Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968?

[Le Socialiste]

Can anyone explain the events leading up to these moments, as well as the revolts/revolutions themselves? Do they even qualify as revolutionary? Did the people taking part in the revolts still identify with communism, or were they in favor of closer relations with the West (both politically and economically)? My knowledge is fairly limited about these events, aside from knowing they happened. Also, if someone could provide some extra reading material detailing these events from a revolutionary leftist standpoint, it would be much appreciated.

[Imposter Marxist]

Can anyone explain the events leading up to these moments, as well as the revolts/revolutions themselves? Do they even qualify as revolutionary? Did the people taking part in the revolts still identify with communism, or were they in favor of closer relations with the West (both politically and economically)? My knowledge is fairly limited about these events, aside from knowing they happened. Also, if someone could provide some extra reading material detailing these events from a revolutionary leftist standpoint, it would be much appreciated.


Both were pro-market, pro-west collaboration movements. I can't provide you with any sort of reading material arguing against this point, however.

[svenne]

http://libcom.org/library/hungary-56-andy-anderson you got this piece. Never read it, but it's supposed to put a positive view on the Hungarian revolution of 56.

[Tommy4ever]

Both these revolts happened after the Soviet Union invaded to topple governments that wanted to drift away from its control.

[Ismail]

Both were pro-market, pro-west collaboration movements.This.

The invasion of Czechoslovakia was denounced by both China and Albania. It was a great example of the Soviets repeating what they sowed through their promotion of Dubček and other revisionists, only to have these revisionists openly oppose the Soviets. The events in Hungary, as Hoxha noted in his book The Khrushchevites (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm), also were the result of the revisionist leadership of the USSR, which initially promoted Nagy as well.

Here is a thing by Enver Hoxha on both events: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/WCRC68.html

If you want a western Brezhnevite defense of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia see: http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/index.htm

Whatever progressive sentiment existed in Hungary in 1956 (there were unorganized anti-revisionists) it was pretty obviously outflanked by openly reactionary elements which received support and praise from abroad and pseudo-left elements as well (adherents of Titoism, unorganized calls for vague "socialist democracy," etc.)

There is also The Truth About Hungary by Herbert Aptheker: http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-truth-about-hungary.pdf

[eyeheartlenin]

For a different view of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, one can read Peter Fryer's The Hungarian Tragedy, which is reportedly still in print.

From wikipedia.org:

"Peter Fryer joined the Young Communist Leage in 1942 and the Communist Party in 1945. On leaving school in 1943 he became a reporter on the Yorkshire Post and was dismissed by the paper in 1947 for refusing to leave the Communist Party. In 1948 he joined the staff of the Daily Worker, becoming its parliamentary correspondent.

"In October 1956 he was sent to Hungary to cover the uprising. His dispatches, including a description of the suppression of the uprising by Soviet troops, were either heavily censored or suppressed. He left the paper; his resignation had in fact taken place several months earlier, but he had been persuaded to serve a year's notice. He wrote a book about the uprising (Hungarian Tragedy, 1956) and was expelled from the Communist Party for criticising its suppression in the "capitalist" press. Hungarian Tragedy is in print; the most recent edition also contains some articles he completed after the book, which was published very quickly after the events he witnessed."

* * *

A more complete bio of Peter Fryer can be found at:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDfryer.htm

Abut Hungary, Fryer wrote: "There are really two Hungarian tragedies. There is the immediate and heart-breaking tragedy of a people's revolution - a mass uprising against tyranny and poverty that had become insupportable - being crushed by the army of the world's first Socialist State....

"There is another tragedy, too. It, too, is written in blood on the streets and squares of Budapest. It, too, can be read in the lines of suffering long-endured on the faces of Hungarian citizens, in the forlorn gaze of the children who press their noses against the windows of Western cars and beg for chocolate, in the tears of men and women who have been promised much and given little. It is the long-term tragedy of the absolute failure of the Hungarian Communist Party, after eight years in complete control of their country, to give the people either happiness or security, either freedom from want or freedom from fear."

It should be added that Hungarian workers set up workers' councils, in the context of their revolt.

The Hungarian uprising is one in a series of struggles against Stalinist rule in Central Europe, that, I believe, began with a strike by workers in the DDR, the German Democratic Republic, in June, 1953, when 300 East German workers went on strike against an announced pay cut. The following day, tens of thousands of people came out in opposition to the East German regime. As in Hungary, so in the DDR, Soviet tanks were sent against the populace.

[graymouser]

Here is the page from the Marxists Internet Archive that has some information on the 1956 events in Hungary, including Fryer's The Hungarian Tragedy:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/hungary/index.htm

It's worth noting that the events of '56 sent shock waves through the Stalinist parties, with many members leaving, particularly strongly in Britain where the old CPGB really lost its strong hegemony between Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" and the crushing of the Hungarian uprising. It also was one of the major factors behind the split of the Marcyite (Workers World Party / Party for Socialism and Liberation) current from the Socialist Workers Party, which at the time was one of the leading Trotskyist parties.

I substantially agree with the SWP's piece linked in the MIA. There were workers' councils in Hungary, and CLR James's somewhat impressionistic work Facing Reality held them to be some of the highest expressions of direct workers' rule. There is no real merit to the idea pressed by the various Stalinists that what happened in Hungary was primarily a restorationist event; in reality this was the closest that the world ever came to the workers' political revolution that Trotsky had called for.

[Ismail]

It's worth noting that the events of '56 sent shock waves through the Stalinist parties, with many members leaving, particularly strongly in Britain where the old CPGB really lost its strong hegemony between Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" and the crushing of the Hungarian uprising.It was because of the "Secret Speech" and the promotion of Nagy by Khrushchev and Tito, and the subsequent Hungarian uprising, that caused Hoxha to openly come to the defense of Stalin two months after the uprising. Although he had to conform to some pro-Soviet phrases (that the CPSU was "correct" in its "Secret Speech" etc.), this event marked the beginning of the attempts by Khrushchev and the CPSU to get rid of Hoxha and Hoxha's firm and open defense of Stalin against the revisionism of the CPSU and, later on, the CCP.

"But it was Hoxha who in his speech to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the [Albanian Party of Labour] on February 13, 1957, took up the defense of Stalin. After having defended the Soviet Union for her action in suppressing the Hungarian revolt and denouncing Yugoslav 'revisionism,' he [Hoxha] declared that all campaigns which the imperialists and revisionists had started against Marxism-Leninism, against communism, were carried out under cover of struggles against 'Stalinism.'

'We are not in agreement with all those who attempt to discount the entire positive revolutionary side of Stalin, as experience, and who see only the black side of it... As is known, J. V. Stalin was a great Marxist. After Lenin it was he who protected Marxism-Leninism on all sides from revisionism and contributed greatly to the further development of science. Great merits are due to him in the preparation and development of the October Revolution, in the building of the first socialist state, in the historic victory over the invading fascists, in the development of the international communist and workers' movement. For all these deeds Stalin enjoyed great authority, not only in the Soviet Union but throughout the world... Stalin was never mistaken in such questions as the protection of the interests of the working class and of Marxist-Leninist theory, the fight against imperialism and against the other enemies of socialism. He was and remains an exemplary figure.'"
(Enver Hoxha, quoted by Stavro Skendi in Stephen D. Kertesz (Ed.). East Central Europe and the World: Developments in the Post-Stalin Era. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 1962. p. 204.)

The disarray within the CPGB was due to liberal influences within it and its subsequent support for Soviet revisionism. The disarray within Eastern Europe was due to the denouncing of "Stalinist" figures and their replacement by pro-Khrushchev individuals. Bierut denounced in favor of Gomulka, Nagy in favor of Rákosi, and so on.

[RED DAVE]

"But it was Hoxha who in his speech to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the [Albanian Party of Labour] on February 13, 1957, took up the defense of Stalin. After having defended the Soviet Union for her action in suppressing the Hungarian revolt and denouncing Yugoslav 'revisionism,' he [Hoxha] declared that all campaigns which the imperialists and revisionists had started against Marxism-Leninism, against communism, were carried out under cover of struggles against 'Stalinism.'Stalinism at its finest: suppressing workers revolutions.

RED DAVE

[eyeheartlenin]

Stalinism at its finest: suppressing workers revolutions.

RED DAVE

I know this is a one-line response, but I am quite willing to be penalized, in order to say that RED DAVE is one damned eloquent advocate for our class, and in the context of this thread, graymouser and RED DAVE said exactly what needed to be said, for which I am profoundly grateful. Good job, comrades! I got up this morning, read the thread, and was amazed that no one had responded substantively yet to utterly unbelievable characterizations of the plebeian revolt in Hungary. One thing I really respect about my comrades in Argentina is that they have lived under dictatorship and therefore have no illusions about Stalinism.

[manic expression]

Stalinism at its finest: suppressing workers revolutions.
So I take it you support those who were lynching socialists in the streets of Budapest and trying to get aid from NATO.

[Rising Sun]

I know RED Dave is like eighty years old and still stuck in time when the red menace of "Stalinism" (oh noes!) was still present

Tho now it isn't.

why does the Leftists still insist on such outdated terms and why do we still pay attention to old farts who can't move on?

1956 and 1968 had serious western connections that cannot go unnoticed unless you want to be like every stale ambulance chaser out there and pretend that it was a WORKERS UPRISING!!!!!

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

[CornetJoyce]

”The news of the last days from Hungary has come to a climax this morning. We have now seen what, in my opinion, is the decisive turning point in modern history. The first was the Paris revolution of 1849; the second was the Commune; the third was the Russian October Revolution. This Hungarian revolution is the last, and incomparably the greatest, of them all.”

" Now we today are faced with the task of drawing the conclusions from this greatest of all revolutions, and doing so in a manner that restores revolutionary Marxism to the place which it had lost - the vanguard of political thought as a guide to action. The proposed ten page pamphlet is not enough; we have to do something on the scale of Marx writing about the Paris Commune.”

“The Party has consistently led workers to disaster since 1922. If the Party, any party, had been in charge, it would have ruined the revolution. Furthermore, if even it had been successful in overthrowing the regime, no party in the world would have dared to fight the Russians a second time, or decided on the general strike which is unparalleled in the whole history of revolution.”

“There will be defeats, setbacks, compromises; but the permanent revolution is on its way once more. It is the permanent revolution not of 1848 or 1917, but of 1956.”

- CLR James

[Sasha]

why does the Leftists still insist on such outdated terms and why do we still pay attention to old farts who can't move on?



says the guy with an assad avatar, i hope you are just trolling in very bad taste because if not i hope you walk under a garbage truck.

[Rising Sun]

says the guy with an assad avatar,

......wat?



i hope you are just trolling in very bad taste because if not i hope you walk under a garbage truck.

not very moderator/administrator of you

tsktsktsktsk

[syndicat]

So I take it you support those who were lynching socialists in the streets of Budapest and trying to get aid from NATO.

you mean, shooting the soldiers of the imperialist army sent into Hungary to maintain a system that enabled the bureaucratic ruling class in the USSR to suck off the surplus from its eastern European conquests.

[Ismail]

you mean, shooting the soldiers of the imperialist army sent into Hungary to maintain a system that enabled the bureaucratic ruling class in the USSR to suck off the surplus from its eastern European conquests.Spoken like a true right-winger. Of course it was Khrushchev's "socialist division of labor" that actually paved the way for the state-capitalist regime established after Stalin's death to exploit Eastern Europe.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Spoken like a true right-winger. Of course it was Khrushchev's "socialist division of labor" that actually paved the way for the state-capitalist regime established after Stalin's death to exploit Eastern Europe.

Weren't the SovRom's (Soviet Romanian enterprises) in Romania established immediately after the war?

[A Marxist Historian]

So I take it you support those who were lynching socialists in the streets of Budapest and trying to get aid from NATO.

Some particularly vile Hungarian secret police did get lynched. And, by the way, a fair number of Arrow Cross fascist torturers got hired on by Rakosi for his secret police, result being that in Hungary, unlike other Eastern European countries, torture of political prisoners was common and extremely brutal.

Given the Khrushchev reforms, Hungary was pretty unique in that way by that point in the "socialist world," except maybe in Hoxha's Albania. I suspect most of the lynchees were the former Arrow Cross Nazis.

Nobody except the extreme right wing were seeking aid from NATO, and when they tried to raise their heads, the workers crushed them. The Fryer book, *all* of which is available on MIA, has a great interview with Hungarian Revolution leader Pal Maleter, who explains this while slapping the holster of his revolver.

