According to Cas Mudde we live in a “populist Zeitgeist”. It will be argued in my paper that not only the 21th century but the 20th century is about populism. In the first section I elaborate the theoretical background of my paper: the various notions of populism have been analysed here and I will refer the biopolitical framework of populism. After that, I explore the populism of the Horthy era (1920-1944) in the context of Communist populism. Then I bring up the case of Communist populism in Hungary (1948-1989), which has been analysed here from several aspects. In the context of the working class and the bourgeois elite; the regime biopolitical character; goulash communism as a populist legitimacy; and the point of view of socialist patriotism. I conclude this paper with the usefulness of investigating historical populism in conjunction with contemporary tendencies.

1. Populism in Central and Eastern Europe in the 20th Century Workshop
11-12 May 2017, Paris
Communist Populism in Hungary
Attila Antal
Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law Institute of Political Science
and
Institute of Political History Social Theory Research Group
antal.attila@ajk.elte.hu
antal.attila@polhist.hu

2. Overview
1. Theoretical Backgrounds: Populisms and Biopolitics
2. The Antecedent of Communist Populism:
Nationalist Right Wing Populism (1920-1944)
3. The Populist Character of Hungarian Communism:
Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
4. Conclusions

3. 1. Theoretical Backgrounds: Populisms and
Biopolitics
1.1. Notions of Populism
• „Populist Zeitgeist” (Mudde, 2004)
• Populism as political communication and strategy
• Populism as a political logic and discourse (Laclau, 2005)
“»The people« become… the possibility of any renewed and effective political
project and, indeed, the very subject of the political. And if »the people« are the
subject of the political, then populism is the logic of the political.”
(Moffit–Tormey, 2014)
• Populism as an ideology
• Populism as a form of democracy

4. 1. Theoretical Backgrounds: Populisms and
Biopolitics
1.2. Totalitarianism, Biopolitics, Populism
• State increasingly took as its task the care and regulation
of biological, human life (Foucault, 1990 and 2003)
• The sovereign power is itself already biopolitical
(Agamben, 1998 and 2005)
• The main distinctions of the political is the separation of
bare life (zoé) and political existence (bíos)
• „An inner solidarity between democracy and
totalitarianism”
• The symbol of homo sacer

5. 1. Theoretical Backgrounds: Populisms and
Biopolitics
1.2. Totalitarianism, Biopolitics, Populism
• The totalitarian regimes use a radical form of biopower
• The populist nature and techniques of Communist
regimes can be seen as a form of (radicalized) biopolitics
• Populism, especially in authoritarian regimes, has a
biopolitical character

6. 2. The Antecedent of Communist Populism:
Nationalist Right Wing Populism (1920-1944)
• Horthy era: nationalist right wing populist regime
• Elitist populsim (Antal, 2017)
• A permanent reference point of the Communist era
• Self-identification

7. 2. The Antecedent of Communist Populism:
Nationalist Right Wing Populism (1920-1944)
Notions and Characters od
Populism
Nationalist Right Wing
Populism during the Horthy
Era (1920-1944)
Methods
Populism as Political
Communication and Strategy
+
Enemy creation, racism,
nationalism
Populism as a Political Logic
and Discourse
-
Populism as an Ideology -
Populism as a Form of
Democracy
-
Biopolitical Character of
Populism
+
Restriction of the
election system, racism,
chauvinism, Trianon-
syndrome (revisionism),
anti-Jewish regulation

8. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
• A totalitarian Communist regime
• A unique experiment to create a new political community
• The working class has become a political project and the
very subject of the political
• Against the nationalist populist concept
• The far right and even the moderate right has been
excluded from the political nation by biopolitical
instruments
• The Communist concept of the nation: immediate and
direct political leadership of the working class

9. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
• 1956 as a counter populist movement against the
Rákosi’s regime
• Kádár has learned the populist lessons
• The new populism based on the satisfaction of the
material needs and the emancipation of the political
community

10. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.1. The Working Class and the Bourgeois Elite: Revolution
and Counter-revolution
• Dichotomy between the “moral people” (working class)
and a “corrupt elite”
• Doctrinal purity or class-consciousness
• Emphasis on a charismatic leader
• The propaganda against the Horthy’s era and the political
right
• Hungarian People's Republic

11. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.1. The Working Class and the Bourgeois Elite: Revolution
and Counter-revolution
• Main legitimacy and ideological taboo: 1956 as a
counter-revolution
• The Decision of the Temporary Central Committee of the
Hungarian Socialist Workers Party (5th December 1956)
• Restore the system of capitalist-landlord
• Elite overrule the working class

12. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.2. The Biopolitical Character, Periods of the Rákosi and
Kádár regimes
• Biopopulism as a framework
• Biopolitics supported and legitimized by populism

13. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.2. The Biopolitical Character, Periods of the Rákosi and
Kádár regimes
1. period (1948-1956)
• The dictatorship of Mátyás Rákosi
• Total Communist dictatorship
• Victims: the opposition forces and politicians
• Hungarian Working People's Party
• „Stalin's best Hungarian disciple”
• „He who is not with us is against us”
• Cult of personality
• „Communist revolution ate its own children”

14. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.2. The Biopolitical Character, Periods of the Rákosi and
Kádár regimes
2. period (1956)
• The revolution and freedom fight
• Revenge during and after 1956
• Rákosi’s biopopulism is unsustainable

15. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.2. The Biopolitical Character, Periods of the Rákosi and
Kádár regimes
3. period (1956-1989)
• Kádár: a brutal dictator, but a consolidator
• He was able to normalize the situation
• Impossible to break away
• „He who is not against us is with us”
• Arrangement between the Hungarian society and the
Communist elite

16. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.3. Goulash Communism as a Populist Legitimacy
• A biopolitical agreement
• Legitimacy factor (beside the official judgement on 1956)
• Much more freedom
• Social populism is very similar to the Latin-American populist
regimes
• 1968 - New Economic Mechanism
• A higher ratio of market mechanisms
• „The happiest barrack”
• Pre-born welfare state
• The external debt has inconceivably increased

17. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.4. Internationalism, Nationalism, Inclusive Populist
Strategy
• The main political theoretical background of the
Communism is the internationalism
• Socialist patriotism
• The positive character of socialist patriotism had been
emphasized
• The national identity played crucial role in the debates
• The populist logic to create a homogeneous political
community
• Inclusive populism

18. 3. The Populist Character of Hungarian
Communism: Radical Left Populism (1948-1989)
3.5. The Aspects of Communist Populism
Notions and Characters od
Populism
Communist Populism (1948-
1989)
Methods
Populism as Political
Communication and Strategy
+
Enemy creation,
internationalism
Populism as a Political Logic and
Discourse
+
Creating political community
after 1956, light nationalism,
emancipation, socialist
patriotism
Populism as an Ideology -
Populism as a Form of Democracy -
Biopolitical Character of Populism +
Totalitarian and murderous
communism before 1956,
the revenge of 1956, goulash
communism after 1956 as a
material legitimacy, New
Economic Mechanism

19. 4. Conclusions
4.1. Populism against Populism
• Communist populism can be seen as a political,
economic, social response
• To enhance our understanding contemporary populism’s
historical background

20. 4. Conclusions
4.2. Historical and Contemporary Populism in Hungary
• The Fidesz has equally been influenced by the populism
of the Horthy’s era and Communist populism
• The enemy creation, the usage of biopolitics, biopower
as political legitimacy
• To study the historical and repoliticise aspect of populism
to deep understand the political theroretical bases of
neopopulism

21. 4. Conclusions
4.3. Communist Populism as a
Nostalgia
• The Hungarians are very
skeptical
• 72% said most people in
Hungary are actually worse off
today economically than they
were under communism
• A palpable nostalgia – rejection
of the current system
Wike, 2010

22. V. References
Agamben, Giorgio (1998): Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by D. Heller-
Roazen. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Agamben, Giorgio. (2000): Means without End: Notes on Politics. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Antal, Attila (2017): The Political Theories, Preconditions and Dangers of the Governing Populism
in Hungary. Czech Journal of Political Science, 2017/1. 5–20.
Benczes, István (2016): From goulash communism to goulash populism: the unwanted legacy of
Hungarian reform socialism. Post-Communist Economies, Volume 28, 2016, Issue 2. 146–166.
Laclau, Ernesto (2005): On populist reason. London: Verso.
Romsics, Ignác (1999): Hungary in the twentieth century. Budapest: Corvina.
Tőkés, Rudolf L. (1996): Hungary's Negotiated Revolution: Economic Reform, Social Change and
Political Succession. Cambridge Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies. Cambridge University
Press.
Wike, Richard (2010): Hungary Dissatisfied with Democracy, but Not Its Ideals. Pew Research
Center, Pew Global Attitudes Project. 7th April 2010.

23. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!