Special Translation

PROBLEMS OF CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE PRESENT

PHASE OF THE SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION

OF AGRICULTURE

+ + +

A Hungarian Party Document

Hungarian Evaluation
and Research

[page 2]

On the basis of an article published in the July issue of
“Partelet” (international monthly organ of the Party) “Bekes Megyei
Nepujsag” (12, 14, 1’5, 16 and 17 July 1959), the daily organ of
county Bekes, reviews in a series of questions and answers the
standpoint of the Agricultural Committee, working alongside the
Central Committee of the HSWP, on the most important agricultural
questions. We give the full text of the document; excerpts
appeared already in HPS Nos. 603 and 604.

Recently a number of comrades have asked for written and
verbal answers from the organizers of the Central Committee
on questions relating to the class struggle. In addition,
at the membership meetings of Party organizations and
various .other meetings, almost always questions connected
with the class struggle are raised in which a correct
Marxist-Leninist standpoint, from the point of view of
practical action, is of particular importance. In the
following we reply to the current questions regarded as most
important by the Agricultural Committee working alongside
the Central Committee.

PART I

Central Question of Rural Class Struggle; Socialist
Transformation of Agriculture

Question: What was the effect of this year’s considerable
development of the cooperative movement on the
worker-peasant alliance?

Answer: The considerable development promoted a further
consolidation of the worker-peasant alliance. A significant
number of workers, particularly heavy industrial workers,
took an active part in the struggle for the socialist
transformation of agriculture. The same applies to the
great majority of working peasants, persons employed on
state farms and machine stations and in forestry and to
cooperative members. The struggle in these parts of the
country is primarily fought for the winning over of
working peasants possessing land of their own. In this respect
Lenin’s directives are authoritative: “The elimination of
classes not only means that we chase away landowners and
capitalists — which we have done relatively easily —
but also that we liquidate small-scale production. Yet
we cannot simply chase away and suppress such producers,
we have to come to terms with them and can (and have to)
re-educate them with a long-drawn, very slow and cautious
organizing work.

[page 3]

At the same time, the quick advance of the socialist
transformation of the village caused certain confusion among
the allies of the working class and resulted in the
weakening of the alliance in certain places. This is most
noticeable in the case of individual peasants of the more
backward areas to whom the thought of giving up individual
farming became an immediate one and some of whom, as they
have not yet familiarized themselves with the cooperative
idea, believe that the accelerated development of the
cooperative movement represents a change in the
two-and-a-half year-old agricultural policy of the government and
fear the return of old mistakes.

A small part of newly joined working peasants who did not
join out of conviction but drifted into the cooperative
under the influence of public opinion, is also uncertain.
A certain doubt and alarm is noticeable as well among the
urban petty bourgeoisie and certain strata of the
intelligentsia,, Therefore one of our most important political
tasks in the forthcoming months is to settle our relations
with our allies and to strengthen in the first place the
worker-peasant alliance.

Question; On which strata of the working peasantry can
the working class most rely in the struggle for socialism?

Answer: In the cooperative areas of the country the
working class firmly relies on the whole peasantry of the
socialist large-scale enterprises. The activities of the
worker-peasant alliance in this part of the country are
directed to eliminate the ideological and other smallholder
remnants from the era of independent farming, further to
fight down the influence of a petty bourgeois surrounding
and to fill the new cooperative form with a socialist,
economic and political content.

In the non-cooperative areas of the country the working
class primarily relies on persons who promote the cause
of socialism. Thus on the working peasants of the socialist
large-scale enterprises in the first place and on individual
poor peasants. The struggle in these parts of the country
is primarily fought for the winning over of working peasants
possessing land of their own. In this respect Lenin’s
directives are authoritative: “The elimination of classes
not only means that we chase away landowners and
capitalists — which we have done relatively easily — but also
that we liquidate small-scale production. Yet we cannot
simply chase away and suppress such producers,”we have to
come to terms with them and to re-educate them; a very
slow and cautious organizing work is needed.

Question: What are at present the chief factors which help
the working class in its struggle for socialism?

[page 4]

Answer: A successful socialist building has a number of
sources in Hungary. The following are the most important:

1. the working class is led and directed in the struggle
for socialism “by its strong and firm Marxist-Leninist
Party;

2. proletarian dictatorship and the workers’ power are
stronger than “before the counter-revolution;

3. socialist industry is, developing successfully;

4. we have achieved significant results in the socialist
transformation of agriculture;

5. the international situation is showing an encouraging
trend in favor of socialism and peace. These factors have
a basic importance in the formation of class power
relations and they mean that the strength of the working class
and socialism is greater than that of the hostile forces.

Question: What are the main forces and obstacles impeding
our advance on the road of socialism?

Answer: Our advance toward socialism is obstructed by the
resistance of the exploiters and by the contradiction within
the people. The resistance of the exploiters appears from
two sides: from exploiters in the country, the majority of
whom have been destroyed but not annihilated, and from the
capitalist and reactionary circles of the capitalist
countries Both obstacles are the result of the existence and
activity of the exploiting class and from the fact that it
tries to hinder the working class, whose vital interest is
to build up socialism with every means in the political,
economic and ideological fields of its advance.

Among the obstacles of the second group the most important
one of our day is the contradiction between the way of
thinking and customs of the wide working (chiefly peasant)
masses and the production and social conditions of our
people’s democratic system. The majority of our working
peasants live and think in the manner of smallholders which
leads to a number of clashes with the system of socialist
production in and outside the cooperative.

As a result of the two kinds of obstacles different means
are needed to overcome them. We have to liquidate the
resistance of exploiters or former exploiters and to
dissolve the difficulties within the working people with
patient political educational work, debates and persuasion.
Prom the point of view of the success of practical political
work it is decisive to draw the correct line of demarcation
between these two kinds of obstacles.

[page 5]

Questions In what form do rightist and “leftist” views
mostly appear in the village in the course of the practical
execution of correct Party resolutions?

