Hungary 1956

[Weezer]

I don't much about the Hungarian uprisings in 1956 and I'm hoping my comrades here can some questions, and post any articles or videos, preferably from Marxist viewpoints about this uprising.

Was the uprising anti-communist or simply anti-Soviet?

Can the Soviet military intervention be justified?

[Savage]

There was recently a thread in which left communists and anarchists argued with Leninists over this subject, the left communist and anarchist position being that it was a genuine workers revolution, the later arguing that it was of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nature. The main left com/anarchist argument was that as the USSR was (state) capitalist, the revolution was an uprising against the bourgeois dictatorship, as the workers briefly established actual soviets, seizing the means of production nation wide. As the Leninists uphold the USSR as socialist they considered it to be a revolution with capitalist intentions. There was no trotskyist presence in this debate, so i have no idea what their position would be, I expect that it would be either a combination of the two or neither.

[Weezer]

There was recently a thread in which left communists and anarchists argued with Leninists over this subject, the left communist and anarchist position being that it was a genuine workers revolution, the later arguing that it was of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nature. The main left com/anarchist argument was that as the USSR was (state) capitalist, the revolution was an uprising against the bourgeois dictatorship, as the workers briefly established actual soviets, seizing the means of production nation wide. As the Leninists uphold the USSR as socialist they considered it to be a revolution with capitalist intentions. There was no trotskyist presence in this debate, so i have no idea what their position would be, I expect that it would be either a combination of the two or neither.

Anyway you could post the link to the thread?

[Savage]

Anyway you could post the link to the thread?

Sorry, i can't even remember what it was called or what it was about, it wasn't originally about 1956, the thread just went off topic.

[Weezer]

bump

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I tend to think it was an Imperialistic act by the USSR. I don't know if the new government they were pushing for was anti-communist, but from what I've read of history merely more supportive of direct democracy. I think that the USSR merely didn't want another non-Soviet Communist in E. Europe like Tito. Too many Titos, and the USSR would have lost its credibility as the primary voice behind International Communism, and it would have caused different Socialist states to disassociate with the Warsaw Pact. Hungary was an example to others not to abandon the Soviet line.

If you want proof of the fact that the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were mistakes, consider the fact that anti-communism remains a pervasive and popular ideology there and in other parts of Eastern Europe. The force behind imposing socialism on Eastern Europe undermined the legitimacy of the ideology. Even if the revolution was a petit-bourgeoise one, I think that the Soviet tactics alienated many from Socialism. If they really wanted Capitalism, then driving tanks down their streets didn't stop that, it merely made them more resentful than before and caused them to associate "socialism" with "military dictatorship" instead of "democracy". This is similar to how Iranians continue to be angry at America for the Shah; these kinds of interventions against movements with sectors of public support inevitably cause blowback.

[Savage]

Even if the revolution was a petit-bourgeoise one, I think that the Soviet tactics alienated many from Socialism. If they really wanted Capitalism, then driving tanks down their streets didn't stop that, it merely made them more resentful than before and caused them to associate "socialism" with "military dictatorship" instead of "democracy".
In the last debate the one thing that we established was that it obviously wasn't any sort of bourgeois movement considering that it instituted workers control over the means of production, as well as the fact that they formed their own socialist government.

[Panda Tse Tung]

If you want proof of the fact that the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were mistakes, consider the fact that anti-communism remains a pervasive and popular ideology there and in other parts of Eastern Europe. The force behind imposing socialism on Eastern Europe undermined the legitimacy of the ideology.I've rarely talked to eastern europeans (3 exceptions to the rule) that we're explicitly negative about socialism. Most we're in fact quite positive about it and stated it only had significantly less downsides then capitalism. This includes Hungarians and Czech people (never talked to a Slovakian person).

