Reform a keresztény nacionalizmus jegyében : egy neokatolikus kísérlet transznacionális vonatkozásai

The essay seeks to broaden existing perspectives on the ideology of Neo-Catholic reform during the last years of the 1930s in Hungary. Following a decade marked by conservative consolidation, Hungary after the Great Depression experienced a shift towards various New Right positions, that became dominant in the establishment. Neo-Catholics gained considerable influence after the successive failures of Gyula Gömbös’ quasi-fascist reform plans and the subsequent Darányi government. The group of experts and activists around influential scholar turned propaganda chief Béla Kovrig presented in turn a program that sought to integrate corporatist, Neo-Catholic social thought and the autocratic trends observable in the decade – to which Hungary was no exception. The essay examines two attempts engineered by Kovrig – the integration of existing labour organizations and constitutional reform in the spirit of corporatism – in an effort to find the place of this ideological stream. Using previously unreferenced archival material, the essay contributes to the discourse by mapping transnational connections that shaped the ideas of Neo-Catholic reform in Hungary. The image that emerges is a complex one: it is clear that autocratic corporatists states left their mark as general ideals to be approximated, while at the level of specific policies, the totalitarian states – Italy and Germany – influenced practical thinking more, despite a refusal to accept a totalitarian turn in Hungarian politics

Magyar Szemle and the conservative mobilization against Völkisch ideology and German Volksgeschichte in 1930s Hungary

In the 1930s in Hungary, the periodical Magyar Szemle (Hungarian Review) ranked as the foremost intellectual review of conservative thinking. Edited by the pro-establishment historian Gyula Szekfű, the journal provided important intellectual ammunition to the traditionalists of the right, in other words those who for various reasons sought to hold on to István Bethlen’s version of moderate conservatism in ideology and a parliamentary system of limited pluralism and authoritarian checks in practice. The 1930s, however, bore witness to several challenges to the Horthy regime. The rise of the extreme right and the emancipatory (though often also fervently nationalist) program of the so-called népi (populist or narodniki ) writers presented coherent political alternatives to the prevailing order for the first time since the marginalization and emaciation of the left in the wake of the 1918–19 revolutions. Simultaneously, the country had to grapple with the emergence of Nazi Germany as an expansionist great power in the region. In this complicated situation, authors of Magyar Szemle confronted what they perceived as a dual threat: the increasing appeal of German imperialism and German political and historical thinking. Many intellectuals of the time, feeling that the German political challenge should be resisted through the adoption and adaptation of innovative German thinking on politics and history, espoused the new ideologies emanating from the unquestioned cultural center of Central Europe in some form. Magyar Szemle , however, emerged as a hub for public intellectuals who sought to hold on to a conservatism both more traditional and more open to some of the ideas of liberalism and who refused to abandon the established view of Hungarian history for a more ethnically conscious vision of the past. In the context of the dual German challenge of the 1930s, Magyar Szemle represented a site of intellectual resistance not so much against direct German political ambitions but against the new wave of German political thought and interpretations of history

The individual and his limits

This paper attempts to explore the identity politics component of two völkisch novels from the 1920s that grapple with the question of the identity of Germans from the old Austrian empire. The two authors, Bruno Brehm and Emil Lucka, were popular prose writers of the interwar period who partook of the general questioning, criticism and rethinking of the 19th century ideologies that occurred after the Great War. Their work — from the vantage point of the history of ideologies — may be interpreted as embedded in the language game of the German conservative revolution, especially in the currents that emphasized the permanent and essential characteristics associated with belonging to an ethnic group and the ethical consequences for individuals of this belonging. For this reason, this paper first briefly introduces post-1918 German völkisch ideology and proceeds to interpret the identity politics of the novels by making use of the key concepts of this strand of “young conservative” [jungkonservativ] thought. The key concept for interpreting the ambiguous experience of “being Austrian”, i.e., belonging to the greater community of Germans, yet having had to suffer through centuries of living in a separate state became that of the borderland [Grenzland], a complex notion that dialectically united the experiences of heroically struggling to “remain German,” while being threatened with loss of ethnic character through exposure to cosmopolitanism or assimilation. By showing how the discourse of Grenzland structures the narratives, the paper seeks to provide a reminder that the discourses of identity in early 20th century Austria were more complex than is often remembered: alongside late modernity, as represented and reflected by authors like Robert Musil and Elias Canetti, a different, more popular and more political trend also existed, which narrated the break-up of the Dual Monarchy and its aftermath in the context of the threatened existence of the Germans of the borderland