Answer: The most frequent rightist symptom is that one part
of our Party members and non-Party workers, intellectuals
in the first place, do not agree with the acceleration of
the development of the cooperative movement,, Such people
would like to delay the socialist transformation of
agriculture. Therefore by repeating “apparently” Marxist
conceptions they say that “the socialist transformation of
agriculture can only take place on the basis of the
large-scale development of production forces and this cannot be
accelerated with political work, propaganda, etc.” Or they
maintain that we should advance more slowly and with more
complete economic assurance (with state support); otherwise
the country will fall into debts and the standard of living
diminishes. Several people disagree with the fact that the
majority of cooperatives set up are of the higher type.
They regard this as the violation of the Leninist principle
of gradualness. Half-heartedness can also be experienced
in respect of the achievements attained and there is
frequently the “firm conviction” of many people, without having
seen the facts, that the development by leaps in certain
counties could only take place at the expense of seriously
violating the voluntary principle. Such views retard
socialist building and weaken the worker-peasant alliance.

Underestimation of the voluntary principle is the most
frequent form of appearance of “leftist” deviation. People
professing such views consider smaller or greater compulsion,
threat and the smuggling back of erroneous methods of 1956,
but particularly of the period prior to 1953, as “venial
sins”. The underestimation and disregard of the peasantry
are closely linked with this. People thinking in this way
merely regard the working peasant as a plan figure or subject
signing the entrance form to join the cooperative and not
the chief ally of the working class,.. Hence they do not
endeavor to convince but only to “organize” them. They
underestimate the significance of political persuasion. “Leftist
deviation” appears in certain cooperative areas by wanting
to liquidate in a rash and hasty manner the household stock,
the stock of cattle, in the first place, of cooperative
peasants, to dissolve the various rural organs, i.e. village
councils and agricultural cooperatives and to apply
intolerable measures against individual peasants. These
exaggerated “leftist” views and endeavors impede progress, cause
dissatisfaction among the mass of working peasants, broaden
hostile activities and the basis of the conquest of
revisionist views and weaken the worker-peasant alliance.

[page 6]

Part 2-

http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/30-5-75.shtml

PART II A

CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE COOPERATIVE VILLAGES

Question: Is there a class struggle in the farmers’
cooperative and farmers1 cooperative villages?

Answer: With the setting up of farmers’ cooperatives
and cooperative villages, essential changes take place in
production conditions and in the development of
production forces which have a decisive influence on the
further development of the rural class struggle.... It would
be a mistake, however, to think that after the formation
of cooperative villages socialism has “been completely
realized and that certain elements of the class struggle,
the remnants of the various capitalist and smallholder
views, against which we have to fight, cannot be found there.

The class struggle in the farmers’ cooperative, however,
differs from that outside it. While in non-cooperative
areas the fight against exploitation, etc. and the
irreconcilable antagonisms are of fundamental significance
in the class struggle, there are no irreconcilable class
differences in the farmers’ cooperatives. Therefore our
fundamental task is to overcome capitalist remnants,
differences of opinions between cooperative members and the
influence of hostile elements and strata outside the
cooperatives.

Questions Which are the most important arguments and
differences of opinion among new cooperative members which
await solution?

Answer: There are a number of arguments and differences
of opinion in our new farmers’ cooperative villages. The
correct solution is the essential condition of the
successful further development of the cooperative movement. We
have to deal in the first place with the contradiction
between newly joined members owning different sizes of land.
This difference makes itself felt when refunding the value
of animal stock and equipment taken into the cooperative.
The former poor peasants feel that this money is being
paid out from their pockets to the better-to-do farmers.

[page 7]

The latter, however, who contribute 20 to 30 per cent of
the money received to increase common property disapprove
of the poor peasants who do not contribute to the common
property. Similarly the attitude of cooperative peasants
with regard to the payment of land rent is not uniform.
Namely chose who did not bring land to the cooperative
and have no right to land rent resent the fact that part
of the distributable income is taken away by those who
joined with land.

Question: What are our tasks in developing the unity of
cooperative peasants?

Answer: As at the beginning cooperative membership is
not uniform — for loyalty to the cooperatives is not
the same in each cooperative member; they do not recognize
the common interests in the same way: the smallholder
conception is stronger in some and less strong in others, etc.,
— one of our most important tasks is to bring about unity,
to strengthen the collective way of thinking and action and
to reshape the consciousness of the working peasants.
Creating unity among the cooperative peasantry — and through this the
setting up of the new, united, socialist class of peasantry
— is a combative duty in the course of which we have to
defeat a number of retrograde factors.

Debates between peasants who joined the cooperatives with
land of different size are remnants of the former system
of small-scale production which will be solved by the
development of the cooperative movement, the rise in
the standard of production and profitableness and by the unity
of cooperative farmers. This, however, has to be promoted
from the start with daily and purposeful political work
and by permanently strengthening the cooperatives.

In some places arguments and differences of opinion exist
between old and new cooperative members. Frictions occur
between working peasants who left the cooperative during
the counter-revolution and have recently rejoined it and
members who remained loyal to the cooperative.
Disagreement exists between the management and members; in certain
villages between the minorities; between the smallholder
customs and views of new members and cooperative interests;
between hostile elements, in the villages who probably got into
the cooperative and progressive forces, and in the
cooperative villages between cooperative members and
individual farmers.

[page 8]

All these are decidedly remnants of the conditions of
individual small-scale production and will be eliminated
with the strengthening of the power relations in the new,
socialist cooperatives. But until then the fight against
them means a daily political struggle, the unmasking of
wrong views and standpoints and explaining and proving
the correct road.