On-topic however i think it was a fascist counter-revolution with some progressive elements in it. Jews we're hung on lantern-poles and the forces that we're driving it we're mostly from the old fascist regime. Admittedly Hungary was a messed up place at the time and people had every reason to revolt. However had Hungary fallen to the fascists the USSR would have had the US in their backyard. Additionally the government of Hungary asked for this intervention, it was not untill after this request that the USSR intervened.

edit:


In the last debate the one thing that we established was that it obviously wasn't any sort of bourgeois movement considering that it instituted workers control over the means of production, as well as the fact that they formed their own socialist government.

There was some workers control in some places. This however does not equal a full-fledged 'socialist government' especially since the instituted 'government' was full of former fascists.

[Zanthorus]

Here are a couple of articles from the Internationalist Communist Tendency dealing with the events in Poland and Hungary in 1956:

CWO Introduction (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2006-11-01/cwo-introduction-to-the-translations-of-texts-from-battaglia-comunista)
1956: Class Revolts in Poland and Hungary (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2006-11-01/1956-class-revolts-in-poland-and-hungary)

[Panda Tse Tung]

I've read some Trotskyist articles on the subject. I must admit they we're interesting to say the least.

Take http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/10/21hungary.html for example:

Bella Kovaks, leader of the Smallholders’ Party:
“No one must dream of going back to the world of counts, bankers and capitalists: that world is gone for ever”.
Anna Kethley, leader Social Democratic Party:
“Let us watch over the factories, the mines and the land which must remain in the hands of the people”.

Trotskyists quoting Horthyite and Fascist parties to back up their claims... w00torzzz, also i do recall Cardinall Mindszenty being quoted once by Trotskyists which is even more preposterous. This is the exact same kind of rhetoric organisations such as Solidarnosc initially spewed (which i might remind everyone was backed by, you guessed it: Trots) only to go for a complete counter-revolution soon afterwards.

[Kléber]

WSWS: Hungary 1956 - A revolution against Stalinism

Part 1:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/hun1-o25.shtml

Part 2:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/hung-o26.shtml


Contrary to bourgeois propaganda about the Hungarian Revolution, it was the Stalinist bureaucracy which steered the country towards capitalist restoration, not the working class. In 1956, the working class fought for genuine socialism. The bloody suppression of the Hungarian workers was a decisive precondition for further steps by the Stalinist bureaucracy toward the final liquidation of the gains of the Russian Revolution and the restoration of capitalist market relations in Russia and Eastern Europe—with all of its attendant catastrophic consequences for the Hungarian, East European and Russian working class.

[Kléber]

Trotskyists quoting Horthyite and Fascist parties to back up their claims... w00torzzz, also i do recall Cardinall Mindszenty being quoted once by Trotskyists which is even more preposterous.
So, you either didn't read the leadup to that quote or deliberately took it out of context. The CWI article acknowledged their right-wing politics and was quoting them to make a point: not even the "fascists" who you believe led the Hungarian revolution, were even calling for capitalist restoration - such was the power of the working class though barely armed and organized. That's why it says, in the sentence before your quote began, "No commentator, even from bourgeois origins could deny that the movement was unanimous in its socialist aims."


This is the exact same kind of rhetoric organisations such as Solidarnosc initially spewed (which i might remind everyone was backed by, you guessed it: Trots) only to go for a complete counter-revolution soon afterwards.Trots didn't make the counter-revolution buddy, your beloved Stalinist bureaucrats did.

[28350]

Hungarians wanted their slaves back.

TANKIES, ROLL OUT!

[Panda Tse Tung]

Stop making a fool of yourself, you either didn't read the leadup to that quote or deliberately took it out of context. The CWI article acknowledged their right-wing politics and was quoting them to make a point: not even the "fascists" who you believe led the Hungarian revolution, were even calling for capitalist restoration, such was the power of the working class though barely armed and organized. That's why it says, in the sentence before your quote began, "No commentator, even from bourgeois origins could deny that the movement was unanimous in its socialist aims."