Hungary '56 was absolutely nothing like Poland with Solidarity or anything like that. It was a left wing rebellion, not a right wing rebellion. And so was '53 in East Germany for that matter, though not as conscious or well developed. May not have been perfect, but life is like that.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Spoken like a true right-winger. Of course it was Khrushchev's "socialist division of labor" that actually paved the way for the state-capitalist regime established after Stalin's death to exploit Eastern Europe.

If anything you have it backwards. Under Stalin, considerable economic resources were forcibly removed from Eastern European countries to aid in Soviet reconstruction. Arguably justified, but it was done at gunpoint and highly resented by Eastern Europeans.

Technically this wasn't Soviet imperialism, because imperialism is capital export to gain superprofits and this was the opposite, capital "import," theft really as it was done forciblly.

During the Soviet occupation of Northern Iran in '46, there were a few experiments in classic economic imperialism, with taking over the oil wells for Soviet benefit. While simultaneously carrying out land reforms for the peasants and so forth, naturally. That was because Stalin was then still allied with Churchill and Roosevelt, and that's what they were doing (the imperialism, not the reforms!) so he wanted to check that out. But that ended abruptly when the Cold War broke out.

There was some of that in Manchuria too, which Mao put up with but *did not* like one bit, definitely a beginning seed of Mao's split with the USSR under Khrushchev.

Khrushchev put an end to all that, and especially after the workers rebellions in East Germany, Hungary and Poland in the '50s, the Soviets moved instead to *supporting* the Eastern European economies with Soviet aid so as to keep the workers from rebelling.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Some particularly vile Hungarian secret police did get lynched. And, by the way, a fair number of Arrow Cross fascist torturers got hired on by Rakosi for his secret police, result being that in Hungary, unlike other Eastern European countries, torture of political prisoners was common and extremely brutal.

Given the Khrushchev reforms, Hungary was pretty unique in that way by that point in the "socialist world," except maybe in Hoxha's Albania.To satisfy any curiosity you might have, control over the Albanian Sigurimi was initially under Koçi Xoxe, who organized trials of war criminals, anti-communists, etc. Torture was used. Xoxe was a tinsmith and active in the 1930's Albanian communist movement.

When Xoxe proved himself to be an agent of Tito he was succeeded by Mehmet Shehu, who served the International Brigades in Spain and was one of the main leaders of the National Liberation War. When Jonuz Kaceli, a businessman and Balli Kombëtar (collaborators with the German occupiers) sympathizer was interrogated, Kaceli attacked Shehu and Shehu responded by throwing him out of the second floor window of the Interior Ministry. Also, according to Tito and later retold by Khrushchev, Shehu allegedly strangled Xoxe to death with his bare hands. More likely is that he was just shot.

The Sigurimi had no significant ex-fascist persons within it. It was easily the most "hardline" of Eastern Bloc security services though.

There was also the case, only a few days after the Hungarian Uprising, of Khrushchev approaching Hoxha over a pro-Yugoslav/Soviet official who had fled Albania. (Hoxha, Selected Works Vol. III, p. 33):

Nikita Khrushchev had received a long letter from the traitor Panajot Plaku, who wrote to him about his great 'patriotism', the 'ardent love' he had for the Soviet Union and the Party of Labour of Albania, and asked that Khrushchev, with his authority, intervene to liquidate the leadership of our Party with Enver Hoxha at the head, because we were allegedly 'anti-Marxists', 'Stalinists'. He wrote that he had gone to Yugoslavia because a plot had been organized to kill him. As soon as Khrushchev received the letter, he said to us: 'What if this Plaku returns to Albania, or we accept him in the Soviet Union?' We answered, 'If he comes to Albania, we shall hang him on twenty different counts, while if he goes to the Soviet Union, you will be committing an act that will be fatal to our friendship.' At that he backed down.

[syndicat]

Spoken like a true right-winger. Of course it was Khrushchev's "socialist division of labor" that actually paved the way for the state-capitalist regime established after Stalin's death to exploit Eastern Europe.

actually, you're the right winger because you want class oppression & exploitation to continue, under fake "socialiist" rhetoric

[Ismail]

actually, you're the right winger because you want class oppression & exploitation to continue, under fake "socialiist" rhetoricActually, you're the right-winger. As Lenin would say of your kind, "poses as a left, helps the right."

We can go on like this forever.

[Tim Cornelis]

Inevitable: "leftier than thou" 'discussion'.

It's like a left-wing Godwin's Law.

"As an online (revleft) discussion grows longer, the probability of accusing the opponent of being reactionary/petite-bourgeois/right-wing increases till it inevitably reaches the point of mentioning"

[Rafiq]

Actually, you're the right-winger.



Nice to see the Stalinoids yet again use childish tactics when in debate. "No, you're the Right winger'. " NO U"

Actually, the difference between you and syndicate is that I can bet he isn't a Nationalist, or a conservative, or a reactionary.

Hoxhaists on the other hand...

I think we can easily formulate who the real right winger is, to be honest.

[Rafiq]

As Marxists and revolutionary socialists, we see no class interest in supporting the Bourgeois regimes of the Soviet Union and it's dogs.

These were genuine Worker's revolts. As early as the 1930's we saw a clear Class contradiction form between the Bourgeois Soviet Regime and the Proletariat. The revolts in Hungary were a mere expression of class warfare by the Hungarian workers against the Stalinist Bourgeoisie.

[Sir Comradical]

you mean, shooting the soldiers of the imperialist army sent into Hungary to maintain a system that enabled the bureaucratic ruling class in the USSR to suck off the surplus from its eastern European conquests.

Suck off the surplus? Hungary ended up with a higher standard of living than people in the USSR. Calling the Soviet Army's action in Hungary "imperialist" is just plain wrong. The workers had genuine grievances, unfortunately their movement was hijacked by the right-wing seeking to exit the Warsaw pact and possibly join NATO. Krushchev ended up putting an end to the secret police in Hungary which was comprised of many ex-fascists hired by Rakosi for their "skills" and the Hungarians ended up with "goulash communism".

[Sasha]

......wat?




not very moderator/administrator of you

tsktsktsktsk


having an avatar the hereditary figure head of an proto-fascist police state that flay young girls and pull out the nails and teeth and cut of the genitalia of children is pretty disgusting not?

[Ismail]

Nice to see the Stalinoids yet again use childish tactics when in debate. "No, you're the Right winger'. " NO U"Actually it was a parody of what he wrote. He was one who started with "actually, you're the right-winger." Hence why I said "We can go on like this forever."


Actually, the difference between you and syndicate is that I can bet he isn't a Nationalist, or a conservative, or a reactionary.

Hoxhaists on the other hand...Yeah, Hoxha was very conservative and nationalist. He completely outlawed religion, gave women unprecedented access to public and political life, made illegal the following of a feudal tribal code that dominated a great many Albanians, fought against the machinations of the Italians and their "Greater Albania" propaganda during their occupation of the country, is denounced today in Albania as a "traitor" to Albanian national interests due to his agreement with the Yugoslavs to transfer Kosovo to Yugoslavia in 1945 (albeit under the expectation of a plebiscite), completely rejected any "national roads" to socialism à la Juche or Eurocommunism, and, besides all this, was a communist to boot.

He was literally affiliated with progressive sentiments from childhood. His own uncle was an atheist who taught him to abandon religion at an early age, and at the age of 16 was already involved in a progressive student organization.

[Rooster]

The invasion of Czechoslovakia was denounced by both China and Albania. It was a great example of the Soviets repeating what they sowed through their promotion of Dubček and other revisionists, only to have these revisionists openly oppose the Soviets. The events in Hungary, as Hoxha noted in his book The Khrushchevites (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm), also were the result of the revisionist leadership of the USSR, which initially promoted Nagy as well.

Can't you see what's wrong with this line of thinking? It does not allow for democracy/proletarian control (unless, of course, it's following the "correct" Marxist-Leninist line).

[Rafiq]

Yeah, Hoxha was very conservative and nationalist. He completely outlawed religion, gave women unprecedented access to public and political life, made illegal the following of a feudal tribal code that dominated a great many Albanians, fought against the machinations of the Italians and their "Greater Albania" propaganda during their occupation of the country, is denounced today in Albania as a "traitor" to Albanian national interests due to his agreement with the Yugoslavs to transfer Kosovo to Yugoslavia in 1945 (albeit under the expectation of a plebiscite), completely rejected any "national roads" to socialism à la Juche or Eurocommunism, and, besides all this, was a communist to boot.

He was literally affiliated with progressive sentiments from childhood. His own uncle was an atheist who taught him to abandon religion at an early age, and at the age of 16 was already involved in a progressive student organization.

How dumb, you arguing with a straw man. Mussolini was an atheist, it doesn't mean shit just to be an atheist and to be against religion if you're a nationalist.

Nationalism does not equal religion.

He supported countless reactionary national liberation movements, one of them being the Islamists in Afghanistan, he promoted nationalism in his own country when he was in power.

I could go on forever but I won't, you get the Idea. Hoxha was a conservative and a Nationalist. A homophobe and a supporter of the Nuclear family.

[manic expression]

you mean, shooting the soldiers of the imperialist army sent into Hungary to maintain a system that enabled the bureaucratic ruling class in the USSR to suck off the surplus from its eastern European conquests.
Ha, that's a good one. Nope, don't worry about the fact that the anti-socialist rebels made documented contacts with the CIA and were trying to get equipment and weapons from them. Don't fret about the fact that "Radio Free Europe" and its promises of a NATO invasion were both widely applauded by the rebels. Nevermind the fact that the rebellion's eventual leader came from the same so-called "bureaucratic ruling class" you love to mindlessly condemn without even understanding.

But coming from someone who doesn't seem to know that socialists were lynched and hanged from lampposts in the streets by the anti-socialist rebels, of course you wouldn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

[Rising Sun]

having an avatar the hereditary figure head of an proto-fascist police state that flay young girls and pull out the nails and teeth and cut of the genitalia of children is pretty disgusting not?

has nothhing to do with this topic. you as an admin should know better....

[Ismail]

How dumb, you arguing with a straw man. Mussolini was an atheist, it doesn't mean shit just to be an atheist and to be against religion if you're a nationalist.Mussolini signed a "concordant" with the Vatican and worked to eagerly integrate Catholic priests into the fascist hierarchy. In Albania it was a crime to even be a priest. There was a "controversial" case (to the outside world) in 1981 or so when a woman went to an underground priest to get a baptism. The priest was shot and the woman was sent to a labor camp while her baby was put in an orphanage. Not even private worship was allowed.

Also calling Hoxha "homophobic" is ridiculous. So was every other East European Communist.


he promoted nationalism in his own country when he was in power.This was the same country that didn't even have one uniform Albanian language, right? Where more Albanians lived outside of Albania than within it? Where the entire history of Albania is one of foreign occupation?

There's a big difference between nationalism and chauvinism.

[Rafiq]

Also calling Hoxha "homophobic" is ridiculous. So was every other East European Communist.

Which is why we oppose ever other East European Communist.

[Ismail]

Which is why we oppose ever other East European Communist.Every African and just about every Asian Communist as well. Don't forget every Latin American Communist.

Apparently Marxism doesn't apply to non-white people who aren't able to get a post-80's Western education in regards to sexuality. Never mind that Engels himself was homophobic and joked to Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm) about how he was glad he'd die of old age before he'd have to pay "physical tribute" to gay men and their supposed rising prominence in public life.

[Sasha]

has nothhing to do with this topic..

i beg to differ, yours is the exact same attitude as the tankies who support the invasions under discussion here.

to paraphrase the immortal bard: a tankie by any other name...

[Per Levy]

Also calling Hoxha "homophobic" is ridiculous. So was every other East European Communist

didnt the bolsheviks got rid of anti-homosexuality laws? yes they did. so no not every east european communist was homophobic. but it seems that the ones who reintroduced anti-homosexuality laws were, and sadly these people had way to much influence on to many communist partys worldwide.


Every African and just about every Asian Communist as well. Don't forget every Latin American Communist.

Apparently Marxism doesn't apply to non-white people who aren't able to get a post-80's Western education in regards to sexuality. Never mind that Engels himself was homophobic and joked to Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm) about how he was glad he'd die of old age before he'd have to pay "physical tribute" to gay men and their supposed rising prominence in public life.

i highly doubt engels views on homosexuality are reasons to defend homophobia in the 21th century.