Such a retrograde factor, against which we have to fight,
is the fact that the working peasants have carried with
them into the cooperative the conception of the
smallholder’s way of life, its numerous remnants and customs,
primarily the individualist and selfish attitude. These prompt
them to obtain for themselves various advantages over the
other cooperative members (they only try to take part in
work assuring better earning possibilities, they would
like to improve their household plot, underestimate the
increase of the common property or in certain cases even
curtail it, etc.). They distrust everybody and see in each
action the curtailment of their personal interests. There
are many people who identify these actions and endeavors
of new cooperative members with the activities of the class
enemy, although — even if there is often a direct
connection between them — basically these derive from the
smallholder selfishness of the former individual peasants. Hence
we have to fight against such attitudes by drawing these
peasants into the common work and with patient and
convincing educational work and not simply with administrative measures.

At the beginning our new cooperative peasantry is not
versed in the rules of cooperative life. It is not quite
familiar with its rights and duties and cannot take stock
of cooperative farming. The peasantry does not see in
advance how the income will develop, is not acquainted with
the system of calculating the work unit, etc. All these
problems — if we do not care for their solution in time
— make the peasants uncertain and bitter and make it more
difficult for them to adjust themselves to cooperative
life.

For all these reasons we have to consolidate the unity of
the cooperative peasants and to educate them with great
patience and efficiency and with well-considered and
correctly applied political methods. It would be a serious
mistake, for example, to use discrimination among the
co-coperative peasants according to whether one was formerly

[page 9]

a poor or a middle peasant, etc. Instead — irrespective
of the group to which the person maintaining such a view
belonged — the peasants who promote the common cause,
the consolidation of the cooperative and the building of
socialism have to be supported. To those who hold
opposing views and act differently the untenable nature of their
views and deeds has to be proved. Hence the most important
task in the development of the unity of the cooperative
peasants is to perform good political work and to strengthen
the common farm and cooperative life.

Several factors help us in forming a new, united and socialist peasantry and in re-educating the peasant masses. The main
factor in this respect is the changed way of life of the
cooperative farmers. The cooperative large-scale enterprise
holds together the scattered peasantry, organizationally
unites them and is thus a political school for hundreds of
thousands of peasants. This, however, can only be enforced
in a suitable manner if life in the cooperatives develops
favorably and if the cooperative is in fact made into the
common farm of the members in which everyone can exercise
his rights, fulfill his duties, etc. An important role
befalls the working class in this connection which in respect
of socialist self-consciousness, organization and political
experience is more advanced than the peasantry and can help
a lot by showing example and by patronizing the cooperatives.
However, the education of cooperative peasants is also the
central task of the cooperative Party organizations and
Communists.

In addition decrees, regulations and a number of other
factors help to develop the unity of cooperative peasants.
With their support there is a possibility to turn the
cooperative peasants, not thinking and acting at the
beginning in the communal spirit, into a united cooperative
peasantry and to eliminate the smallholder remnants in
some cooperative peasants, to defeat also in this field
the hostile elements whose chief endeavor is to prevent
the creation of such unity.

[page 10]

Part 3-

PART II B

Question: What is the situation of kulaks in the cooperative communities?

Answer: A new method presented itself in the cooperative
villages for the solution of the kulak problem. In the
course of this year’s development of the cooperatives, the

Party let the working peasants decide for themselves
whether the Sculaks in their village should be admitted to
the cooperative. After two years, such former kulaks can
also be elected for leading posts provided they behaved
well in the meantime, some of them can be put up for
candidature even now. In addition after the land is
brought by them to the cooperative — up to 25 cadaster
acres at the most — they too are entitled to be paid
land-rent, like the other working peasants who had joined the cooperative with land of their own.

For a considerable part of our landless peasants — for the
former agrarian proletarians in particular — the fact that
now they work together in the same cooperative or brigade
with those kulaks on whose farms they had worked as field
laborers or hired men, constitutes a problem. This
problem also exists if the respective kulak was no harsh boss
but treated his employees in a human way. Even some of
our Party officials and members do not see clearly in this
matter and have not found a method so far to solve this
problem.

It is quite clear that the admittance of some kulaks to the
cooperative was possible and correct in the present phase.
Namely in our country the majority of the kulaks have been
deprived of their economic basis for years and most of
them had to earn their living through physical work. This
work had a certain transforming effect on them. We also
have to take into consideration the fact that the victorious
progress of socialism both on an international and domestic
scale induces certain people belonging to the bourgeoisie —
including a considerable number of kulaks — to adjust
themselves to the society of workers. Another important circumstancenis that with the formation of farmers’
cooperative the individual basis of the local kulaks, the
important source of bourgeois endeavors and activities,
is terminated. Carrying on physical work in the
cooperatives, n a new, socialist entourage, former kulaks have
an opportunity to become useful members of the cooperatives.
In order to obtain this result, however, it is necessary
for us to deal with them suitably within the framework of the cooperative.

It is noticeable in certain villages that the admittance
of kulaks to the farmers’ cooperatives was taken as being
the “termination of the class struggle”. This is obviously

[page 11]

wrong, because several examples in history — including
the recent moral lesson of the 1956 counter-revolution —
are a warning for us that in view of the fact that on an
international scale we are surrounded by capitalists, the
possibility exists that in a critical period the original
class characteristics of the former kulaks will get the
upper hand and they will turn against socialism. Just for
this reason, we should never forget, that bourgeois habits,
the remnants of the old way of thinking are considerable
obstacles for the development of cooperatives and that
such attitudes can be chiefly found among the former kuiaks
who became cooperative members.

For all these reasons our rural Party and state organs and
Communists have to develop a correct political line in the
cooperative villages where former kulaks have been admitted
to the cooperatives. The essence of this policy is that
they should not discriminate between former kulaks and
other cooperative members, except that the former cannot
be put up for candidature for two years and can be paid
land-rent up to a maximum of 25 cadastral hold. When the
kulaks represent bourgeois views and act accordingly steps
should be taken against them. In serious cases
(anti-cooperative activity) naturally firm action is needed.
This does not only apply to former kulaks but to everyone.

Question: Are there basic class controversies in the
cooperative villages?