I am aware that they wrote this, this is however beyond the point seeing as i added quite specifically; This is the exact same kind of rhetoric organisations such as Solidarnosc initially spewed. There are plenty of places on which the article is in shambles. Seeing as how they claim the same claims we're used against the Czechoslovakian uprising which is untrue. I do however not feel compelled to quote and analyze the entire article.


Trots didn't make the counter-revolution buddy, your beloved Stalinist bureaucrats did.

They are far from beloved. And again, this is beyond the point. The point is the support given to the counter-revolution. It did not come from most official CP's, thats for sure... In this way it is comparable to the Hungarian uprising. Analysing the reasons behind the USSR's downfall any further is too off-topic so i'll leave it to this.

[Kléber]

The point is the support given to the counter-revolution. It did not come from most official CP's, thats for sure...
Are you sure Gorbachev and Deng weren't part of any official CP's? The Pabloite USFI did cheer for restorationists, and fell for their promises of "reform," but that only demonstrates how completely they had abandoned Trotskyism in favor of an opportunist orientation to the Stalinist bureaucracies - which actually carried out the reactionary policies and restored capitalism.


In this way it is comparable to the Hungarian uprising.Not really, unless you subscribe to the bourgeois perspective that workers naturally hate socialism and rise up against it for the free market. In Hungary 1956 there was no push for the restoration of capitalism. Elements of the national bureaucracy wanted to break away from Soviet military and economic control. The working class didn't get properly organized in time to beat back Stalinist repression but was forming its own councils and playing an independent role, not serving as pawns of Soviet or Hungarian bureaucrats or rightists.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Are you sure Gorbachev and Deng weren't part of any official CP's? The Pabloite USFI did cheer for restorationists, and fell for their promises of "reform," but that only demonstrates how far they had abandoned Trotskyism in favor of an opportunist orientation to the Stalinist bureaucracies - which actually carried out the reactionary policies and restored capitalism.And lets not forget the parties around Mandel while we're naming and shaming. It wasn't an isolated of the USFI. There we're plenty of things wrong with the former USSR and Eastern block however these parties had deformed over time.
The parties i'm talking off are non-ruling CP's, outside observers so to speak.
edit: The point i'm trying to make is what the underlying ideology can facilitate. I think the orientation of Trotskyists is incorrect because as has been demonstrated by the past it can easily be corrupted into something reactionary. Now that i think of it this is incredibly off-topic. I'll still leave it though since it doesn't specifically obstruct the original discussion.



Not really, unless you subscribe to the bourgeois perspective that workers naturally hate socialism and rise up against it for the free market.I do not, neither do i subscribe to the ridiculous notion of human beings as autonomous creatures. Given the finances given to the fascist organisations and the significant amount of power shifted to them in a short period of time the whole council forming (which only occured on a relatively small scale) would have been destroyed within less then a couple of years.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is the exact same kind of rhetoric organisations such as Solidarnosc initially spewed.

Solidarnosc actually did have a good number of militants and revolutionary syndicalists within it's ranks in it's early phase. A lot of their criticism towards the legacy of Gomulka's politics were perfectly valid. If ever there was a hardcore reactionary from within a so-called "socialist government", it was Gomulka. And yet undoubtedly all of the anger and frusteration directed towards the state (prior to Gomulka) in 1956 and again in the 70's and 80's was the sinister machinations of Polish fascists/counter-revolutionaries and the Vatican.

Anyway, in regards to the OP: inb4 Arrow Cross conspiracy

[Kléber]

And lets not forget the parties around Mandel while we're naming and shaming. It wasn't an isolated of the USFI.
Ernest Mandel was the USFI's top dog.


There we're plenty of things wrong with the former USSR and Eastern block however these parties had deformed over time.The USSR wasn't a statue that simply collapsed because it was built crooked or got old and developed cracks. It was a transitional society that was destroyed by its own contradictions. There was social differentiation and conflict between the working class and the ruling bureaucratic oligarchy that lived in bourgeois-style luxury off the surplus value of the workers, looting the economy over time until it fell to pieces. Restoration of capitalism and capitulation to imperialism were not inevitable or accidental, they were the conscious policies of the treacherous bureaucratic elite, divorced from the masses, with its own interests contrary to the world revolution.