[Ismail]

didnt the bolsheviks got rid of anti-homosexuality laws? yes they did.Yet when homosexuality was criminalized again no Bolshevik, either in exile (see: Trotsky) or within the USSR itself, seemed to care. The most outspoken person seemed to have been some random left-wing Englishman who sent a letter to Stalin about the fate of his lover in the USSR. Stalin wrote on the letter "an idiot and a degenerate" and sent it to the archives.


i highly doubt engels views on homosexuality are reasons to defend homophobia in the 21th century.Perhaps not, but they certainly should be seen in the context of early 20th century Albania.

[Jose Gracchus]

Both were pro-market, pro-west collaboration movements. I can't provide you with any sort of reading material arguing against this point, however.

oh but of course


So I take it you support those who were lynching socialists in the streets of Budapest and trying to get aid from NATO.

Those poor secret policemen who fire into crowds, naturally.

Are you arguing the Hungarian workers' councils weren't 'real' workers' councils, because they defies Ze Chosen Partei?


Suck off the surplus? Hungary ended up with a higher standard of living than people in the USSR. Calling the Soviet Army's action in Hungary "imperialist" is just plain wrong. The workers had genuine grievances, unfortunately their movement was hijacked by the right-wing seeking to exit the Warsaw pact and possibly join NATO. Krushchev ended up putting an end to the secret police in Hungary which was comprised of many ex-fascists hired by Rakosi for their "skills" and the Hungarians ended up with "goulash communism".

This is ridiculous. The Hungarian living standards only went up at the USSR's expense after 1965, so it is meaningless to use that fact to demonstrate that they benefited from the USSR's patronage. The fact is that Hungarian workers were super-exploited to produce raw materials for the USSR, and had much of their industrial fabric forcibly appropriated by the USSR after World War II (why Soviet workers in the zone of the 'workers' states' were peculiarly deserving over their brethren is curious, and never explained by Stalinoids). The precise reason why the Eastern "people's democracies" got a better deal from the USSR is precisely because of the 1953 East German, and 56 Polish and Hungarian workers' revolts, in the the original instance.

In any case, the Hungarian revolt of '56 had a lot more progressive and proletarian content than the "Prague Spring" of 1968. While top-down attempts at 'liberalization' by elites wishing to squirm out from under the forcible franchise of the CPSU they were obliged to manage, were present in both events, in 1968 the working-class was pretty much a spectator as a class. In both instances there were clear impulses to resist Soviet power, though, and the Eastern Bloc-Soviet establishment was no friend, and in fact, a great enemy, of the working-class.

[Per Levy]

Yet when homosexuality was criminalized again no Bolshevik, either in exile (see: Trotsky) or within the USSR itself, seemed to care.

i remember having read an article of trotsky that mostly focused on criminalization of abortions in the ussr he mention the criminalization of homosexuality briefly, he said something like while today people maybe wont understand(getting rid of anti-homosexuality laws) it their children and grandchildren most defenetly would. and a bit more but i dont have that article of his near me. it was posted here in a thread about this topic a couple of months ago.


The most outspoken person seemed to have been some random left-wing Englishman who sent a letter to Stalin about the fate of his lover in the USSR. Stalin wrote on the letter "an idiot and a degenerate" and sent it to the archives.

wich could also be a reason why almost no one would speak up against the criminalization, being labeld as "idiot and degenerate" by stalin probally wasnt good for your health if you lived in the ussr to that time.


Perhaps not, but they certainly should be seen in the context of early 20th century Albania.

maybe, but its kinda weird that a state that was so militantly atheist as you wrote would kling to the reactionary sexual moral of the catholic church(and pretty much any other).

[manic expression]

Those poor secret policemen who fire into crowds, naturally.
Some guards fired in a moment of severe confusion, which included some in the crowd setting off "fireworks" from occupied vehicles and others in the crowd trying to force their way into the building. These supposedly barbaric guards later decided to surrender themselves to demonstrators instead of firing on the crowd, after which point their arms were taken from them, something that pokes a hole in your entire view of the incident. But I guess strange fruit is OK in that case, right?


Are you arguing the Hungarian workers' councils weren't 'real' workers' councils, because they defies Ze Chosen Partei?
Is that supposed to be a Hungarian accent or something? Anyway, are you arguing that Nagy and his NATO-friendly supporters were champions of a true working-class movement?

[Welshy]

Is that supposed to be a Hungarian accent or something? Anyway, are you arguing that Nagy and his NATO-friendly supporters were champions of a true working-class movement?

He didn't say anything about Nagy or his supporters. He was asking about the Workers' Councils, so stop avoiding the question and answer it.

[Ismail]

i remember having read an article of trotsky that mostly focused on criminalization of abortions in the ussr he mention the criminalization of homosexuality briefly, he said something like while today people maybe wont understand(getting rid of anti-homosexuality laws) it their children and grandchildren most defenetly would. and a bit more but i dont have that article of his near me. it was posted here in a thread about this topic a couple of months ago.Feel free to bring it up, but I do recall Trotsky attacking abortion restrictions yet being silent on the issue of homosexuality.


maybe, but its kinda weird that a state that was so militantly atheist as you wrote would kling to the reactionary sexual moral of the catholic church(and pretty much any other).Actually in Albania homosexuality was associated with feudal customs and with the oppression of women, just like in Tsarist Russia most people probably saw homosexuality as something particularly "degenerate" elements of royalty engaged in.

[Sir Comradical]

This is ridiculous. The Hungarian living standards only went up at the USSR's expense after 1965, so it is meaningless to use that fact to demonstrate that they benefited from the USSR's patronage. The fact is that Hungarian workers were super-exploited to produce raw materials for the USSR, and had much of their industrial fabric forcibly appropriated by the USSR after World War II (why Soviet workers in the zone of the 'workers' states' were peculiarly deserving over their brethren is curious, and never explained by Stalinoids). The precise reason why the Eastern "people's democracies" got a better deal from the USSR is precisely because of the 1953 East German, and 56 Polish and Hungarian workers' revolts, in the the original instance.

The USSR suffered the worst industrial damage because of the Axis invasion with the fascists having destroyed 15 large cities, 1700 towns, 70000 villages, 6 million buildings, 31000 industrial enterprises, 1100 coal mines, 3000 oil wells. So the USSR rebuilt itself by forcing the Eastern Bloc nations to help them. Big deal.


In any case, the Hungarian revolt of '56 had a lot more progressive and proletarian content than the "Prague Spring" of 1968. While top-down attempts at 'liberalization' by elites wishing to squirm out from under the forcible franchise of the CPSU they were obliged to manage, were present in both events, in 1968 the working-class was pretty much a spectator as a class. In both instances there were clear impulses to resist Soviet power, though, and the Eastern Bloc-Soviet establishment was no friend, and in fact, a great enemy, of the working-class.

I agree.

[A Marxist Historian]

Ha, that's a good one. Nope, don't worry about the fact that the anti-socialist rebels made documented contacts with the CIA and were trying to get equipment and weapons from them. Don't fret about the fact that "Radio Free Europe" and its promises of a NATO invasion were both widely applauded by the rebels. Nevermind the fact that the rebellion's eventual leader came from the same so-called "bureaucratic ruling class" you love to mindlessly condemn without even understanding.

But coming from someone who doesn't seem to know that socialists were lynched and hanged from lampposts in the streets by the anti-socialist rebels, of course you wouldn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Horseshit. Read Fryer, you don't even have to hunt down a copy, it's all up on MIA.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

has nothhing to do with this topic. you as an admin should know better....

The topic is Hungary and Czechoslovakia, two countries that, under fascist rule, were indeed subjected to brutal torture of men, women and children.

And we are momentarily arguing (rather absurdly but there you are) about whether or not the Hungarian Revolution was ... fascist.

So Psycho's posting has *everything* to do with the topic.

-M.H.-

PS: Just who is that ugly avatar of yours of, anyway? He certainly looks the part, whoever the hell he is.

[A Marxist Historian]

oh but of course



Those poor secret policemen who fire into crowds, naturally.

Are you arguing the Hungarian workers' councils weren't 'real' workers' councils, because they defies Ze Chosen Partei?

This is ridiculous. The Hungarian living standards only went up at the USSR's expense after 1965, so it is meaningless to use that fact to demonstrate that they benefited from the USSR's patronage. The fact is that Hungarian workers were super-exploited to produce raw materials for the USSR, and had much of their industrial fabric forcibly appropriated by the USSR after World War II (why Soviet workers in the zone of the 'workers' states' were peculiarly deserving over their brethren is curious, and never explained by Stalinoids). The precise reason why the Eastern "people's democracies" got a better deal from the USSR is precisely because of the 1953 East German, and 56 Polish and Hungarian workers' revolts, in the the original instance.

These ignorant Russia-bashing remarks of yours discredit your other good points.

The standard of living in the Soviet Union, i.e. the old Russian empire, had always been lower than in Eastern Europe, and so equalization would have been justified in any case.

But after WWII, when 26 million Soviet citizens (that's not a misprint, that is the current accepted figure) had died because of the Nazi invasion, and the whole country had been devastated and most of Soviet industry destroyed, and the Red Army had liberated Eastern Europe from the Nazi mass murdered at the cost of millions of soldiers' lives, of course the USSR was justified in large scale transfer of economic resources from Eastern Europe to the USSR.

Now the way Stalin went about it was ... downright Stalinist.

But in principle, this was all absolutely justifiable, and anyone who says anything different is a Russia-hating anti-communist bourgeois nationalist with no sense of elementary human decency.

What was not justifiable was shoving Rakosi and his regime down the throat of the Hungarian working class, who had better ideas. But that is another matter altogether.



In any case, the Hungarian revolt of '56 had a lot more progressive and proletarian content than the "Prague Spring" of 1968. While top-down attempts at 'liberalization' by elites wishing to squirm out from under the forcible franchise of the CPSU they were obliged to manage, were present in both events, in 1968 the working-class was pretty much a spectator as a class.

True.



In both instances there were clear impulses to resist Soviet power, though, and the Eastern Bloc-Soviet establishment was no friend, and in fact, a great enemy, of the working-class.

Gross oversimplification.

-M.H.-

[manic expression]

He didn't say anything about Nagy or his supporters. He was asking about the Workers' Councils, so stop avoiding the question and answer it.
a.) Talking about those councils is useless unless we talk about the guy they ultimately chose as their leader. It's perfect hypocrisy to decry the horrible "bureaucracy" while supporting a group that lent their support to a member of the very same.

b.) The councils were actively collaborating with the CIA, this has been documented in the CIA's own records. They were also legalizing right-wing political parties. No genuine working-class movement would do such a thing.

[Ismail]

PS: Just who is that ugly avatar of yours of, anyway? He certainly looks the part, whoever the hell he is.That's Bashir al-Assad, reactionary leader of Syria whose interests otherwise don't coincide all that much with the USA, prompting some Brezhnevites to praise him.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

didnt the bolsheviks got rid of anti-homosexuality laws? yes they did.

Yep... long before the founding of all the other 'Communist' regimes, which means the "sign of the times" rhetoric is absolute horse shit.

"[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured and no one’s interests are encroached upon. Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality--Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." - Dr. Grigorii Batkis (director Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene), The Sexual Revolution in Russia, 1923. [Emphasis in original]

Social forces shaped social policy. The reintroduction of reactionary social policies came along with real, underlying changes. It's no coincidence that abortion, homosexuality and prostitution were criminalized as the bureaucracy firmly secured its grip on power.

[Ismail]

Yep... long before the founding of all the other 'Communist' regimes, which means the "sign of the times" rhetoric is absolute horse shit.In Albanian law "sodomy" and "unnatural acts between females" weren't illegal either (although actual homosexual sex between two men was.) I rather doubt they were still tolerated anywhere or that you'd consider that some sort of triumph.

Again, when homosexuality was decriminalized in Russia (via a blanket abolishing the Tsarist legal code) there were various doctors calling it a "sickness" that had to be treated, and when it was criminalized again there was no major personality either in exile or in the USSR itself who took issue. Abortion itself while legal was called an "evil" that would be peacefully removed under socialism, and the repeal of it actually brought a lot of attention and criticisms abroad and, when the issue was discussed within the USSR itself, there were also disagreements. Homosexuality, however, wasn't discussed.

[Crux]

Feel free to bring it up, but I do recall Trotsky attacking abortion restrictions yet being silent on the issue of homosexuality.

Actually in Albania homosexuality was associated with feudal customs and with the oppression of women, just like in Tsarist Russia most people probably saw homosexuality as something particularly "degenerate" elements of royalty engaged in.
Apologist.