Answer: Aside from the controversies mentioned above there
still exist remnants of the basic differences between
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This is chiefly expressed
in the antagonism between the working peasants of the village
and rural bourgeois strata (former capitalists, landowners,
certain kulaks, the supporters of the old regime) who, due
to their hostile attitude toward the people’s democracy,
were not admitted to the cooperative. Their presence in
the cooperative villages brings forth constant tension and
impedes the development of cooperative life because their
hostile activities are primarily directed at the
disintegration of the cooperatives. In some villages such elements have even infiltrated the cooperatives or have sent their
own men there. In cooperation with hostile forces
operating in other areas of the country and with those from
abroad, they try to prevent the start of the common work,
produce uncertainty among the new members, make more
difficult the formation of unity among the cooperative peasantry
and increase the longing for independent farming.

Nowadays these hostile activities are carried out chiefly
in those cooperatives which were formed with the intention
of only starting common work in the fall. These men are
mostly responsible for spreading and initiating disquieting
rumors circulating even now at certain places. (”We will

[page 12]

not carry on common work as long as the Berlin question
has not been settled”, or “Khrushchev has stopped the
cooperative movement in Hungary”, or “In the cooperative.
villages and districts the workers in the councils, the
farmers’ cooperatives and the purchasing apparatus were
left without a job”, etc.) Hence, in the cooperative
villages we have to apply an increased control over such hostile elements, they have to be remembered and have to be
isolated from the other groups of villagers. We do not restrict
them in their productive work, but we have to prevent them
from carrying on hostile or profiteering activities.
Simultaneously we also have to wage a constant, intensive
political fight against them, unmask their enemy attitudes and
refute their arguments. In case of an active hostile
behavior on their part, we also have to apply administrative
methods against them.

Question: It is known that class struggle is not only
pursued in the political and ideological but also in the
economic field. How does this express itself in the new
cooperatives?

Answer: The central task after the formation of
cooperatives and cooperative villages is to consolidate the
cooperative farms. This means a struggle to overcome
difficulties, to change circumstances, to exploit and strengthen
the opportunities created by the new cooperative conditions
and to fight for the final victory of socialism. In this
way are our, cooperatives turned into socialist large-scale enterprises, is the rise of our working peasantry brought
about and the victory of socialism in the village fully
realized. Neglecting the work of consolidation would
damage our whole socialist building, would have an
unfavorable effect on the economic situation of the courrtry and
would provide arguments for the enemies of socialism and
of the cooperative system.

With the setting up of our cooperatives an economically
new situation arises. In the large-scale enterprises only
a part of the old, smallholder means of production can be
used (although mostly with greater efficiency than in the
past). The securement of new large-scale means of
production is realized continuously. We can observe this in respect of stables. In a number of cooperatives, set up this year,
stables for large-scale farming are lacking, yet the
cooperatives have a considerable common animal stock.
Without ensuring their keep on a large-scale level the
advantages of large-scale animal breeding cannot be enforced.
A similar situation applies to many other fields. The
solution of these problems is an important combative
question and the essential condition of the further
development of the newly set-up cooperative farms.

In the interest of a solution obviously the peasants who
have joined the cooperatives have to make the greatest

[page 13]

effort to develop their cooperative large-scale farms, with
the extensive exploitation of local resources, and to
provide new, large-scale means of production. The way to
this is hard work on the part of the members, i.e. that the

quantity of work should not diminish. Another decisive
factor is that the means of production, taken into the
cooperative by the members, should be extensively exploited
in a large-scale frame until they have been replaced by
up-to-date, large-scale means of production. It is
necessary, for example, that until the construction of up-to-date, large-scale stables, a suitable provisional emergency
solution be ensured for the live-stock; one of the methods
is for the members to keep a part of the common live-stock in
their reconstructed stables. These and similar tasks can
only be attained as the result of the efforts of our
cooperative peasantry. These are particularly needed now
because the development of the cooperative movement is
quicker than we can procure up-to-date and large-scale means
of production. If we do not put the right emphasis on the
necessary temporary solutions, on strengthening cooperative
common farming and on serving the interests of developing
up-to-date, cooperative, large-scale enterprises, and if
the smallholder means of production perish more quickly than
the new, large-scale means of production are secured, the
level of production might diminish. This is contrary to
the interests of our whole people’s economy and of our
working people. Local efforts and the industriousness of
cooperative peasants are supported by our people’s democratic
state with considerable material means.

The fast economic development and consolidation of the
farmers’ cooperative is one of the most important means of
the re-education of new cooperative peasants who are linked
with many ties to individual farming. With a fast economic
development it becomes possible to raise their standard of
living in a short time which will make them stick to a
growing extent to the new, cooperative form. In addition
the economic consolidation of the cooperatives and
strengthening of the socialist system are also decisive from the point of view of defeating capitalism, because — as we know —
the socialist system becomes complete by surpassing the
productivity of the capitalist system.

Part 4-

PART III A

Class Struggle in the Non-Cooperative Villages

Question: Compared to last year what important changes can
be experienced in the rural class struggle in the areas
where cooperative development this spring was not extensive?

Answer: The considerable development of the cooperative
movement at the beginning of this year resulted in a small
shift in the rural class struggle in the areas where

[page 14]

cooperative development did not assume mass proportions.
The activity of the class enemy became lively, antagonism
within the working peasants appeared to an increased
measure and the force of socialism became more bold,
combative and active. Thus the struggle between elements
and progressive forces grew in intensity and the
contradictions between the people became more varied than in the
past.

A considerable part of individual working peasants are
seeking the road leading to the cooperatives. Another
part of them continue to oppose the cooperative, some
individual peasants cling to their own farms more strongly
than before. The majority of individual peasants are
undecided. They know that the time of decision is
approaching but they are uncertain as regards the future and
uninformed in many respects. The relations of cooperative
and individual peasants have also changed since last year.
The majority of the former have become less reserved and
are approaching the individual peasants. Only a smaller
part of them continue to be averse to the admission of
members. The opinion and attitude of the rural
intelligent-sia have mostly changed in a favorable direction. A sound
development can be experienced among rural teachers, the
main factor of which is that they are trying to make
propaganda for the cooperative future. In this changed
situation the suitable guidance and organization of rural
politics is particularly important.