As Trotsky said in 1938: "Either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism, or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism."


The parties i'm talking off are non-ruling CP's, outside observers so to speak.More like jilted has-beens who sang Moscow's praises until they were abruptly cut off, left dangling and confused. Pity them I will, but look to them for theoretical guidance? No thanks


I do not, neither do i subscribe to the ridiculous notion of human beings as autonomous creatures. Given the finances given to the fascist organisations and the significant amount of power shifted to them in a short period of time the whole council forming (which only occured on a relatively small scale) would have been destroyed within less then a couple of years.Well I for one do subscribe to the "ridiculous notion" that the working class can organize itself to make revolution, defeat the class enemies and spread the class war to other countries. The only "fascists" beating Hungarian workers in 1956 were the Stalinist political police.

[Jose Gracchus]

On-topic however i think it was a fascist counter-revolution with some progressive elements in it. Jews we're hung on lantern-poles and the forces that we're driving it we're mostly from the old fascist regime.

Source? Evidence? And this goes for the DDR just as well. Huge numbers of Nazis were scrubbed even there an passed seamlessly into the state apparatus.


Admittedly Hungary was a messed up place at the time and people had every reason to revolt. However had Hungary fallen to the fascists the USSR would have had the US in their backyard. Additionally the government of Hungary asked for this intervention, it was not untill after this request that the USSR intervened.

This is bullshit. Where's your evidence Hungary was really in immanent danger of falling to a 'fascist' government? Kadar's government was formed under the protection of Soviet forces while Nagy was being flown on false pretenses for a secret trial and summary execution in Romania. Of course you don't include these details.


There was some workers control in some places. This however does not equal a full-fledged 'socialist government' especially since the instituted 'government' was full of former fascists.

Which government? Nagy's 'reform Communist' government that the USSR was working with until it politically aligned with the workers' councils' demand for non-alignment? Who were these fascists? What were their government positions?


I've read some Trotskyist articles on the subject. I must admit they we're interesting to say the least.

Take http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/10/21hungary.html for example:

Trotskyists quoting Horthyite and Fascist parties to back up their claims...

Which ones?


w00torzzz, also i do recall Cardinall Mindszenty being quoted once by Trotskyists which is even more preposterous.

He was not a leading figure of the revolution. He gave a speech, and had zero public support.


This is the exact same kind of rhetoric organisations such as Solidarnosc initially spewed (which i might remind everyone was backed by, you guessed it: Trots) only to go for a complete counter-revolution soon afterwards.

Solidarnosc was not controlled by working rank-and-file and leadership co-opted it in favor of a Western, pro-emigre line. So, what does that mean, we should only ever hold hope that the internal palace intrigue machinations of the Great Party produce socialism?

This makes me wonder about the ML claims on topics I haven't done thorough research in.

[chegitz guevara]

This is the exact same kind of rhetoric organisations such as Solidarnosc initially spewed.

Solidarity was initially a socialist led union. It was the decapitation of the socialist leadership of that union that allowed the Catholics and the CIA back elements to take over. Good job, comrades. :rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

It deserves to be said: with revolutionaries like these, who needs bourgeois?

It makes sense, to anyone with eyes to see: the ruling class in Poland was more threatened by the proletariat than a reactionary authoritarian church, foreign bourgeois, and imperialists.

And why not? The workers would have had only their chains to lose, and only proletarianization or suppression for the ruling class to offer. The bourgeois offered to make them all rich and influential.

[Savage]

Hungarians wanted their slaves back.

TANKIES, ROLL OUT!

I don't know if this statement was a joke or not, but if establishing Soviets is capitalistic/bourgeois then you'll have denounce Lenin.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Damn, too much stuff....
I'll try to focus on the things surrounding Hungary '56.