[Ismail]

Apologist for homophobia from almost 100 years ago? The fact is that homophobia was ingrained and that it was regarded as an aberration from the norm until the 1970's and 80's, and only then in certain Western countries, and even then it was not accepted at large by the population. It also doesn't change the fact that Marx and Engels were homophobic and that various early socialist leaders held homophobic views.

Also are you denying that homosexuality was associated with all sorts of reactionary norms? Doesn't make it true, obviously, but for example homosexuality was attacked in 1920's Central Asia since it was seen as closely connected with pedophilia. Lord Byron among others noted what appeared to them to be clear signs of homosexual conduct among Albanian chieftains, etc.

I'm not being an "apologist" pointing out why early socialists were homophobic anymore than I'd be an "apologist" for phrenology for pointing out that Karl Marx adhering to it wasn't strange at the time. Actual apologists for homophobia would be saying "oh, well, they were kinda justified since X Y Z," but I'm not doing that.

[A Marxist Historian]

a.) Talking about those councils is useless unless we talk about the guy they ultimately chose as their leader. It's perfect hypocrisy to decry the horrible "bureaucracy" while supporting a group that lent their support to a member of the very same.

b.) The councils were actively collaborating with the CIA, this has been documented in the CIA's own records. They were also legalizing right-wing political parties. No genuine working-class movement would do such a thing.

Wrong! Pal Maleter was the leader of the Hungarian Workers Councils. Nagy was merely the leader of the essentially powerless leftover Hungarian government. The government indeed run by what was left of the Hungarian Communist Party.

As for CIA collaboration with the the councils, you don't get to just assert that, you have to provide some evidence. Got any? I doubt it.

No doubt some CIA types *claimed* they were behind it all, to get ahead in their bureaucratic maneuverings and scribbling behind closed doors to each other. Just like those German diplomats claiming they gave money to the Bolsheviks. Doesn't mean it's true.

US policy was basically to stay out, as they wanted to overthrow the Hungarian regime but they *did not* like the Workers Councils, which they had no handle on.

Radio Free Europe was mostly urging Hungarians to assault the Soviet troops, which the council leaders were much too intelligent to go for. Instead they wanted to fraternize with the Soviet troops and teach them the error of their ways.

-M.H.-

[Per Levy]

Feel free to bring it up, but I do recall Trotsky attacking abortion restrictions yet being silent on the issue of homosexuality.


The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch07.htm

[Ismail]

He mentions "socialist relations among men" within the context of families. If this is a reference to homosexuality then it's incredibly vague. The best thing I can get from that is that Trotsky is saying homosexuals come from broken families which the state is trying to revive, which isn't exactly a defense of homosexuality nor worthy of the title "socialist relations among men."

Considering he spends quite a lot of text criticizing abortion restrictions and the idealization of traditional family life in the USSR, it seems unlikely that he was mentioning homosexuality. To me it just sounds like a continuation of what he's saying in-re Soviet policies on the family, unless you can clarify what "socialist relations among men" means if not obviously meant to refer to relations between people under socialism, which Trotsky alleged the "Stalinist bureaucracy" was corrupting and degenerating in favor of traditional, pre-1917 societal and family norms.

Did anyone in 1930's - 1950's period interpret Trotsky's words there to refer to homosexuality? That's generally a good way to know if someone isn't just stretching to interpret a phrase or not.

Edit: Although the English translation of the book says "socialist relations among men," in the original Russian edition the phrase is "социалистических отношений между людьми," or "socialist relations between people." The French translation by Victor Serge has it as "relations socialistes entre les hommes," which pretty clearly means "men" in an impersonal and inclusive (i.e. "mankind") sense.

[Jose Gracchus]

Now the way Stalin went about it was ... downright Stalinist.

But in principle, this was all absolutely justifiable, and anyone who says anything different is a Russia-hating anti-communist bourgeois nationalist with no sense of elementary human decency.

What was not justifiable was shoving Rakosi and his regime down the throat of the Hungarian working class, who had better ideas. But that is another matter altogether.

Wake the fuck up. What Russia did to the Eastern European states in terms of acquisition of slave labor and appropriation of industrial fabric would be opposed by any domestic working-class under any realistic scenario. It definitely suppressed the class consciousness of Eastern workers. And in no way, shape or form should the crimes of the Eastern European bourgeoisies be imposed forcibly on their working-classes, in order to satisfy the typically bourgeois reparation and occupation policy demands of the Soviet ruling group. The policy choice itself presupposes the opposition of the Eastern European working-classes, and to try to separate the two is nothing but your usual served cup of hot, stinking, Sparticist bullshit. No real world worker is going to suddenly notice all the Red Army troops around, transmogrify into some kind of paragon of ideal proletarian internationalist virtue, and subsequently eagerly surrender their real living standards because Moscow demanded reparations. All you (and your Stalinist comrades, on this issue) have to offer is empty moralism about how the Eastern Europeans 'owed' it to the USSR. Of course, the appropriation of the materiel was not done to restore the living standards of Soviet workers, but to consolidate the power of the Soviet rulers.

[A Marxist Historian]

Wake the fuck up. What Russia did to the Eastern European states in terms of acquisition of slave labor and appropriation of industrial fabric would be opposed by any domestic working-class under any realistic scenario. It definitely suppressed the class consciousness of Eastern workers. And in no way, shape or form should the crimes of the Eastern European bourgeoisies be imposed forcibly on their working-classes, in order to satisfy the typically bourgeois reparation and occupation policy demands of the Soviet ruling group. The policy choice itself presupposes the opposition of the Eastern European working-classes, and to try to separate the two is nothing but your usual served cup of hot, stinking, Sparticist bullshit. No real world worker is going to suddenly notice all the Red Army troops around, transmogrify into some kind of paragon of ideal proletarian internationalist virtue, and subsequently eagerly surrender their real living standards because Moscow demanded reparations. All you (and your Stalinist comrades, on this issue) have to offer is empty moralism about how the Eastern Europeans 'owed' it to the USSR. Of course, the appropriation of the materiel was not done to restore the living standards of Soviet workers, but to consolidate the power of the Soviet rulers.

"Acquisition of slave labor"? What on earth are you talking about? The German prisoners? You really think anybody in Eastern Europe other than Germans or particularly enlightened socialists gave a shit about how German prisoners were treated circa 1945?

What Estern European workers noticed about all those Soviet troops is that they *liberated them from Nazi slavery.* In that context, they didn't like the resource transfer very much, but in fact it was exactly in the late 1940s that the Eastern European regimes set up by the Soviets were *most popular* with the people. In Czechoslovakia, the CP won the elections fair and square, with a Czech capitalist running them, and in most of the Eastern European countries the CPs, which before 1945 hardly existed, got something like a quarter to a third of the votes. And that was when all this was going on.

It was later in the '50s, with Khrushchev having abolished all that, that working class dissent broke out. At first the Eastern European regimes under Stalin were quite popular with Eastern European workers, because of all the gunpoint social reforms and the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe from Nazi slavery. Popular in Western Europe too by the way, with the French and Italian Communist Parties having the loyalty of the workers of those countries overwhelmingly, Stalin and all.

And no, the purpose of the resource transfer was *not* so Stalin could have a nicer dacha. His dacha was already just fine thank you. It was to rebuild the ravaged Soviet economy, with half the country destroyed and 26 million people murdered by Hitler.

Some five times as many people as died in the Holocaust!

Indeed, that was a holocaust, and you are a holocaust revisionist when you get right down to it. You downplay or deny what the Nazis did to the Soviet people, just like the explicitly pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers do about the Jewish Holocaust. Your reasons, like theirs, are basically anti-communism, as Nazism is simply the ultimate form of anti-communism.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Constantine Pleshakov notes in his book There Is No Freedom Without Bread that there was a lot of initial popularity for the new Polish government as well (due mainly to the new agricultural and social reforms), although resentment against Russians in Poland was much stronger than in other countries and as a result this undercut the new government's popularity pretty quickly.

Ironically Albania may have had the least "popular" government at the start, since the Communist Party there called for Kosovo to be temporarily returned to Yugoslavia in expectations of a plebiscite over its future (Italy had played up nationalist demands for a "Greater Albania," reuniting Kosovo with it after the Italian invasion) and the CPA itself was dominated by Yugoslav interference, who introduced such things as the compulsory learning of Serbo-Croatian in schools. There was also relatively little partisan influence in northern and central Albania. Albania, of course, was the only East European country to have zero Soviet troops enter it during WWII. Although the 1945 land reform boosted its popularity among many peasants, the Albanian Government wouldn't enjoy widespread popularity until the 60's.

The Soviet zone in Germany was also initially seen as preferable to the Western zones.

[A Marxist Historian]

Constantine Pleshakov notes in his book There Is No Freedom Without Bread that there was a lot of initial popularity for the new Polish government as well (due mainly to the new agricultural and social reforms), although resentment against Russians in Poland was much stronger than in other countries and as a result this undercut the new government's popularity pretty quickly.

Ironically Albania may have had the least "popular" government at the start, since the Communist Party there called for Kosovo to be temporarily returned to Yugoslavia in expectations of a plebiscite over its future (Italy had played up nationalist demands for a "Greater Albania," reuniting Kosovo with it after the Italian invasion) and the CPA itself was dominated by Yugoslav interference, who introduced such things as the compulsory learning of Serbo-Croatian in schools. There was also relatively little partisan influence in northern and central Albania. Albania, of course, was the only East European country to have zero Soviet troops enter it during WWII. Although the 1945 land reform boosted its popularity among many peasants, the Albanian Government wouldn't enjoy widespread popularity until the 60's.

The Soviet zone in Germany was also initially seen as preferable to the Western zones.

All true more or less. I wouldn't be surprised if indeed Tito was for banning Albanian. He was after all just a Yugoslav left-Stalinist, not a Trotskyist internationalist. Indeed he rose to power in the Yugoslav CP during the Great Terror as Stalin's instrument for exterminating all opposition within the Yugoslav party. Which had had a mass character in the early 1920s, one of the strongest parties of the Comintern in Eastern Europe.

The posting raises the interesting question of, if the Hoxha regime was so unpopular in the late '40s, how did it arise in the first place, and with no Red Army assistance either?

The answer is that Albania wasn't a German but an *Italian* colonial subject, and the Mussolini regime was a notoriously feebler opponent than the Nazis. Mussolini actually managed to be defeated by the Greeks when he invaded Greece, Hitler had to rescue him.

Jokes about the Italian army during WWII are universal. Reason being not that Italians are cowards, the standard implication, but that the Italian people were no longer willing to die for Mussolini, who they overthrew half way through the war.

Also, I have heard it claimed (don't know the facts on this) that a critical role was played in the defeat of the remnants of Italian fascism in Albania by support from Tito's forces, which played a role vis a vis Hoxha's forces not unlike that played by the Soviet Red Army in the rest of Eastern Europe.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

The precise reason why the Eastern "people's democracies" got a better deal from the USSR is precisely because of the 1953 East German, and 56 Polish and Hungarian workers' revolts, in the the original instance.

In any case, the Hungarian revolt of '56 had a lot more progressive and proletarian content than the "Prague Spring" of 1968. While top-down attempts at 'liberalization' by elites wishing to squirm out from under the forcible franchise of the CPSU they were obliged to manage, were present in both events, in 1968 the working-class was pretty much a spectator as a class. In both instances there were clear impulses to resist Soviet power, though, and the Eastern Bloc-Soviet establishment was no friend, and in fact, a great enemy, of the working-class.

I would argue that the 1953 East German revolt had by far the most proletarian content of them all. The Poles got to retain private ownership of agriculture and throwback cultural institutions from past era. The Hungarian situation was a confused mishmash of non-party workers councils, foreign policy liberalism on the part of the elites, and Horthyite activism inside and outside the punitive state organs.

[Re. Horthyite activism: keep in mind Soviet incompetence on the de-Nazification question all over Eastern Europe. They thought that pursuing such a campaign was a soft but implicit form of collective punishment.]

[Ismail]

The Italians actually took advantage of the animosity between Albanians and Greeks. One Albanian named Daut Hoxha ("Hoxha" is a common surname, no relation to Enver) was killed at the border prior to the invasion, for example, and the Italians used it to denounce the Greeks. The Italians also tried to whip up nationalism within Albania by noting that Çamëria (a region in northern Greece) belonged to Albania (which, like Kosovo, it had legit rights but which the Italians were obviously just using as a pretext for imperial expansion.)

