Gertrude Enderle-Burcel, Dieter Stiefel, Alice Teichova (Hrsg.): Sonderband 9. „Zarte Bande” – Österreich und die europäischen planwirtschaftlichen Länder / „Delicate Relationships” – Austria and Europe’s Planned Economies (2006)
Ágnes Pogány: The Changing Image of the Economie Role of Austria in Hungarian Public Discourse
The Changing Image of the Economic Role of Austria in the Hungarian Public Discourse The Colony-Metaphor advances the conviction that Austria exploited and plundered Hungary by keeping her dependent. According to the concept, political and economic independence would have been much more favourable for Hungary. The metaphor personalises Austria. Austria/the Habsburg Empire as a person and as a coloniser is seen as having inherent dispositions: it is evil, has harmful objectives, it harms deliberately Hungarian interests. Austria seeks her own material welfare and deprives Hungary of the resources necessary for economic development. The metaphor contrasts Hungary with Austria (Us and Them). The concept is based on a conflict. According to the metaphor, Austria had detrimental influence on Hungarian economic development. In the discourse the colonial position of Hungary is proven by the fact that Hungary served as a raw material and food resource for the western parts of the Empire.5 Colonial destiny means that no ‘healthy’ industrialization could be carried out in Hungary. Development was restrained. Austria hindered the industrialization of Hungary, because it was not in her interests. In other words, industry could emerge but only when it did not hurt the Austrian interests.6 The colonial situation hindered modem capitalist industry to develop.7 According to the Colony-Metaphor the customs union was seen as damaging the Hungarian economy by drawing resources from the country unilaterally. The customs union was considered harmful even after the Compromise of 1867 because it hindered autonomous development of the Hungarian economy and the process of catching up with the more developed parts of the world.8 The lack of a textile industry was presented as evidence. Without customs protection, Hungarian textile manufacturers were not able to prosper and were ruined by the competition of the more developed Austrian textile works. In the history writing of the 1950s, textile industrialization was seen as the only possible way for modem capitalist development, therefore the deprivation of Hungary from a domestic textile industry was claimed to be a crucial setback for autonomous development.9 5 Lederer. Emma: Az ipari kapitalizmus kezdetei Magyarorszâgon. (The Beginning of Industrial Capitalism in Hungary). Budapest, 1952. p. 6. 6 Lederer: Az ipari kapitalizmus, p. 11. Tolnai, György: A magyar kapitalizmus kialakulâsa, Szakszervezeti Tanâcs alapfokù szeminâriuma. 12. (The Emergence of Hungarian Capitalism, First Grade Seminar of the Board of the Trade Union, Nb. 12). Budapest, 1947. p. 5. 7 Berend, T. Ivân - Rânki. György: Magyarorszâg gyâripara az imperializmus elsô vilâghàborù elötti idôszakâban, 1900-1914. (The Manufacturing Industry of Hungary in the Period of Imperialism before the First World War, 1900-1914). Budapest, 1955. p. 7. 8 Berend, T. Ivan - Rânki, György: A monopolkapitalizmus kialakulâsa és uralma Magyarorszâgon (1900-1944). (The Emergence and Domination of Monopoly Capitalism in Hungary, 1900-1944). Budapest, 1958. p. 3-4. 9 Lederer: Az ipari kapitalizmus, p. 10. Tolnai, György: A paraszti szövö-fonöipar és a textilmanufaktùra Magyarorszâgon. 1840-1849. (The Peasant Spinning and Weaving Industry and Textile Manufacture in Hungary, 1840-1849). Budapest, 1964. p. 10. 227