Well I for one do subscribe to the "ridiculous notion" that the working class can organize itself to make revolution, defeat the class enemies and spread the class war to other countries. The only "fascists" beating Hungarian workers in 1956 were the Stalinist political police.

I'm sorry for ignoring the rest off the story, but i think that it is too off-course, tho this is as well it is much easier to respond too and wont take up too much space away from the discussion. I will respond to them in a seperate discussion if you so please.

The working class can organize itself, the idea of a vangaurd party is merely unifying the most politically advanced sections of the working class. I would not be a Communist if i did not believe in the organizing power of the working class. This is however different from the notion of human beings as autonomous creatures that are not influenced by the superstructure. In this sense i do believe that given the fact that Fascists we're given plenty of finances and they already had the organization that the revolution would have been most probably hijacked my Fascists.



Source? Evidence? And this goes for the DDR just as well. Huge numbers of Nazis were scrubbed even there an passed seamlessly into the state apparatus.

You really cant be arsed to look this up yourself? In all honesty i couldn't be either so here's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#Communist_rule
On the DDR; 90% of all government employees including teachers we're fired after WW2 for their ties with the Nazi-party quite contrary to what happened in Western Germany, the country you are probably confusing the DDR with.


This is bullshit. Where's your evidence Hungary was really in immanent danger of falling to a 'fascist' government? Kadar's government was formed under the protection of Soviet forces while Nagy was being flown on false pretenses for a secret trial and summary execution in Romania. Of course you don't include these details.

I already stated the fact that many of the participants in the revolution we're Fascists, and many of the revived 'parties' we're former Fascist parties. Additionally the 'government' which was temporarily formed had former Fascists in it as well.


Which government? Nagy's 'reform Communist' government that the USSR was working with until it politically aligned with the workers' councils' demand for non-alignment? Who were these fascists? What were their government positions?

I'll get back on that later since it's pretty late here. I'll put it in bold so i wont forget.



Which ones?

Did you even read the post?
Re-read it and realize the parties are named.
If you still cant find it:
The Smallholders’ Party;
Social Democratic Party.


He was not a leading figure of the revolution. He gave a speech, and had zero public support.

Uhm no, again i'll get back at this tommorow.


Solidarnosc was not controlled by working rank-and-file and leadership co-opted it in favor of a Western, pro-emigre line. So, what does that mean, we should only ever hold hope that the internal palace intrigue machinations of the Great Party produce socialism?
What are you trying to ask/say?
And how does this even relate to my original point?


This makes me wonder about the ML claims on topics I haven't done thorough research in.
Even if i am wrong it says shit all about ML's or the ML-movement. A bit of an odd form of logic: an ML is wrong on something, thus ML's are wrong on everything.

[Omsk]

You really cant be arsed to look this up yourself? In all honesty i couldn't be either so here's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...Communist_rule
On the DDR; 90% of all government employees including teachers we're fired after WW2 for their ties with the Nazi-party quite contrary to what happened in Western Germany, the country you are probably confusing the DDR with.
I agree,the concentration and death camps were preserved as museums to Nazi crimes in the German Democratic Republic while those in West Germany were flated over,in hope they will fall to the graveyard of history.The nazi's were the political top in West Germany,they treated the East Germans as citizens of the second order,like they deserved to be punished,like they were quilty of something.:( The same thing happend in the militaries of the two countries,the NVA officers were treated like vermin,not regarding their rank,service history,or,in fact,anything else.

[Jose Gracchus]

In this sense i do believe that given the fact that Fascists we're given plenty of finances and they already had the organization that the revolution would have been most probably hijacked my Fascists.

Give me reputable sources that fascists were well-organized prior to Oct 56 in Hungary. Give me proof they were getting money.