The danger exists in the case of some of the individual
peasants — still distant from the cooperative idea —
that they diminish their production, or rather that for
the sake of a greater income they try, to increase their
production temporarily (until they remain individual

farmers) without regard for the future (e.g. failing
to fertilize grapes, neglecting to sow perennial plants,
using up fixed funds, etc.). In this way they endanger
the execution of the “dual task”. Today this danger is
considerably smaller than in the years prior to the
counter-revolution. The reason for it is that the pace
of development of the cooperative movement is quick, that
our economic policy continues to encourage increased
production and helps individual working peasants to remain
industrious. However, we have to realize that we are faced
in this respect with a serious political task.

Retarding the cooperative movement is the central point
of the activity of hostile elements. They have overcome
their first surprise caused by the fast development of
the cooperatives, they have made order in their ranks
and their activity is more organized than in the first
two-and-a-half or three months of the year. The effect
of hostile elements is much greater than their number
They prompt views deriving from the smallholder
conception and situation of individual farmers. The following

[page 15]

are the most frequent arguments of the hostile elements:
“If we peasants join forces there will be no cooperatives”;
“If you join the cooperative your farm will be pulled down”;
“The state only ensures advantages until every farmer has
joined the cooperative, then restrictions will “be imposed”;
“People joining the cooperative will become servants”, etc.
These arguments are mostly spread by whispering propaganda.
In many places hostile elements ostentatiously talk in a
similar sense to smaller groups of working peasants in
public. In several places listening to hostile radio
stations is organized among the working peasants. Slanders
are frequent, as well as inciting contradictions, between
various persons and social strata (for example, working
peasants and persons with two occupations) and other methods.
The fact that in most places our rural Party organizations
and Communists neglect (in several places do not understand)
an active and well-considered political fight against the
enemy helps the activity of the class enemy.

All these factors show that the considerable headway made
this year by the cooperative movement did not only bring
about a change in rural power relations in areas where
the majority of working peasants have already joined the
cooperative but also in places where this decisive step
has not yet taken place.

Question: Compared to last year does the Party’s policy
undergo a change in connection with individual farmers?

Answer: The essence of our policy in connection with
individual farmers has been expressed in a statement by
comrade Janos Kadar published in the April 4 issue of
“Nepszabadsag”: “Our two-and-a-half year-old policy in
connection with individual farmers will not be changed in
the slightest. We consider the worker-peasant alliance
the chief political basis of our state. Today this alliance
is strong and we regard its constant strengthening as our
permanent task. The worker-peasant alliance comprises both
cooperative and individual peasants. The latter are our
allies and working brothers and we will continue to
cooperate with them accordingly.” Pull understanding of this
principle and its consistent practical enforcement are the
important conditions of our socialist development. Thus we
have to continue to assume a patient, helpful and friendly
attitude toward individual peasants; an attitude which proved
to be suitable during the past two-and-a-half years. The
changed situation, however, demands considerably more active
work then in the past. We have to be among the working
peasants all the time, giver detailed and fitting answers to
their doubts and problems and expose and refute hostile
arguments and rumors. Groups of people’s educators have to
be set up — where this has not yet been done — consisting
of Communists, cooperative members, rural intellectual
workers and other persons suitable for propaganda work.

[page 16]

We have to ensure that they regularly visit the working
peasants allotted to them. They should not make direct
propaganda among them to join the cooperative hut should
patiently answer their questions, inform them of foreign
and home political events, prove the falseness of hostile
rumors and arguments, speak openly about the cooperative
future and teach them the advantages, rules, etc. of
cooperative life. In other words they should pay increased
attention to individual peasants and prevent the growing
influence of the enemy on them.

Question: To what extent and in what forms do profiteering
and exploitation express themselves in our country?

Answer: Fighting against exploitation and profiteering is
still an important part of the class struggle. The reason
for this is that as long as production on a small scale is
not succeeded by socialist farming, the possibilities for
an increase in exploitation and profiteering will remain.
Many people do not see exploitation and profiteering clearly.
They confuse the issues and while looking for exploitation
and profiteering in places where these do not exist, do not
notice the truly capitalist symptoms. Therefore it is
necessary suitably to clarify a few questions in this respect.
Although the possibility of the spread of exploitation
can-not be excluded, it is strongly restricted in practice. By
prohibiting the formation of private property exceeding 25
cadastral hold, by imposing a special tax on the employment
of outside labor, with the strongly progressive character
of the tax of the peasantry, etc. we have considerably
limited the possibilities of exploitation and have rendered
kulak activities more difficult. Yet exploitation is
possible and even exists in our country, because the
possibility of engaging outside manpower, the selling on the free
market also exist. The well-to-do peasant who has carriage
and horses might apply (and also does apply) what is in
effect labor usury and there are in our country (though
only a few, kulak-capitalist farms on which outside manpower
is engaged etc. Hence the restriction of exploitation
remains our task. This, however, cannot be solved only by
applying administrative regulations. The termination of the
so-called labor usury, for example, is not done by way of
regulation but by trying to win the peasants, owning a
carriage, for the cooperative. A similar situation arises
in the case of a lease, half-and-half share, etc.

Many consider the very high income of some of the individual
peasants (12 per cent altogether) having its origin entirely
in speculation and exploitation. This, however, is not true.
Most of the individual peasants with an exceptionally high
income have realized certain aspects of our purchase system,
namely that it encourages the formation of intensive farming
and pays a higher price for sugar-beet, fat pork and beef,
grapes, poultry etc. and their great income is due to this
perception. This, however, cannot be taken for profiteering
or exploitation. The great income derives from the fact that
the respective family, apart from their farm, also enjoys
considerable labor wages. Only a part of the peasant farms
with a high income obtain their excess income from
profiteering.