The National Liberation Movement was popular in the south of the country. Enver Hoxha, Mehmet Shehu, etc. were Tosks and the Tosk Albanians were less isolated and more exposed to cosmopolitan atmospheres (by Albanian standards) than their northern Gheg brethren. The problem was that north, south, and central Albania were pretty divided. It's also worth noting the words of Reginald Hibbert, who was parachuted into Albania in 1943 and assisted the National Liberation Front: "It is very likely that the men and women of Albania became deeply disillusioned with the brave new society from 1945 onwards, but there can be no doubt about the popular enthusiasm for it for several months in the middle of 1944 throughout south Albania and in all the areas to which the Partisan units penetrated." (Albania's National Liberation Struggle: The Bitter Victory, p. 239.)

The Italian troops did have pretty bad morale, though. Even in 1920 the Italian occupation of Vlorë ended when the troops there had their morale broken. As Jan Myrdal notes in Albania Defiant (p. 109):

Soldiers refused to obey orders. They sang "Canzone d'Albania": the refrain to

Come let us flee
as quick as we can
from Albania's soil!
Let us flee from malaria,
from slaughter and starvation!
Death to our miserable government
which gives us this hell!Faced by this double attack, from the Albanian liberation movement and from its own proletariat, the Italian government was forced to let its generals give the order to ship home the increasingly rebellious Italian soldiers. On August 2, Italy had to agree to withdraw from Albanian soil; on September 3, the Albanian freedom-fighters marched into liberated Vlora.When the Italians left Albania in 1943 1,500 anti-fascist soldiers formed the Antonio Gramsci Battalion (Gramsci was an Albanian) and assisted the National Liberation Movement. Also B.J. Fischer notes in his book Albania at War that the amount of troops in Albania and the ensuing loss of morale and prestige due to the resistance of the population played a part in Mussolini's downfall.

The Germans were much stronger opponents than the Italians, and were smarter too. They immediately proclaimed the "independence" of Albania and even attacked some fascist Italian troops. They were able to get members of the Balli Kombëtar (the only other significant rebels besides the National Liberation Movement) to partake in a "national unity" puppet regime with a strong anti-communist bent and basically the NLM (which became the National Liberation Front later that year) had a much harder time fighting the Germans, although they continued to attain successes regardless.

Yugoslav assistance was primarily based on political consultation (read: Yugoslavs saying "yes" or "no" to internal CPA/NLM activities) and to my knowledge not much else. The British actually played a more significant role by airdropping supplies and having more active on-the-ground presence. Hoxha, for instance, was in contact with various British officers who were helping the NLM against the occupiers and who helped coordinate military activities.

As a note, in December 1944 newly-liberated Albania sent two divisions to help the Yugoslavs fight Balli Kombëtar bands in Kosova (where the Yugoslav partisans had declared martial law due to a significant rebellion), and it's generally recognized that this action had a decisive effect on the defeat of the BK and other reactionary forces there.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you want to read some interesting stuff regarding 1968 in Czechoslovakia (and Poland, and Italy, and France, and Spain...1968 was a big year), check out "Transnational Moments of Change: 1945, 1968, 1989", edited by Gerd-Rainer Horn and Padraic Kenney. Some interesting stuff regarding the Czech student movement in there.

Here's an interesting piece, though, in regards to Czech worker's councils:


Yet before workers' councils could become an irresistible force, the Warsaw Pact invasion of 21 August decisively changed the terms and political context of these most promising debates. Still, the idea had taken root, and for a while the number of workers' councils rose even and especially under Soviet rule. In September 1968, no more than nineteen councils existed in the entire Czechoslovak state. Between 1 October and 31 December 1968, 260 additional councils saw the light of day. On 9-10 January 1969, council delegates representing 890,000 workers, a sixth of the country's entire workforce, gathered for deliberations in Pilsen. But in the course of 1969, as could be expected, the counter-revolution easily won out.

The most amusing thing about discussions of both Hungary 56 and Czechoslovakia 68 is that both instances of unrest are talked about like some kind of alien force was implanted in those countries by the CIA, rather than arising organically from the corrupt states. Ota Šik, orchestrator of Czechoslovakia's "perestroika" and a market socialist, was moved into Czechoslovakia's central committee in the early 60's, well before the Prague Spring. The bureaucratic spadework that Stalin, Tito and Mao layed out ultimately led to him, and Gorbachev, and Milosevic, and Deng, and all the other goons who were born from the rotten womb of 20th century "socialism".

I know it's a bitter pill for the Brezhnevites to swallow, though. :(

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Apologist for homophobia from almost 100 years ago? The fact is that homophobia was ingrained and that it was regarded as an aberration from the norm until the 1970's and 80's, and only then in certain Western countries, and even then it was not accepted at large by the population. It also doesn't change the fact that Marx and Engels were homophobic and that various early socialist leaders held homophobic views.

Also are you denying that homosexuality was associated with all sorts of reactionary norms? Doesn't make it true, obviously, but for example homosexuality was attacked in 1920's Central Asia since it was seen as closely connected with pedophilia. Lord Byron among others noted what appeared to them to be clear signs of homosexual conduct among Albanian chieftains, etc.

I'm not being an "apologist" pointing out why early socialists were homophobic anymore than I'd be an "apologist" for phrenology for pointing out that Karl Marx adhering to it wasn't strange at the time. Actual apologists for homophobia would be saying "oh, well, they were kinda justified since X Y Z," but I'm not doing that.

Is it so hard for you to just say 'Hoxha was wrong', instead of performing crazy acts of intellectual gymnastics to defend the indefensible?

Go on, just say it: 'Hoxha was wrong.'

[Ismail]

Hoxha wasn't "wrong" anymore than Marx was "wrong" for believing in phrenology in his time. The idea that Hoxha upon assuming power was confronted with the prospect of Albanian homosexuals and decided "gee, this should all be legal because homosexuality is totally normal behavior as determined by studies which either haven't been made yet (1940's-70's) or which only exist in the USA and Western Europe (70's-80's), but I'm an evil Stalinist and thus will oppress them with my terrible powers" is ridiculous. The fact is that early socialists didn't view homosexuality as a biological issue so much as a mental or even class-based one. Of course they were wrong, but that isn't out of the ordinary when you're talking about 50-100 years ago.

Did Luxemburg talk about homosexuality? Did Bordiga? Did any notable socialist active pre-1970 speak out against homophobia? I'm pretty sure they didn't, which either means that the consistently homophobic environment (both in religious and secular areas) they grew up in shaped their views or Joseph Stalin had magical homophobic mind powers. I mean this mindset wasn't something confined to Eastern Europe, you had Jean-Paul Sartre in the 40's and 50's saying that the reason French fascists collaborated with the Nazis was because they were reactionary homosexuals who hated women. This, of course, was actually a semi-popular belief among socialists at the time, just like how the German socialists spread rumors about how the Nazis were all homosexuals.

[manic expression]

The most amusing thing about discussions of both Hungary 56 and Czechoslovakia 68 is that both instances of unrest are talked about like some kind of alien force was implanted in those countries by the CIA, rather than arising organically from the corrupt states.
Except that wasn't even the Soviet position then. In 1956, for instance, the USSR recognized that the original protests had genuine and valid complaints that needed to be addressed...the question is where it all went from there, which is quite another thing.

The idea that the entire conflict can't be boiled down to "those meanie Russians" must be a real bitter pill for you to swallow.

[Jose Gracchus]

Where those original protests responded to substantively by the post-Soviet tanks regime? Is there any evidence that those complaints had any impact on Soviet policy in a substantive way? What interests did the WARPAC invasion really serve, those of the protestors or the consolidation of the Soviet ruling class's domination over Eastern Europe?

The U.S. admits Egyptian protestors had grievances, do you offer this as a point in the U.S.'s favor?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Did any notable socialist active pre-1970 speak out against homophobia?

Emma Goldman did.


The idea that the entire conflict can't be boiled down to "those meanie Russians" must be a real bitter pill for you to swallow.

I don't think that it can be boiled down to meanie Russians; I don't think I said that. Although the USSR had a lot to do with what ultimately caused the international revolutionary movement to stagnate.

[Ismail]

Emma Goldman did.Anarchists tended to be more "advanced" (so to speak) on social issues than most socialists, although by "socialist" I should have said "communists."

Still, better than nothing.

[A Marxist Historian]

The Italians actually took advantage of the animosity between Albanians and Greeks. One Albanian named Daut Hoxha ("Hoxha" is a common surname, no relation to Enver) was killed at the border prior to the invasion, for example, and the Italians used it to denounce the Greeks. The Italians also tried to whip up nationalism within Albania by noting that Çamëria (a region in northern Greece) belonged to Albania (which, like Kosovo, it had legit rights but which the Italians were obviously just using as a pretext for imperial expansion.)

The National Liberation Movement was popular in the south of the country. Enver Hoxha, Mehmet Shehu, etc. were Tosks and the Tosk Albanians were less isolated and more exposed to cosmopolitan atmospheres (by Albanian standards) than their northern Gheg brethren. The problem was that north, south, and central Albania were pretty divided. It's also worth noting the words of Reginald Hibbert, who was parachuted into Albania in 1943 and assisted the National Liberation Front: "It is very likely that the men and women of Albania became deeply disillusioned with the brave new society from 1945 onwards, but there can be no doubt about the popular enthusiasm for it for several months in the middle of 1944 throughout south Albania and in all the areas to which the Partisan units penetrated." (Albania's National Liberation Struggle: The Bitter Victory, p. 239.)

The Italian troops did have pretty bad morale, though. Even in 1920 the Italian occupation of Vlorë ended when the troops there had their morale broken. As Jan Myrdal notes in Albania Defiant (p. 109):
When the Italians left Albania in 1943 1,500 anti-fascist soldiers formed the Antonio Gramsci Battalion (Gramsci was an Albanian) and assisted the National Liberation Movement. Also B.J. Fischer notes in his book Albania at War that the amount of troops in Albania and the ensuing loss of morale and prestige due to the resistance of the population played a part in Mussolini's downfall.

The Germans were much stronger opponents than the Italians, and were smarter too. They immediately proclaimed the "independence" of Albania and even attacked some fascist Italian troops. They were able to get members of the Balli Kombëtar (the only other significant rebels besides the National Liberation Movement) to partake in a "national unity" puppet regime with a strong anti-communist bent and basically the NLM (which became the National Liberation Front later that year) had a much harder time fighting the Germans, although they continued to attain successes regardless.

Yugoslav assistance was primarily based on political consultation (read: Yugoslavs saying "yes" or "no" to internal CPA/NLM activities) and to my knowledge not much else. The British actually played a more significant role by airdropping supplies and having more active on-the-ground presence. Hoxha, for instance, was in contact with various British officers who were helping the NLM against the occupiers and who helped coordinate military activities.

As a note, in December 1944 newly-liberated Albania sent two divisions to help the Yugoslavs fight Balli Kombëtar bands in Kosova (where the Yugoslav partisans had declared martial law due to a significant rebellion), and it's generally recognized that this action had a decisive effect on the defeat of the BK and other reactionary forces there.

An interesting post, informative.

However, as a quick look at a map demonstrates, nonetheless Tito's victory was the key factor in Hoxha's victory.

Once the Italians were out of the picture with the overthrow of Mussolini, Hoxha's forces were up against the Germans, coming in from the outside, and pro-German Albanian elements in the North. Once Tito defeats the Germans in Yugoslavia, the Germans obviously have to immediately withdraw from Albania, being as they would be cut off by land by Tito and by sea by the US and British fleet, being as southern Italy, across the water from Albania, was in Allied hands.

So whether or not Tito sent any soldiers to help out, it was Tito's victory over the Germans that made Hoxha's victory in Albania possible.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Where those original protests responded to substantively by the post-Soviet tanks regime? Is there any evidence that those complaints had any impact on Soviet policy in a substantive way? What interests did the WARPAC invasion really serve, those of the protestors or the consolidation of the Soviet ruling class's domination over Eastern Europe?

The U.S. admits Egyptian protestors had grievances, do you offer this as a point in the U.S.'s favor?

OH yes, the 1956 protests were responded to quite substantively. The Hungarian and Polish regimes from then on had pretty much total autonomy, no more Soviet interference, and the USSR instead of draining Eastern Europe for the benefit of the Soviet economy started giving substantial economic aid to Eastern Europe, maintaining a considerably higher living standard for Eastern European workers than for Russian.

As the Poles put it, Polish working class protest was silenced by "stuffing our mouths with sausages."

From a purely economic standpoint, you could argue if you wanted to that COMECON was a vehicle for the imperialist exploitation of the Soviet working class by the Polish, Hungarian, etc. working class.