You really cant be arsed to look this up yourself? In all honesty i couldn't be either

You seem to have this queer idea that you can go anywhere, say whatever you please, and it is my job to substantiate it or not. It isn't, jefe. Either one can provide evidence upon challenge, or they might as well be whistling Dixie out of their ass.


so here's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#Communist_rule

There's no source or specifics so this is useless. It does however point out Jewish Communist participation in the "fascist counter-revolution" and names-names. And also, many Jews fled the re-imposition of that wonderful anti-Nazi Soviet presence. Why don't you try again?


On the DDR; 90% of all government employees including teachers we're fired after WW2 for their ties with the Nazi-party quite contrary to what happened in Western Germany, the country you are probably confusing the DDR with.

No, I know what I'm talking about. An entire party (NDPD) was invented in the SED's front in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of former NSDAP elements.


I already stated the fact that many of the participants in the revolution we're Fascists,

Say-so doesn't make it so. Names and sources.


and many of the revived 'parties' we're former Fascist parties. Additionally the 'government' which was temporarily formed had former Fascists in it as well.

Names and sources?


I'll get back on that later since it's pretty late here. I'll put it in bold so i wont forget.

Alright, I am curious to know how Nagy's government was a "fascist" one.


Did you even read the post?
Re-read it and realize the parties are named.
If you still cant find it:
The Smallholders’ Party;
Social Democratic Party.

I am unaware that the smallholders and social democrats are fascists. Sorry, try again. This is an interesting ML slight-of-hand though, whereby any party not the 'proper' politicially-monopolizing CP automatically ipso facto is 'fascist'. That's very interesting insight into your thinking, not so much into the "really existing" world.

Uhm no, again i'll get back at this tommorow.

I am absolutely right. Why did the good Cardinal never give a speech until the 11th hour of the revolt? His speech, incidentally, was widely panned later by revolutionaries, workers, and intellectuals - even bourgeois commentators here. He had no leadership role, he had no organization, he had no mass support.

Again, you conflate the mere existance of political liberties with fascist restoration. Again, that says more about your thinking than it does about Hungary in 1956.


What are you trying to ask/say?
And how does this even relate to my original point?

You're trying to tarnish with one-big brush, any resistance ever by any workers to the One True And Holy Party. In the instance of Hungary, you would have left the working class to the tender mercies of its incompetent and comprador bureaucracy, with the hope that maybe the internal palace intrigue-type machinations within the rarefied heights of the party leadership produce the right "line" for the masses. Forgive me if I think that's a farce, and your one-trick-pony of conflating in all cases opposition to the party with anti-socialism ought to convince no one.

Of course you dodge the fact that socialist workers in Solidarnosc were crushed, while the One True Party was the one who turned toward pro-bourgeois, pro-right collaboration with the rump CIA-Catholic-bourgeois right-wing of Solidarnosc. Shows what they really feared, and who they really felt comfortable with as bedfellows.


Even if i am wrong it says shit all about ML's or the ML-movement. A bit of an odd form of logic: an ML is wrong on something, thus ML's are wrong on everything.

I'm observing a general tendency. I mean every time I challenge a ML on Kronstadt, the non-party workers' movement in Moscow of 1920-1924, and the like, I'm met with the most absurd circular reasoning and moral and intellectual causistry of the kind the most corrupt Jesuit of the 1600s would be embarrassed to say.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Fuck firefox, fuck all this. I wrote a massive response and firefox destroys it! I´ll edit this post later and try and give my response. At this point i no longer feel like it, not after 15 minutes of typing and it alkl deleted!

[chegitz guevara]

Fuck firefox, fuck all this. I wrote a massive response and firefox destroys it! I´ll edit this post later and try and give my response. At this point i no longer feel like it, not after 15 minutes of typing and it alkl deleted!

That's why for long posts, I type it a word processor. BTW, it's not FF, it's RevLeft.

[A.J.]

WSWS: Hungary 1956 - A revolution against Stalinism

Part 1:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/hun1-o25.shtml

Part 2:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/hung-o26.shtml

If you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't link to wacky little trotkyite cyber-sects.