>>>Today, we push a switch and the work is done and we still do not have time to play.<<<

I can remember when just plowing, it would take a full week pulling two 14” plow bottoms in second gear - all day every day - today they use rigs that would knock that out in 2-3 hours and be off to the next field - they pull 7-8 times the number of larger plow bottoms 2-3 times the speed we could. I had time to mentally calculate how many square feet per hour, how many cubic feet, how many tons I was moving. I counted the tire rotations for distance and timed it on my watch to get the speed.

Then we still seemed to have lots of play, lazy and thinking time but now with all the time saving - now you are hard pressed to think about the next turn with no real ‘thinking time’ and at the end of the day you don’t really feel the accomplishment we did then.

I remember always having plenty of time after working hard to play and enjoy the fruit of my labor - now it is just get it done and get on with the next thing... No time to enjoy anything.

Growing up we had about a dozen beef cattle, 180 sheep, 40 hogs, about 50 ducks and 100 chickens and 3 milk goats. I fed the animals and milked the goats before school, went to school, was on the track team, football team, rifle team, and in 4-H, came home, fed the animals and milked the goats again, ate dinner, did my homework and then seemed to have several hours to explore things that interested me - reading the encyclopedia, building something, playing games - then some time to ‘watch’ the radio for a bit before bed. Saturdays were for mixing feed, cleaning pens, fixing fences, mowing grass and still had ‘play time’. Sundays started with feeding and milking, Church, Family and a big dinner, then play with cousins and neighbors, feed and milk, then the whole evening (which seemed long) to do things with the family. Sometimes we even went crabbing or clamming or maybe fishing. Adversities were more viewed as challenges to be overcome - storms, snows, etc were greatest fun as we were preoccupied with doing things like seeing how many doughnuts I could cut going down the road before sliding in the ditch (then I would put the Jeep in 4WD and pull myself out) great learning experience that helped me be a much better driver in later life. Then we would put the blade on the tractor and scrape not only our driveway, but the neighbors and for any old folks who didn’t have anyone to help them. We even hauled fuel oil, groceries and mail to them throughout the storm... (Jeeps are great! - mine was a 1947 Willys - quite versatile critter)

Summers we had a huge garden, and when a crop would come off, aunt and uncle, grandparents, great aunt and uncle, sister and my family always got together and canned and froze for a day or two at a time... Then we would divvy thing up based on family size. Same with butchering in the fall.

Yep, I miss those days...

End.......

PART III B

Question: What are our tasks in the struggle against
speculation?

Answer: Excessive peasant incomes — particularly
incomes obtained through profiteering — cause a tension
between the working class and the working peasantry.
Therefore our chief task is to prevent the possibility
of earning money without work, merely through
speculation and if such earnings exist they should be eliminated
by imposing tax on them. We have enforced several measures
to suppress speculation, e.g. we regulated the slaughter
of cattle or rather limited it to a license and regulated
the system of producers’ meat sales. We have declared that
only state organs or agricultural cooperatives, authorized
by the former, can buy the most important produce — bread
and feeder grains and live-stock — for resale. We have
restricted the activity of private trade and have limited
the purchase of vegetable and fruit merchants to the area
of their activity. In 1958 we introduced the system of
farmers’ certificates. The essence of this is that only
those persons can sell on the producers’ market who
cultivated the product in question on their own farm. It is
the duty of the tax authorities to impose an extra tax
on large incomes deriving from speculation. We have to
enforce the execution of these measures because they make
it possible to avoid the formation of incomes derived from
speculation and not involving hard work. We have to clearly
realize, however, that the complete elimination of
profiteering and exploitation will only be finally solved with the
socialist transformation of the village.

Question: What hostile ideological views have the greatest
effect on the working peasantry?

Answer: From among the hostile bourgeois views those
abusing socialist agriculture and trying to belittle its
advantages continue to influence the working peasantry.
For example, views casting doubts on the superiority of
Soviet socialist agriculture and trying to belittle its
achievements. Bourgeois views, abusing socialist
agriculture, are not new. They have been in the armory of
bourgeois elements since the setting up of socialist
agriculture in the USSR and even before this we came across them

[page 18]

in individuals who attacked Marxism and declared the
socialist system as such an unattainable illusion.
Among the bourgeois views of this type emphasis is laid
on the fact chat the socialist agricultural large-scale
enterprise does not belong to the peasant, but to the
state and to the working class and that in it the working
peasant “has sunk” from the level of “independent owner”
to that of “hired worker”. Bourgeois elements are trying
to prove this when maintaining that in the USSR and the
people’s democracies the farmers’ cooperatives are not
the voluntary associations of working peasants but have
been created by force by the Communist state, contrary
to the will of the working peasantry. According to these
elements this is the reason for the lack of interest of
the working peasants to increase production, for the low
level of agricultural production in the socialist
countries, for the poverty of the working peasants. etc. The
falseness of these bourgeois views is obvious; however,
we should not underestimate them and should not neglect
the struggle against effective and hostile ideological
views.

View idealizing small peasant holdings and popularizing
the agriculture of capitalist countries are closely linked
with the above. Their essence is that they over-emphasize
independence, individual ambition and effort in the peasant
holdings, based on private property and in the meantime keep
a deep silence about the external and decisively economic
factors which influence peasant production more strongly
than every ambition and effort. If exposed to their
influence the majority of “individual” peasant holdings perish.
The favorite subject of the persons spreading such bourgeois
views is the capitalist conception of intensive farming, the
essence of which is that intensive farming is identical with
increasing the use of manual labor. Therefore — they
maintain — only small peasant holdings are capable of intensive
farming but socialist large-scale agriculture is not. It is
obvious that these views please the individual peasant, tied
to his own, individual plot by a number of subjective links,
and that he finds self-justification in them. Therefore it
is our important task to prove that these views are untrue
and that even though individual ambitions and efforts are
important, the economic factors, which under capitalist
conditions work against the interests of individual farming,
are more decisive. Under capitalist conditions capitalistic
associations do not protect the individual peasant from ruin.