-M.H.-

[manic expression]

Where those original protests responded to substantively by the post-Soviet tanks regime? Is there any evidence that those complaints had any impact on Soviet policy in a substantive way?
Many things changed quite a bit in Hungary after 1956.


The U.S. admits Egyptian protestors had grievances, do you offer this as a point in the U.S.'s favor?
The most amusing thing about discussions of both Hungary 56 and Czechoslovakia 68 is that both instances of unrest are talked about like some kind of alien force was implanted in those countries by the CIA, rather than arising organically from the corrupt states.

[A Marxist Historian]

...
Did Luxemburg talk about homosexuality? Did Bordiga? Did any notable socialist active pre-1970 speak out against homophobia? I'm pretty sure they didn't, which either means that the consistently homophobic environment (both in religious and secular areas) they grew up in shaped their views or Joseph Stalin had magical homophobic mind powers. I mean this mindset wasn't something confined to Eastern Europe, you had Jean-Paul Sartre in the 40's and 50's saying that the reason French fascists collaborated with the Nazis was because they were reactionary homosexuals who hated women. This, of course, was actually a semi-popular belief among socialists at the time, just like how the German socialists spread rumors about how the Nazis were all homosexuals.

Actually you're quite wrong about this. That the Bolsheviks legalized homosexuality and opposed anti-homosexual prejudice in the 1920s is well known. The individual in charge of such matters under Lenin was Alexandra Kollontai, whose highly libertarian views on sexuality were no secret. Granted, Lenin thought she went a bit far, but she was in charge of such matters, not he.

But that is simply the German Social Democratic tradition. If Rosa Luxemburg never made statements in defense of homosexuality that was only because that was the standard party position. The German Social Democrats had been calling for abolition of all laws vs. homosexuality since at least the 1890s.

Hardly surprising, being as Schweitzer, Lassalle's successor as leader of the Lassalleans, was widely known to be homosexual, indeed having been arrested for sexual relations with a 14 year old boy in a Berlin public park. So any other position would have undermined the unity of the party.

And, be it noted, when the issue of legalizing homosexuality came up in the Reichstag during the Weimar Republic, which of course it did, the Weimar Republic being the Castro Street of the era, the Communists were the most militant defenders of homosexual rights, criticizing the Social Dems for selling out on the issue. The KPD was very well known for its liberated attitudes on all sexual matters.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

That's good, although even then just a generation before you had Engels, Bebel, etc. being homophobic. The GDR apparently tolerated homosexuality after 1987 or so (and according to Wiki there was soon after that even a state-run gay club), which indicates the fact that the country was obviously socially modernized and had a history of socialists working for homosexual rights, whereas one can't really say as much for the rest of Eastern Europe, especially Albania where one Italian visitor in the late 60's or early 70's had to run to her guide from old peasant women throwing stones at her because she wore "indecent" clothing, and when in the 1920's and 30's many tribes feared the bicycle and thought it had a hidden gun emplacement on it.

It also doesn't help that the SPD's progressive stand on homosexuality originated out of defending a pedophile in the name of party unity, but again it's better than nothing.


So whether or not Tito sent any soldiers to help out, it was Tito's victory over the Germans that made Hoxha's victory in Albania possible.Not entirely doubting. Don't forget, of course, the impending Soviet victory over Germany as well. B.J. Fischer (p. 123) quotes Hoxha as saying on the German invasion of the USSR that "the struggle didn't begin with the entry of the Soviet Union but at that point it became clear that the struggle would not be in vain." Also don't forget that the Yugoslavs had to rely on Soviet and Bulgarian assistance to liberate Belgrade, and had notable Albanian partisan assistance in liberating Kosovo and to a lesser extent Bosnia.

[Radix1944]

The reasons of the participation of Polish People's Army in intervention in Czechosloviakia:

In 1968 Federal Republic of Germany still not recognized the Oder–Neisse line.
The Polish government feared that in Czechoslovakia will be restoration of capitalism and Czechoslovakia will be under Western influence, especially Western Germany. It would be a difficult situation for the Poland on the defense of Oder–Neisse line.

If the Poland refused to participate in intervention, there was a risk that Soviet Union would change opinion on supporting of Polish interests.

[A Marxist Historian]

Where those original protests responded to substantively by the post-Soviet tanks regime? Is there any evidence that those complaints had any impact on Soviet policy in a substantive way? What interests did the WARPAC invasion really serve, those of the protestors or the consolidation of the Soviet ruling class's domination over Eastern Europe?

The U.S. admits Egyptian protestors had grievances, do you offer this as a point in the U.S.'s favor?

Actually, they had a huge impact on Soviet policies. Till 1956, the USSR was forcing the Eastern European countries, which had been far less devastated by the Nazis than the USSR was, and often as with Hungary had been Axis allies participating in said devastation of the USSR, to give the USSR large quantities of factory equipment, raw materials etc. to help the USSR rebuild.

After 1956, Khrushchev realized how politically explosive this was, and it was reversed, with the by then more or less recovered USSR increasingly subsidizing the Eastern European economies to avoid working class rebellion. So the East European Stalinists started "stuffing the peoples' mouths with sausages" as the Poles put it.

And there was after that far less Soviet micromanagement, with the Hungarian and other Eastern European Stalinists permitted to run their countries however they liked.

Is any of this a point in Khruschev or Brezhnev's favor? Not from my POV. But definitely a big change in response to working class rebellion.

Yes these were reforms compared to the previous setup, but I credit them to the Hungarian and Polish workers, not to the bureaucrats. Though by the '80s the subsidization had gotten to the point that it was exploitative of the Soviet working class, as well as unsustainable.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The reasons of the participation of Polish People's Army in intervention in Czechosloviakia:

In 1968 Federal Republic of Germany still not recognized the Oder–Neisse line.
The Polish government feared that in Czechoslovakia will be restoration of capitalism and Czechoslovakia will be under Western influence, especially Western Germany. It would be a difficult situation for the Poland on the defense of Oder–Neisse line.

If the Poland refused to participate in intervention, there was a risk that Soviet Union would change opinion on supporting of Polish interests.

Dubcek, unlike Walesa, was not an advocate of capitalism or the Catholic Church or of anti-Russian pro-US bourgeois nationalism. His slogan was "socialism with a human face." That is why he slipped so quickly into obscurity when capitalism was restored in Czechoslovakia in 1989-90. Was he a bit of a rightist, into "market socialism"? Sure, but so were the Polish bureaucrats in their own way.

Yes, the Polish Stalinists supported Soviet intervention on the basis of Polish nationalist considerations, not so terribly different from the Polish colonels supporting Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 because Poland got a piece. It is no wonder that the Polish Stalinists disgraced themselves so thoroughly that the reactionary Solidarity movement became so popular. It is exactly they who paved the way for the great disaster of the Solidarity movement, which they were ultimately to blame for.

-M.H.-

[Prismane]

Events in 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia amounted to counter-revolutionary actions against socialism, which the people of these countries were able to defeat thanks to fraternal assistance from working people around the world, particularly from the socialist commonwealth.

Required reading on the counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary is a book by Janos Berecz, which has been translated into English and is available online (Google search it). Some passages in his book establish that the revolt was the product of plots hatched by reactionary elements inside and outside of Hungary, with support from the imperialist powers. The counter-revolutionary bands committed cruel terror against the progressive forces, but were beaten back by the workers: factory guards defended the Obuda Shipyards with tools and rifles. Workers at Budapest Hosiery factory drove off the attackers. Antifascist veterans liberated the Szabad Nep building. And this is what the "revolutionaries" did: they kidnapped more than 3000 people and there were 10,000 names on death lists. In Kapsovar, 60 people were detained. They set fire to buildings and assaulted people on streets.

And this is from an insightful article from the Czechoslovak Life magazine explaining the treacherous machinations of revisionists and the anti-socialist offensive unleashed by the people's enemies, characterized by anti-Russian hatred and nationalist hysteria.


Various deviations from Leninism and the weakening of the leading role of the Party were the main causes of the crisis which in the 1960's grew within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovak society. In those years, right-wing opportunism and revisionism was taking shape. Elements to whom the interests of the working class were alien penetrated the Party and gradually won positions of influence, especially in the ideological sphere and the mass information media.

At the January 1968 session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia the aim was, above all, to ensure full restoration of the Leninist principles of management of the Party and of society. Antonin Novotny was relieved of his post of First Secretary at this session. By his arrogance, megalomania and suspiciousness he had caused a number of mistakes; he succumbed to subjectivism and acted at variance with the principle of collective leadership. Under his leadership there was no overall concept of policy, and for a long time important issues were neglected, such as the nationality question.

The offensive of the counter-revolutionary bloc of the right-wing revisionist and anti-socialist forces against the Party and against alliance with the Soviet Union was closely connected from the outset with activities of foreign anti-Communist centres which calculated that the destruction of socialism in Czechoslovakia would break the united front of the socialist community and make it more vulnerable. The right wing launched a fierce attack on Czechoslovakia's alliance with the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries; it fomented nationalist hysteria and in various ways sought to undermine the foundations of the socialist system.

Many Party branches at that time stepped up their political activities, and most of the workers in factories and people in villages supported the Communists who were determined to resolutely put an end to the attempts at disrupting the Republic. Upright Communists and all those who were concerned about the fate of socialism expected that the Party would finally launch an offensive against the counter-revolutionary forces, that the Party leadership would stop displaying its hesitancy which did only harm, and that an end would be put to the manhunts against many upright citizens which the right-wing and anti-socialist elements had launched with substantial support of the mass media that they brought under their control.

Under the pressure of the arguments of the Marxist-Leninist core of the Party, DUbcek could not entirely dismiss the danger to socialism: he manoevred and played a sorry role: at a conference of leading secretaries and regional committees of the CPC held on May 12-13, he said that right-wing opposition forces of varying degrees of anti-Communist and anti-socialist orientation were entering the political scene. He said so at a time when these forces were already playing the first fiddle on the political scene.

At the session of the CPCz Central Committee on May 29-June 1, Dubcek had to admit that attempts were being made to morally discredit the Party and that the overwehlming majority in the Party and ever wider sections of the people were aware of the danger of the growing anti-Communist tendencies. Apart from that, however, he sought to becloud the situation and played in the hands of the right wing. The fact that the right wing had exponents in the Party, in its Central Committee and the Presidium was pointed out for the first time at the May 1968 session of the Central Commitee...Hundreds of thousands of members and functionaries of the Party endorsed the resolution of the May session of the Central Committee and demanded that resolute measures be taken in defense of socialism.

The attempts to achieve a positive turn were climaxed on June 19 by a national rally of the People's Militia, in which 11,000 militiamen took part. Dubcek tried to limit the influence of this demonstration of the strength of the armed echelon of the working class, which was determined to protect the achievements of socialist construction; he arranged for the rally to be held in a hangar at Ruzyne airport, and prohibited the militiamen from marching through Prague streets in formations. Yet the People's Militia rally mobilized most of the Party members and an overwhelming part of the working class for struggle in defence of socialism and against the counter-revolution. There was still time to halt the onslaught of reaction — but then came a betrayal.


Dubcek's actions soon made it clear that he did not intend to heed the call of a majority of Communists and to implement the resolution of the May session of the Central Committee of the Party; it also became evident that he had decided to liquidate the offensive against the counter-revolution. Reaction drew the proper conclusions from this and soon launched another attack. On June 27 and became the joint political platform of all anti-socialist forces in Czechoslovakia. The pamphlet also contained open directions on how to mount violent actions and to destroy the socialist state system. It fomented hatred for the Soviet Union, and even publicly threatened Czechoslovakia's allies with an armed conflict.

[Rafiq]

The majority of those revolting, in both Czechoslavakia and Hungary, were not revolting in favor of Western Liberalism.

They were, in fact, in favor of a new "creative" type of socialism, in which they could have their free space, their free thought, speech, etc.

This is unquestionable. But these demands are unrealistic, and cannot be adjusted to the material conditions of those countries. The Cold war was not just some kind of a spy game. It was an actual war. The Eastern European countries were constantly under siege and sabotage, they couldn't look in the other direction for a second without taking a bite in the ass from their enemies.

If you like, look at the countries that tried to develop socialism with, you know, these personal freedoms, like the several attempts in South America. All of them ended up in economic disaster on behalf of American Imperialism (Chile, Nicaragua). I will go ahead and say, that building "authentic" socialism while the existence of large imperial powers persists is not possible. The problem is not that the bureaucrats or party leaders didn't give the masses enough freedom, the problem was socialism within one country.

