Skip Navigation

The English Historical Review 2005 120(488):963-986; doi:10.1093/ehr/cei242
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mark, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2005, all rights reserved

Society, Resistance and Revolution: The Budapest Middle Class and the Hungarian Communist State 1948–56*

James Mark

University of Exeter

This article examines middle-class resistance to the early Communist state in Hungary. Most were hostile to the regime by the early 1950s, but despite this shared opposition various groups formulated very different responses to Communist power. Some chose active resistance whilst others withdrew into the private sphere. This article uses oral history testimony from seventy-six members of the Budapest bourgeoisie to argue that the decision to defy illegitimate power had little correlation with a group's dislike of the regime, or the space it was given to resist in. Rather, it reflected the complex social codes which surrounded the expression of dissent. In early Communist Hungary these codes were defined mainly by political traditions. Conservatives, for instance, despite being more deeply opposed to the Communist state than any other group, chose not to resist: they regarded active dissent as a form of collaboration as it involved political engagement with a regime that they regarded as an illegitimate foreign imposition. Different political affiliations were to define differing degrees of involvement in the 1956 revolution too: liberals and socialists had maintained traditions which idealised resistance and found expression in the revolt, whereas conservatives' earlier reluctance to engage politically continued in their ambiguous response to the possibilities of the uprising. Finally, the article considers the question of memory, examining the social and political pressures on individuals since 1989 to write the history of anti-Communist resistance into their life stories.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.