Verhovayak Lapja, 1955 (38. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1955 / Verhovay Journal
PAGE 10 Verhovay Journal February 16, 1955 works, and seasonal fruit industries, among' others, were not to be allowed to leave their positions of employment. This restriction caused a visible slackening' of labor discipline. Thus, according to Népszava, a tradeunion newspaper: in the Lenin Foundry Works the number óf lost workdays was 11 times higher in July 1953 than in June of the same year ... in the Láng Machine Factory the unwarranted absenteeism in July was 5 times higher than in the preceding month. And besides slackening, negligence, and weakening of the techwcal discipline, carelessness was rampant. József Balázs of the Budapest Waterworks bitterly protested: They promise but don’t perform ... We don’t know how much we earn — There are neither norm books nor work assignments ... They cheat Today’s Hungary has, according to the 1949 census, 4,522,925 persons engaged in agricultural occupations, or roughly half of the total population of more than 9,300,000. During the period 1915—48 the Communists, in a tactical maneuver, accepted and even promoted the system of individual land ownership in Hungary. However, in 1948 the Communists reversed their policy. Imre Nagy, as Minister of Agriculture, had at an earlier date presented to the new farmers elaborately decorated certificates of individual land ownership. But, no sooner had the land been registered in their names when tne Communist Party proceeded to expropriate it from the new as well es from the older small landowners. At a harvest festival at Kecskemét on August 20, 1948, Rákosi made an announcement that suggested tie broad lines future' Comniiinist agrarian policy would take. Instead of pursuing the method of individual family fanning, he said, a new system of collective agricultural cooperatives was to be initiated and officially promoted by the Communist government. The announcement of this shift in agrarian policy was followed in Hungary by widespread discontent. In spite of the original promise of the Government that cooperatives would be formed on a voluntary basis, the new policy ultimately led to forced collectivization. Hundreds, •of machine stations, an effective device of Communist control over •the farmer, were established. Individual farmers were weighted down with heavy fees, burdensome taxes,. The so-called Hungarian kulaks have been the main target for the most formidable Communist attacks. Blacklists have been prepared comprising all the kulaks in each community. In an effort to excite even more agitated animosity against these individuals and their families who represent only a small fraction of the population the Communists have singled them out and made them a scapegoat for whatever deficiencies and errors occurred for which Communists Individual farms below 25 acres.... Kulak farms above 25 acres......... Large estates above 200 acres now the socialized sector .................... TOTAL ....................................... Other data show that notwithstanding the efforts of the Communist regime in Hungary to promote collectivization, the membership of the collective agricultural coopperatives us as much as they can ... We hardly earn enough to live on... There are accountants who were formerly swineherds and farm help ... While another worker declared: The world has changed. Work competition is over. Our time approaches. In vain, however, have the Hungarian people pinned their hopes on the “new course” and the promises of the hew Communist Prime Minister. Such hopes if they existed at all were soon dissipated in the wake of terror and the police-state methods of the Communist Part}'. After the “new course” was announced the Hungarian press and journals were filled with accounts of feverish party activities and reports of action taken by the police and the courts against dissidents and the so-called “internal enemy.” and oppressive compulsory contracts. All kinds of administrative methods! were invented and recklessly applied by the Communists to force the Hungarian farmers to join the cooperatives. Collectivization brought to the villages and agricultural towns bitter class warfare. The Communists allege that collectivization was opposed only by a handful of kulaks (wealthy farmers) or landowners who possessed more than 25 acres of land and by local millowners, tradesman, innkeepers, and others, who were motivated purely by selfish reason. In truth, however, /the vast majority of the agricultural population vigorously opposed this agrarian policy, imposed from above, implemented by local party (secretaries, and upheld by the police. Whoever opposed the Government program was branded and persecuted as a “kulak reactionary.” The system of crop deliveries was iso devised that it resulted in the severe punishment of individual fai-mers who could not reasonably meet ‘the allotted requirement. In addition, the employment of agricultural workers was arbitrarily resticted and so manipulated that the larger farm owners were bound to be (ruined. As a result, many of them had to abandon land which they were unable to cultivate. Yet, they were held responsible even for the /abandoned land aqd were punished severely for their failure to cultivate it. Moreover, the delivery quota worked such aggravated hardship on (these independent farm owners that in the end many had no other choice but to join a collective cooperative. themselves should bear the full responsibility. Yet the recurring complaints of the