[Ismail]

Do you really think that the protests in Hungary and (especially) Czechoslovakia, had they resulted in success, would have resulted in a "creative type of socialism"? In Albania in the early 70's liberalism amongst the intelligentsia began a rapid growth, with calls for Albania to "not forget Europe," to turn the youth organization into something detached from the Party, to allow a greater infusion of Western culture, etc. Hoxha responded by noting that, "No, comrades, we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." (On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, p. 261.)

Then followed a non-violent purging of the leaderships of the mass organizations for writers and artists and the youth.

The political and social forces in late 60's Czechoslovakia wanted bourgeois liberalism and social-democracy, or otherwise non-materialist "socialism." Holding up Nicaragua is to be expected from you since it also promoted idealistic "Christian Socialism," capitulation to bourgeois forces, the maintenance of the bourgeois state, bourgeois elections, etc.

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you really think that the protests in Hungary and (especially) Czechoslovakia, had they resulted in success, would have resulted in a "creative type of socialism"? In Albania in the early 70's liberalism amongst the intelligentsia began a rapid growth, with calls for Albania to "not forget Europe," to turn the youth organization into something detached from the Party, to allow a greater infusion of Western culture, etc. Hoxha responded by noting that, "No, comrades, we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." (On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, p. 261.)

Then followed a non-violent purging of the leaderships of the mass organizations for writers and artists and the youth.

The political and social forces in late 60's Czechoslovakia wanted bourgeois liberalism and social-democracy, or otherwise non-materialist "socialism." Holding up Nicaragua is to be expected from you since it also promoted idealistic "Christian Socialism," capitulation to bourgeois forces, the maintenance of the bourgeois state, bourgeois elections, etc.

Now, by the late '80s, the leader of the overturn of the old regime was Vaclav Havel, a bourgeois liberal of the purest water. And a pretty damn good writer, for what little that is worth when you get right down to it. But in '68, the man of the hour was Dubcek, with his slogan of "socialism with a human face." Which I see nothing wrong with at all.

In '89, Dubcek was still alive and had some popularity, but was swept from the political scene with extreme rapidity by the pro-capitalist tide.

What would have happened if there had been no Soviet intervention in '68? Then there would have been freedom for workers to express themselves and a revolutionary socialist movement to be reborn.

Instead, by Brezhnev crushing the Czech workers, who after some suspicion about rightist economic tendencies of Dubcek got quite enthusiastic over his political reforms, communism was discredited among Eastern European workers and pro-capitalist tendencies developed, with disastrous consequences.

Hungary in 1956? The slogan at the time was down with Stalinism, bring back Leninism! Briefly, Hungary was ruled by workers councils, soviets! Mixed of course with a certain dose of Hungarian nationalism.

How could it all have developed if Khruschev had stayed out? Hard to say. The development of a revolutionary vanguard party of the Hungarian workers was needed of course. But now Hungary is one of the more right wing countries of Eastern Europe, with little or no left movement even by Eastern European standards. So I think there can be no question that it would have been better if there had been no Soviet intervention.

-M.H.-

[manic expression]

Now, by the late '80s, the leader of the overturn of the old regime was Vaclav Havel, a bourgeois liberal of the purest water. And a pretty damn good writer, for what little that is worth when you get right down to it. But in '68, the man of the hour was Dubcek, with his slogan of "socialism with a human face." Which I see nothing wrong with at all.

In '89, Dubcek was still alive and had some popularity, but was swept from the political scene with extreme rapidity by the pro-capitalist tide.

What would have happened if there had been no Soviet intervention in '68? Then there would have been freedom for workers to express themselves and a revolutionary socialist movement to be reborn.

Instead, by Brezhnev crushing the Czech workers, who after some suspicion about rightist economic tendencies of Dubcek got quite enthusiastic over his political reforms, communism was discredited among Eastern European workers and pro-capitalist tendencies developed, with disastrous consequences.
That's a stretch, to say the least...why would there have been "freedom for workers"? How do you reason that pro-capitalist tendencies were all invented after 1968 when we know that in 1956 pro-capitalist parties were being enfranchised by the rebels?


Hungary in 1956? The slogan at the time was down with Stalinism, bring back Leninism! Briefly, Hungary was ruled by workers councils, soviets! Mixed of course with a certain dose of Hungarian nationalism.And by "Leninism" is meant CIA collaboration and Radio "Free" Europe rhetoric, I suppose.

[A Marxist Historian]

That's a stretch, to say the least...why would there have been "freedom for workers"? How do you reason that pro-capitalist tendencies were all invented after 1968 when we know that in 1956 pro-capitalist parties were being enfranchised by the rebels?

And by "Leninism" is meant CIA collaboration and Radio "Free" Europe rhetoric, I suppose.

Why would there have been freedom for the workers? Because there was, under Dubcek. Arrests of critics of the regime, Stalinist suppression of critical views, ended. You had freedom of expression during the "Prague Spring." Hell, even "Marcyites" such as yourself, if in Czechoslovakia in 1968, could have spoken in public and published newspapers without fearing arrest. And would most certainly have been arrested by the regime imposed by Brezhnev, despite all protestations of loyalty you might have issued.

As for pro-capitalist parties being enfranchised in 1956, it was the soviets, the workers councils, in charge, and you had none such among them. And explicitly right wing parties, fascists and Horthyites, were crushed by the workers councils with an iron hand, without any assistance from Russian tanks.

There was too much toleration for liberal capitalist parties, true enough. But the Hungarian workers if left to their own devices could have learned the error of that.

The Hungarian workers councils repeatedly issued statements that what they were for was proletarian internationalism and an end to Stalinism. In fact, the actual incident that set off the revolution was the purge and judicial murder of Laslo Rajk, who was a *leftist* Stalinist bureaucrat accused of Titoism, who Hungarian workers saw as more working class than other Hungarian officials.

Naturally Radio Free Europe and the CIA tried to get involved, but they did not gain any traction until the Soviet tanks came in, setting off anti-communist reactions.

In short, the picture of Hungary 1956 and the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s was about as different as it could possibly be.

Basically, your tendency decided that Hungary 1956 was a counterrevolution because Sam Marcy and his factional cohort in the SWP back then were demoralized by the right wing mood in America in the 1950s, and gave up on the idea that workers could be won to revolutionary ideas. So they decided that Stalinism was the lesser evil, having lost faith in workers revolution.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

The Hungarian workers councils repeatedly issued statements that what they were for was proletarian internationalism and an end to Stalinism.You mean like the Kronstadt sailors called for an end to Bolshevism and called for "soviets without the Bolsheviks"?


Naturally Radio Free Europe and the CIA tried to get involved, but they did not gain any traction until the Soviet tanks came in, setting off anti-communist reactions.I don't see how the workers were apparently conscious enough that they'd get rid of avowedly liberal capitalist parties yet at the same time the movement of Soviet tanks began "setting off anti-communist reactions."

[A Marxist Historian]

You mean like the Kronstadt sailors called for an end to Bolshevism and called for "soviets without the Bolsheviks"?

I don't see how the workers were apparently conscious enough that they'd get rid of avowedly liberal capitalist parties yet at the same time the movement of Soviet tanks began "setting off anti-communist reactions."

You had actual, documented involvement of the White Guards with the leaders of the Kronstadt rebellion, like Petrichenko. It was after all a sailors' mutiny, and most of the sailors by that point had a peasant background, as the revolutionary worker-sailors of 1917 had all moved to other fronts, as the Kronstadt front was quiet as a grave from 1917 to 1921. The Baltic Navy spent the entire civil war sitting there as a passive guard against a British naval assault, so it would have been insane for any revolutionaries, whether Bolshevik or for that matter anarchist, to have sat on their ships for the whole civil war polishing their boots.

And in fact when Yudenich moved on Petrograd in the summer of 1919 there was another much less publicized mutiny on a couple of minor ships in the flotilla, which was explicitly pro-White, with no anarchist trimmings.

Why would Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest set off anti-communist reactions? Because they weren't there to prevent NATO intervention, but to suppress the workers! The leaders of the soviets were arrested, the soviets were closed down, the workers went on strike, and numerous workers were killed in the streets.

The leaders of the Hungarian workers councils repeatedly stated that they *did not* want NATO intervention, and that Hungary could as far as they were concerned stay in the Warsaw Pact, as long as Hungary would have autonomy and Soviet troops wouldn't interfere in Hungarian affairs.

Whereas the Kronstadt rebels were already negotiating over accepting aid from the Whites by way of the "Russian Red Cross" after two weeks!

Victory of the Hungarian workers would not necessarily have had to affect the balance of power between East and West. Stalin's failure to suppress Tito didn't matter much after all. By contrast, if the Kronstadt rebellion had not been suppressed, after the ice melted, which was only a matter of days, the Kronstadt rebels would inevitably have welcomed the British fleet coming "to their aid." And the Russian Revolution would have been in deep trouble.

Wrangel's army, then in detention camps in Bulgaria, would hurriedly been rebased in Kronstadt, and a naval landing at Petrograd would have been next.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

Do you really think that the protests in Hungary and (especially) Czechoslovakia, had they resulted in success, would have resulted in a "creative type of socialism"?

No, I think they would result in either a disaster, or something they were originally fighting against. They would, be faced with the same problems that their former enemies had to deal with: How to build socialism in one country while repelling the forces of Imperialism. And from this, we can see how a police state, constant paranoia, etc. was of absolute necessity to maintain the already existing order, and would have, regardless of what kind of "Socialism" persisted (If that even means anything).


The political and social forces in late 60's Czechoslovakia wanted bourgeois liberalism and social-democracy, or otherwise non-materialist "socialism."

Non materialist socialism does not equate to social democracy. Perhaps the so-called representatives of this political force (Imperialist agents) stood for liberalism, but this was far the case from the actual existing movement. I am not saying such a movement was to be supported, as, like I mentioned above, it would end up right back where it started from: Isolated, degenerated, Capital-Socialism.


Holding up Nicaragua is to be expected from you since it also promoted idealistic "Christian Socialism," capitulation to bourgeois forces, the maintenance of the bourgeois state, bourgeois elections, etc.


How Idealist of you, to accuse me of upholding Nicaragua, as if this is some kind of game, in which we choose our champions, yours being Albania and pre 1950's Russia, and mine being Nicaragua.

Don't be a fool, if you go back and read my post, you'll clearly state how I mentioned all of this ended up in complete disaster and economic destruction (unlike the other socialist nations, which, on the contrary, were very paranoid, strict, and had tight security and political suppression of "Free speech", making it impossible for imperialist infiltration, or a lot harder).

And explain how that is to be expected from me? Unlike you, I'm a consistent materialist, who doesn't use it as some kind of tool to back up a bankrupt ideology. Hoxhaism, actually, is much more, if not as Idealist as the latin american populism, considering it blames the faults of Soviet (and friends) society on revisionism, revising abstract theory (apparently) even though Stalin would have probably ended up doing the same thing Khrushchev did, (but in a much different fashion.). Because I'm a materialist who understands that individuals are mere representatives and act on behalf of material conditions, on the contrary to-

The Hoxhaists, who blame individuals, or, even worse, "revising theory" for the fuck up of the Soviet Union. A materialists asks why such theory was revised, a materialist understands that for Khrushchev to come to power, or "corruption" was to occur, it would be because of systematic deficiency, imparity, and would instead attack the very material conditions that gave rise to such, rather than the will of individuals.

But no, Ismail, continue on talking out of your ass about how much of an Idealist I am. What a laugh, what a laugh.

[Ismail]

Apologists for Soviet social-imperialism and revisionism like throwing around how "idealist" everyone else is while covering for Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Co.


even though Stalin would have probably ended up doing the same thing Khrushchev did, (but in a much different fashion.).No he wouldn't. Stalin explicitly opposed ending the machine-tractor stations, opposed replacing the dictatorship of the proletariat with the "state of the whole people," opposed viewing Yugoslavia as a "fraternal socialist country," opposed the view that imperialism could be "tamed" and that imperialist war being inevitable was outdated, etc. His last work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died. His two closest followers, Molotov and Kaganovich, although not in complete accord with Stalin after his death, certainly took a more "hardline" position on various issues compared to Stalin's successors.

[Rafiq]

Apologists for Soviet social-imperialism and revisionism like throwing around how "idealist" everyone else is while covering for Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Co.