Amerika és a világ Donald Trump első száz napja után

A Donald J. Trump megválasztását követő felületes médiakonszenzus szerint az elnök beiktatása után gyökeres fordulatot kellett volna vennie az Egyesült Államok külpolitikájának a következőképpen: a korábbi értékalapú, az egész világért felelősséget vállaló hegemón bezárkózik, és a kampányban megfogalmazott „America First” ígéret jegyében feladja a pozícióit. Ugyanakkor az USA stratégiai érdekei továbbra is változatlanok, miközben Trump elnök – részben tapasztalatlansága és kialakulatlan külpolitikai céljai miatt – kevésbé érdeklődik a diplomácia világa iránt, mint elődei. A Trump-doktrína kialakítását nagyban nehezíti a fehér házi erőcsoportok, elsősorban a Breitbarthoz köthető, nativista Bannon-csoport, valamint a globalista és pragmatista, a Wall Street és az amerikai nagyvállalatok érdekeit képviselő Kushner–Cohn-csoport küzdelme. A Nemzetbiztonsági Tanács munkája a személycserék miatt nehezen indult be, az amerikai külügyminisztérium komoly megszorítások és átszervezések előtt áll. Az egyetlen stabil pontot a külpolitikai ökoszisztémában jelenleg a Pentagon és a fegyveres erők jelentik, azonban még nem látszik pontosan, hogy a visszakapott lehetőségekkel mihez kezdenek majd a katonai tervezők és a James Mattis védelmi miniszter vezette stáb. Rövid távon a Bannon–Cohn-küzdelem kimenetele fogja meghatározni az amerikai nagy stratégiát, alacsonyabb szinteken viszont a katonák által diktált taktikai érdekek érvényesülhetnek

A hegemónia gyakorlata - Az Egyesült Államok változó szerepvállalása a nemzetközi rendszerben (1945-2009) = The practice of hegemony - The changing role of the United States in the international system

A kutatás feltárta az Egyesült Államok 1945 utáni hegemonikus törekvéseinek stratégiai és taktikai elemeit az elmélet és a gyakorlat síkján egyaránt. Elemezte az amerikai külpolitikát meghatározó nemzetközi környezetet, így, pl. a hidegháborút meghatározó amerikai-szovjet viszonyt, a stratégiai fontosságú energiahelyzetet, valamint az amerikai mainstream külpolitikai gondolkodás, a liberális internacionalizmus jegyében létrehozott multilaterális intézményeket. Foglalkozott az amerikai hegemónia „szolgáltató” jellegével és azzal a „realista alkuval”, amit Washington a szövetségeseivel kötött. A hidegháborús viszonyok között a liberális elképzeléseket a nemzetbiztonsági érdekek mind külföldön, mind belföldön felülírták és az Egyesült Államok külpolitikája egy hangsúlyozottabban realista irányba tolódott el. A hidegháború után sok tekintetben még inkább „nélkülözhetetlen” állammá vált az Egyesült Államok külső és belső (ideológiai) okokból, s a változás együtt járt az amerikai külpolitikában mindig is meglévő unilateralista tendenciák erősödésével. A hegemonikus törekvések az amerikai identitás számos eleméből is következnek, kezdve a választottság tudattól az erkölcsi felsőbbrendűség érzetén át a hidegháborús (sőt azt megelőző) a világot „jókra” és „rosszakra” osztó gondolkodásmódig és. részből ezekből adódóan, az egyoldalú lépésekig és a nemzetközi intézmények á la carte alapon való használatáig. | The project explored the strategic and tactical elements of the hegemonic aspirations of the United States after 1945 in both theory and practice. It analyzed the international environment in which the U.S. had to operate, with special reference to the American-Soviet relations and the strategically important energy questions. It discussed the various multilateral institutions created in the name of liberal internationalism after World War II. One of the defining elements of U.S. hegemonywas its ”service provider” character and the so-called realist bargain which Washington concluded with most of countries in its sphere of influence. The findings emphasize, among others, that the Cold War ”distorted” the liberal concepts both abroad and at home and there was a definitive shift towards a national security state at home and a foreign and security policy abroad more in the tradition of Realpolitik. After the Cold War, the U.S. became an ”indispensable” nation partly by default abroad, while at home the push for an unilateralist foreign policy got stronger. The hegemonic aspirations of the U.S. were rooted in a number of elements of the American identity, from the idea of the ”chosen people” to the myth of moral superiority as well as a strong tendency of dividing the world into ”Good” and ”Evil”. They became sources of unilateral steps and the use of international institutions on an á la carte basis during the post-Cold War era