Communist leaders have supplied continued evidence for the conclusion that the village population in Hungary rejects communism and that its sympathies are with the persecuted kulaks. Furthermore, recent data published by the Communist agricultural statistician, Mrs. Aladár Mód, confirm the persistence of small individual farming and indicate in a striking way a source of vigorous resistance to communism: Percentageof arable land 19381949 1952 51.682.1 69.6 24.216.4 5.5 24.2 1.5 24.9 100.0 100.0 ‘100.0 (actually declined from 413,000 to 250, 000 between January 1953 and May 1954. The Hungarian peasants bitterly oppose the Communist measures. District Manager The Homie Office recently appointed Adam Simon, Jr. New Brunswick, New Jersey district manager to manage the affairs of Branches 52 and 518. Mr. Simon’s selection for the new position was based largely on the fact that he has been an interested Verhovay member active for the past 15 years in the business and social life of his branch. He is well-known also for his participation in the national Verhovay bowling tournaments as a player. It may be added that as delegate he has attended several Verhovay conventions. Even the daily organ of the Communist youth oiganization reported recently: Illegal measures forced upon individual farmers and those owning small-and middle-sized farms have provoked justified restlessness. Insecurity hangs over them. Ferenc Vi* A dramatic illustration of the internal struggle within the agricultural sector of Hungary, and the most authentic on-the-spot report cf social changes in the Hungarian village is provided by a Hungarian journalist, András Sándor. With remarkable frankness, Sándor describes the procedure customary among Communist regimes in which they atomize the local population strue • ture by bringing in alien settlers, that is to say former farm hands imported from other regions, with the promise that more land will be given to them. These alien elements, directed by the local Communist Party secretary, intrude into village organizations, create antagonisms, inspire much bitterness, and provoke opposition from the old villagers who dislike intensely the alien program of the party and its oppressive policies of collectivization. To join a collective cooperative offers no real relief to the Hungarian farmer. Not only must he renounce title to his land and hand over draft animals and farm equipment to the collective, but he is also exposed to constant harassment by the class warfare which the Communist Party has inspired within the cooperatives. Friction protracted and heated, exists among those members who used to possess much land and equipment and others less endowed who seem to command a greater voice in affairs and wield greater political authority. Existing tensions within the cooperatives: the reluctance of the regime to Adam Simon, Jr. Before becoming fulltime Verhovay worker. Mr. Simon was Supervisor of Quality Control, Orthopedic Products Plant of Johnson and Johnson, manufacturer of medical supplies. The new district manager has a rich educational background. He completed high school in New Brunswick, graduated from Qrakes Business College, enrolled in the I.C.S., was a member of the Dale Carnegie Speaking Course, and attended classes on sundry subjects at Rutgers University. Born in Pennsylvania, he moved to New Brunswick, New Jersey when only7 five. He now lives with wife and daughter at 132 Green Street, New Brunswick, and for the benefit of his members the telephone number is CHarter 7-7599. Mr. Simon’s special, hobby is photography. Usually the man with the most photographic paraphernalia at our bowling tourneys is Adam Simon, Jr., ready to “snap” every interesting scene. Much success at his new job to District Manager Adam Simon, Jr. sinka, the owner of a medium-sized farm, declared: “I have not fertilized the land because I am not sure that my property will be the same next year. Many are in the same position as I am in this vtHage." In many places petty tyrants and bureaucrat* rule the villages and the population loathes the burdens imposed. employ “reactionary” agricultural specialists and qualified adminstrative white collar workers; aad the lack of discipline which has encouraged quarrels in the ranks — all have converged to make the organization of the kolkhoz in Hungary an impractical communistic device. In one of the typical cooperatives below Budapest near the banks of the Danube — brigade leaders have been changed almost weekly, and between May and August 1950, there were three presidents. Members chafe and complain. Theft is widespread. Other problems have plagued the cooperatives. Members, especially women, do not report for work with any marked regularity. Collective property is handled carelessly, and mutual accusations are general in the event of damage or unsatisfactory work. Old and new members aro constantly at odds with one another. Often, the party leadership is blamed for what is termed “lack of systematic indoctrination.” Marxism inculcated in a greater degree, however, usually has the contrary effect by aggravating conditions within the cooperatives and the villages. In fact, some village party secretaries are hesitant to live in such hostile surroundings where they ean depend only upon the local police for support and protection. A ruthless bureaucracy rules in the villages, districts, and counties. Hundreds of, queationnaries, records, and a complicated accounting system can-III. THE FARMER COMMUNIST AGITATION AGAINST KULAKS DISSENSION IN THE COLLECTIVES