[page 19]

Under our conditions the interests of the cooperative
peasants coincide with those of the state and the peopled
economy and therefore it is in their own and best interest
to recognize the advantages of the cooperatives.

Religious ideology also has a strong effect on the working
peasants. Certain reactionary religious circles are trying
to impede the socialist transformation of agriculture by
widening and intensifying the religious ideology. The basis
of this is that, with the socialist transformation of
agriculture private property, as a foundation, slips from the
religious ideology. Therefore in many places certain church
officials and the various sects fight with tooth and nail
for the “souls” and for slowing down the cooperative
development. They are trying to increase the influence of the
church against the growing influence of the Party with
spiritual terror, collections, film projections, free meals,
organizing theatrical groups and choirs, with the enticement
of family members of Communists and functionaries and with
many other methods. We have to fight against these symptoms
by taking into consideration the mutual agreements and
cooperation between state and church. We should not fight
against the church but against the stupefying character of
the belief in God, against idealism, not against church
officials in general but against those who in a religious
garb fight against socialist building.

Other hostile views too have an effect on our peasantry,
e.g. nationalism, chauvinism and anti-Semitism? this last
prejudice has a smaller effect on the peasants than on,
for example, certain rural intellectual strata. These
hostile views partly impede the socialist transformation
of the village and partly aim at weakening the Party’s
influence. Therefore we have to fight against them with
political enlightening work.

In our days these bourgeois ideological views can be
regarded as the most important from the point of view of
the class struggle. It can be clearly seen that these
views, mostly spread by hostile elements, considerably
influence the way of thinking and actions of the individual
peasants, who, although having already realized certain
advantages of socialist large-scale farming, continue to
maintain a fundamentally petty-bourgeois and private-owner
outlook and conception of life. Therefore, on the
ideological level it is particularly important to pursue a
long and enduring fight against hostile petty-bourgeois
views and in the interest of a socialist way of thinking
and conception.

+ + +

[page 20]

In the foregoing we replied to some questions on the agenda
in connection with class struggle in the present phase of
the socialist transformation of agriculture. In this
context we have to clearly realize that the socialist
transformation of the village is in the interest of our whole
working people. Only through this transformation can she
building of a socialist social and economic system in
Hungary “become complete and only through this can rural
production forces be liberated. On the basis of their
development we can considerably raise the standard of living
and welfare of the working people. It is understandable
that the building of a socialist society, which eliminates
also in Hungary the exploitation of man by man, is carried
out under the furious resistance of the internal and
external enemy and under the conditions of the class struggle.

This is an immense revolutionary transformation in the course
of which we should never, lose from sight Lenin’s doctrine:
“The greater the impetus and the proportion of historical
actions, the more people take part in them and vice versa,
the deeper the transformation we want to carry out, the
greater the interest we have to arouse for it and the more
we have to endeavor that people should take a conscious
stand for it and the more do we have to convince million’s
and tens of millions of people about its necessity.” The
socialist revolution is a conscious revolution in which
the impetus of millions and tens of millions of people will
bring about the success, the socialist society.

End

[And 50 years later, it has reached America and the above is what is happening to us..........granny]

http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/36-6-85.shtml

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 36-6-85
TITLE: The New Ministry of Industry in Hungary: Recurrence of a Leitmotive?
BY: Leyla Woods
DATE: 1981-9-2
COUNTRY: Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT: RAD Background Report/250
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary—1976-1989, Executive Bodies, Industries

-— Begin -—

RFERL

RADIO FREE EUROPE Research

RAD Background Report/25O
(Hungary)
2 September 1981

THE NEW MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY IN HUNGARY; RECURRENCE OF A
LEITMOTIV?
By Leyla Woods[+]

Summary: As of 1 January 1981, the Hungarian Ministries
of Light Industry, of Heavy Industry, and of Metallurgy
and the Machine Industry were dissolved and most of their
functions assumed by a single unified Ministry of Industry.
Rearrangements of the ministries concerned with industrial
direction were formerly very frequent, but since 1957 only
one other change in the institutional apparatus of industrial
guidance has occurred. According to official statements, the
creation of the Ministry of Industry has two major objectives:
1) significantly to reduce the hitherto frequent ministerial
interventions in enterprise operations, which have tended to
abrogate the enterprise decision-making autonomy promised
by the framers of the Hungarian economic reform and to
relieve the enterprises of responsibility for incorrect
production and investment decisions; and 2) to strengthen
central guidance in the industrial sphere. It is unlikely
that either of these targets will be fulfilled to the extent
desired by the Hungarian reformers. A more promising
avenue for a substantial increase in enterprise independence
and responsibility is the official call to transfer the
mediation of interenterprise conflicts from the ministerial
hierarchy to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce. Unlike the
Ministry of Industry, the Chamber of Commerce has no power
of authority over the enterprises, so the resolution of
enterprise difficulties in the Chamber of Commerce would
imply that enterprises are at last taking the responsibility
for solving their own problems, rather than shifting them up
to ministerial superiors for a bureaucratic solution.

+ + +

Continues, says about the same things we have heard recently]

http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/31-1-158.shtml

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 31-1-158
TITLE: New Plan for Social Counts in Hungary
BY: Urban
DATE: 1960-9-14
COUNTRY: Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT: Hungarian Unit
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary—1956-1965, Judicial Bodies, Justice, Administration of

-— Begin -—

F136

1960

RFE EVALUATION AND
ANALYSIS DEPAR’TMENT
Hungarian Unit

News Background

NEW PLAN FOR SOCIAL COURTS IN HUNGARY

Munich, September 14 (Urban) — The July-August number
of the official Gazette for Legal Studies (”Jogtudomanyi Kozlony”)
suggests an increase in the number, and an extension of the
jurisdiction, of Social Courts, Originally devised to discourage
petty theft and act as a general corrective to anti-social attitude
May 1956), the Social Courts were extremely slow in coming. By
1958 they were said to be erratically functioning in all
enterprises employing more than 300 persons, but, although the Courts’
punitive powers were limited to upbraiding defendants, factory
managers were known to have 1 refused to court unpopularity by
refusing to endorse — and thereby to invalidate — the Courts’

Public reaction to these Courts has been exactly what
the government thought and hoped it would be: a horror of being
put in the dock in front of one’s friends and colleagues. The
regime press and refugee sources agree that people guilty of
pilferage or of uncomradely behavior would much rather face an
ordinary magistrate’s court away from their places of employment,
than sit out the ordeal of being lectured to in the presence of
fellow workers and former subordinates.

Social Courts meet in public and the audiences are
invited to partake of the proceedings and shape the Courts’
opinions. Although the Courts’ charges are formally constructed
and the outward trappings of proper procedure observed, no
provision is made for the defense of the accused person. The fiction
the authorities are hard put to get across is that Social Courts
are an assembly of workers aggrieved by anti-social hehavior and
determined to put wrong-doers back on the right social tram lines.
In practice these trials are arranged in a somewhat more
straightforward manner.

On 12 August 1959 “Nepszava” said, for instance, that
“everything depends on how the preliminary work is conducted. If,
while the case is being prepared, the plant manager and the local
trade union organization cooperate with the Court, the sentence
will meet with the approval of all.”

The present proposals would introduce Social Courts to
all enterprises employing not less than 100 workers and, in
certain cases, the minimum would be reduced to 50. Irrespective
of the number of employees, Courts would be attached to local
councils, agricultural and artisans’ cooperatives, universities

[page 2]

F137

HUNGARIAN NEWS BACKGROUND, 14 September 1960,

and other public or semi-public bodies.

Even more ominous is the suggestion that Courts should
also Toe organized in residential areas. The reason for this
innovation is the government’s desire to extend social control to
those sections of the population “that may infringe upon the rules
of social coexistence not in their places of work, but in their
homes, in bars or in the cinemas”.

If the present suggestions were put into effect Social
Courts would extend their jurisdiction to a field defined in the
following dangerously vague terms: “violation of the rules
governing behavior in Hungarian socialist society”.

As there is, to the present writer’s knowledge, no
written code of socialist ethics in Hungary, this heading would
open the . way to a, good many, imaginative interpretations. Likes
and dislikes of every kind from political tastes to allowing dogs
to foul public foot-paths might be listed under this equivocal
rubric.

The competence of the Courts would be widened to include:
infringements of labor discipline, minor cases of criminal law
which have hitherto come under the jurisdiction of magistrates’
courts, and crimes against social property and social services.

The Courts would continue to be run by the trade unions
and to enjoy their present right to submit cases to the country’s
proper legal authorities, to exact an apology, to recommend
dismissal and to mete out fines and other disciplinary punishments.

The extension of the network of Social Courts is
envisaged to be a gradual affair. The timetable proposed offers
an interesting and authentic clue to the government’s own estimate
of their strength and weaknesses. In the first echelon Courts
would be attached to state enterprises. These, with their closely
knit and thoroughly government-controlled organization, are
thought to be ripe for the experiment by the end of 1961. A close
second in ripeness and reliability are the old agricultural
cooperatives, i.e. presumably those few which withstood both the
1953-1954 and the 1956 crises. These, too, are scheduled to
have their Courts in 1961. 1961-1962 would see the Courts set
up house in major institutions and in the artisans’ cooperatives,
while more recently established agricultural cooperatives would
follow suit as and when the spirit of collectivization takes
roots in these new communities.

Significantly the industrial and urban populations are
at the very bottom of the writer’s list of priorities. The
lessons of the revolution have obviously not been lost on the
government and, what is more important still, they would appear
to agree that little has changed since 1956. Of the urban
dwellers the first to enjoy the comfort of having Social Courts
established on their premises would be the closed and socially

continued.

http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/30-1-146.shtml

Hungry 1957

snipped-

One point KADAR did not take up concerning the Party is an
interesting and novel one broached by Karoly KISS — who became
a member of the Presidential Council by parliament vote
yesterday — in a lecture on Party problems May 6. KISS said then
that it had been a “grave mistake” to dissolve the Hungarian
Workers Party and form the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party.
The implication is that the leaders of the latter will always
be at least slightly embarrassed about it because it was
formed during the NAGY tenure and thus must have been subject to
NAGY influence, even though KADAR was its chief organizer and
leader.

An interesting point of KADAR’s talk was that he felt the
necessity to deny views he said were current that either the
intellectuals or the youth are the “leading class”. Since the
revolution, the regime has often felt obliged to deny that it is
“anti-intellectual” in policy.

KADAR said the current parliamentary session will be called
upon to debate the 1957 State plan and that a “three-year plan”
will soon after also be submitted for debate.

End

[page 4]

NEWS & INFORMATION SERVICE
EVALUATION & RESEARCH SECTION
(GENERAL DESK)

“E” DISTRIBUTION - 300

CORRECTION

H - HUNGARIAN PARLIAMENT HEARS KADAR

On second page, first paragraph dealing with price increases,
please correct second sentence to read:

BUDAPEST radio said this morning the prices increases will not
apply to products of the food industry, clothing articles; or
to household, chemical, iron or crockery articles.

Affected are agricultural machinery and tools, building materials
and such consumer goods as motorcycles, bicycles, washing and
sewing machines, certain kinds of cameras and a few other luxury
articles.

It is interesting that the latter category of goods have also been
made the subject of price increases in Poland. One of the reasons
for the measure in Poland was to cut down speculation in goods
purchased relatively cheaply in State stores and then resold at
a great profit by black marketeers.

BUDAPEST radio said prices will be raised to some extent in the
catering industry; different prices will be charged for food
consumed at tables. Prices for beverages will be increased.
Hotel rooms and especially in hotels catering to foreign
tourists will also be more expensive.

End

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.