Or, on the other hand, you're actually just an Idealist, who lacks to necessary social skills to articulate my posts, and instead, accuses me of the contradiction of Hoxhaism. The Contradiction of the American Conservatives, to them, is "Da Liberals". So, as a communist, you would be labeled as such, as it's their ideological contradiction. In this same way, pathetic Ismail tries to accuse me of being his ideological contradiction, when in fact, I am targeting his Idealism. And you should be ashamed of yourself, supporting that fucker called Hoxha, whom was an avid supporter of the Afghani Mujaheddin, and of the proxies of American imperialism, along with China, as a "retaliation against soviet social imperialism", when in fact you are merely playing into the hands of American Imperialism, much like how our "Leftists" here are supporting obvious reactionary currents in Syria, and from Libya.

I deem the Soviet Union as a bourgeois state. This is my label to it, throughout it's existence. And you yet again persist your Idealism, by, stating I am "covering for Khrushchev, Brezhnev, whom, to you, have some kind of unrelenting authority over material conditions. I see these people as mere spawns of shit Soviet material conditions, because, like I said, I'm a materialist.

And Hoxha dare call himself a distinguished theoretician of Marxism. More like an assclown of Idealism.

[Rafiq]

No he wouldn't. Stalin explicitly opposed ending the machine-tractor stations, opposed replacing the dictatorship of the proletariat with the "state of the whole people," opposed viewing Yugoslavia as a "fraternal socialist country," opposed the view that imperialism could be "tamed" and that imperialist war being inevitable was outdated, etc. His last work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died. His two closest followers, Molotov and Kaganovich, although not in complete accord with Stalin after his death, certainly took a more "hardline" position on various issues compared to Stalin's successors.

Stalin would eventually have to face the problems Khrushchev did, whether he liked it or not. Khrushchev merely sped up the process...

[Ismail]

And you should be ashamed of yourself, supporting that fucker called Hoxha, whom was an avid supporter of the Afghani Mujaheddin, and of the proxies of American imperialism, along with China, as a "retaliation against soviet social imperialism", when in fact you are merely playing into the hands of American Imperialism, much like how our "Leftists" here are supporting obvious reactionary currents in Syria, and from Libya.Again you are apologizing for Soviet social-imperialism.

Hoxha did not support the Afghan Mujahidin, he supported the Afghan people in their struggle to oppose a Soviet invasion of their country, an invasion which brought forth an occupying force and which, naturally enough, was taken advantage of by American imperialism to turn the country into the Soviet's "Vietnam."

China helped arm the Mujahidin and collaborated with the Americans. By contrast there were small pro-Albania groups in Afghanistan that Albania could neither directly influence nor arm, but who did their best under the circumstances to fight the Soviet occupiers and, as best as they could, attempted to build a genuinely Marxist-Leninist party.


Stalin would eventually have to face the problems Khrushchev did, whether he liked it or not. Khrushchev merely sped up the process...Explain these "problems" that apparently necessitated revisionism.

[Roach]

Or, on the other hand, you're actually just an Idealist, who lacks to necessary social skills to articulate my posts, and instead, accuses me of the contradiction of Hoxhaism. The Contradiction of the American Conservatives, to them, is "Da Liberals". So, as a communist, you would be labeled as such, as it's their ideological contradiction. In this same way, pathetic Ismail tries to accuse me of being his ideological contradiction, when in fact, I am targeting his Idealism. And you should be ashamed of yourself, supporting that fucker called Hoxha, whom was an avid supporter of the Afghani Mujaheddin, and of the proxies of American imperialism, along with China, as a "retaliation against soviet social imperialism", when in fact you are merely playing into the hands of American Imperialism, much like how our "Leftists" here are supporting obvious reactionary currents in Syria, and from Libya.

I deem the Soviet Union as a bourgeois state. This is my label to it, throughout it's existence. And you yet again persist your Idealism, by, stating I am "covering for Khrushchev, Brezhnev, whom, to you, have some kind of unrelenting authority over material conditions. I see these people as mere spawns of shit Soviet material conditions, because, like I said, I'm a materialist.

And Hoxha dare call himself a distinguished theoretician of Marxism. More like an assclown of Idealism.
I think you should become aware of how much of a bloody pretentious rant this post looks. Alot of noise for little content.

[Omsk]

Or, on the other hand, you're actually just an Idealist, who lacks to necessary social skills to articulate my posts


And to me,it looks like you lack the necessary knowledge of history (Of the events mentioned in the thread and among others the USSR post Stalin) to actually go into clear,open and precise arguments,instead of doing that,your charging at windmills attackin Hoxha,Hoxhaism,and everything you run into,using broad terms.

[Rafiq]

Again you are apologizing for Soviet social-imperialism.

The Zimmerwald left and revolutionary defeatism, etc. Denouncing one faction of the Bourgeoisie does not imply you support it's enemy. It is possible to lack support for both (and that includes forces similar to the Hoxhaist and Maoist parties in Afghanistan, whom are just tailgating the Islamists).


Hoxha did not support the Afghan Mujahidin, he supported the Afghan people in their struggle to oppose a Soviet invasion of their country,

You must either confess to being a Bourgeois-Populist, or confess that "The Afghan people" as a single, collective force of interests does not exist. That little fragment right there was just as useless as those who say "It's better for the American people". What do you mean by "The people"? You mean the Mujaheddin, as, besides American special foces under cover, there was no actual existing powerful force besides the political currents of the Afghan Landowners, i.e. The Mujaheddin.



an invasion which brought forth an occupying force and which, naturally enough, was taken advantage of by American imperialism to turn the country into the Soviet's "Vietnam."


So now we should take into account what American Imperialists hold as a symbolic ideological representation of a situation?



China helped arm the Mujahidin and collaborated with the Americans. By contrast there were small pro-Albania groups in Afghanistan that Albania could neither directly influence nor arm, but who did their best under the circumstances to fight the Soviet occupiers and, as best as they could, attempted to build a genuinely Marxist-Leninist party.


And, like today's PFLP, or, from a more personal standpoint, the Lebanese Communist party, this force was merely a dog for the Islamists, whether they liked it or not, regardless of their ideological differences, and posed no real seperate Interest, no real existing political force which could "Build Marxism-Leninism in Afghanistan". By supporting them, you are supporting American Imperialism.


Explain these "problems" that apparently necessitated revisionism.


What Stalin was running became inefficient, and something had to be done. And even if this was not the case (which it is), material conditions that existed that even allowed an "Evil, terrible" man like Khrushchev were proof of the "Stalinist" imparity existing before him. For something to corrupt implies imparity from start. What a giveaway, Ismail, not only are you an adherent of Bourgeois thought, you also buy into a big proponent of bourgeois thought: "Power corrupts". You are indirectly implying power corrupts, since you cannot provide a material basis for how an external third party force like Khrushchev and his friends came about, and seized power.

Other wise, what are you targetting? Immoral powerful individuals, or the existing structure which allowed those individuals to exist?

Also, this brings us to a more important question: What do you target? Immoral CEO's which could be replaced by Moral ones, or the Capitalist system which allows them to meet their ends? If it is the second, you are inconsistent. Then, you would have to confess to the fact that the Soviet System, during Stalin's time, was impaired.

[Rafiq]

I think you should become aware of how much of a bloody pretentious rant this post looks. Alot of noise for little content.

Perhaps then, you should provide us with your own insight, and if you don't want to do so, shut your mouth?

[Ismail]

The Zimmerwald left and revolutionary defeatism, etc. Denouncing one faction of the Bourgeoisie does not imply you support it's enemy.Quite right. That is why Hoxha called for an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, against the imperialist designs the USSR and the USA had on it.


You mean the Mujaheddin, as, besides American special foces under cover, there was no actual existing powerful force besides the political currents of the Afghan Landowners, i.e. The Mujaheddin.The Mujahidin gained control due to US backing and armaments. There were plenty of Maoist and bourgeois-democratic groups initially, as there were as noted pro-Hoxha groups. Of course you write them all off as "dog[s] for the Islamists."

To answer your question, people like Khrushchev rose up because of a lack of political education on the part of the proletariat and because of the problem of bureaucracy, which obviously Albania itself was not able to surmount considering that the anti-bureaucratic campaigns of the late 60's and early 70's failed in curbing both bureaucratic positions and made only a temporary dent in bureaucratic mentalities.

[Roach]

Perhaps then, you should provide us with your own insight

I could very roughly say that Marxist-Leninists view the triumph of revisionism as a result of constant pressure and attacks from imperialist bourgeois states and the subsequent triumph of opportunist non-proletarian elements inside the Communist Parties. There is nothing idealist in considering the possibility of degeneration of Communist Parties due to internal contradictions, as Stalin puts very simply here:


I think that the source of the contradictions within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.

What are these circumstances?

They are, firstly, the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and, hence, the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat. Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of bourgeois society. The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.

They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of different strata within the working class. I think that the proletariat, as a class, can be divided into three strata.

One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure-blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.

The second stratum consists of newcomers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and have brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.

The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety to "get on in life." This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.

Notwithstanding their superficial difference, these last two strata of the working class constitute a more or less common nutritive medium for opportunism in general—open opportunism, when the sentiments of the labour aristocracy gain the upper hand, and opportunism camouflaged with "Left" phrases, when the sentiments of the semi-middle-class strata of the working class which have not yet completely broken with the petty-bourgeois environment gain the upper hand. The fact that "ultra-Left" sentiments very often coincide with the sentiments of open opportunism is not at all surprising. Lenin said time and again that the "ultra-Left" opposition is the reverse side of the Right-wing, Menshevik, openly opportunist opposition. And that is quite true. If the "ultra-Lefts" stand for revolution only because they expect the victory of the revolution the very next day, then obviously they must fall into despair and be disillusioned in the revolution if the revolution is delayed, if the revolution is not victorious the very next day.

Naturally, with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every sharpening of the struggle and intensification of difficulties, the differences in the views, customs and sentiments of the various strata of the proletariat must inevitably make themselves felt in the shape of definite disagreements within the party, and the pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably accentuate these disagreements by providing them with an outlet in the form of a struggle within the proletarian party.

Such are the sources of inner-Party contradictions and disagreements.

Can these contradictions and disagreements be avoided? No, they cannot. To think that these contradictions can be avoided is self-deception. Engels was right when he said that in the long run it is impossible to slur over contradictions within the party, that they must be fought out.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/22.htm

[Rafiq]

Quite right. That is why Hoxha called for an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, against the imperialist designs the USSR and the USA had on it.

While rampantly supporting the "Afghan People" A.k.a the American backed Salafists.


The Mujahidin gained control due to US backing and armaments. There were plenty of Maoist and bourgeois-democratic groups initially, as there were as noted pro-Hoxha groups. Of course you write them all off as "dog[s] for the Islamists."


As they were. Dogs for Islamists and Imperialists, organized by Land Owners and opportunistic imperialist plunderers.


To answer your question, people like Khrushchev rose up because of a lack of political education on the part of the proletariat and because of the problem of bureaucracy

The very same system that could not educate the proletariat, you wish, to bring about once more?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There was too much toleration for liberal capitalist parties, true enough.

Even in formalities there was too much toleration for "liberal democratic" parties, like the one in East Germany. There wasn't enough socialist pluralism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html?p=2081055).

[Blake's Baby]

Both were pro-market, pro-west collaboration movements. I can't provide you with any sort of reading material arguing against this point, however.

Did you used to be Noth?

[daft punk]

Both were pro-market, pro-west collaboration movements. I can't provide you with any sort of reading material arguing against this point, however.

I think you are wrong.

http://www.socialistworld.net/print/3746
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2494
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2472
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2472

[manic expression]

I think you are wrong.

http://www.socialistworld.net/print/3746
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2494
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2472
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2472
History disagrees (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf). See page 84 for collaboration between CIA agents and "freedom fighters", see page 86 for proof that each of the so-called "revolutionary councils" enthusiastically welcomed "almost anyone from the West".

[daft punk]

History disagrees (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf). See page 84 for collaboration between CIA agents and "freedom fighters", see page 86 for proof that each of the so-called "revolutionary councils" enthusiastically welcomed "almost anyone from the West".

I cant see where it says that. This is just one CIA report anyway, and mentions a few contacts.

"Bruce Renton of the New Statesman and Nation explained: ‘Nobody who was in Hungary during the revolution could escape the overwhelming impression that the Hungarian people had no desire or intention to return to the capitalist system’”"

"
There are inevitably many imponderables - the ’what-might-have-beens’ - of the great historic events of Hungary 1956. Recent media coverage has brought home how bewildering and misinterpreted the events of that year can be, not only to observers looking back across 50 years but even to participants in the insurrection itself.
Most have confirmed the socialist aims of the revolution, but, in then light of the collapse of Stalinism, now think perhaps they were striving for the impossible. But most of the capitalist media have deliberately obscured the ideals for which so many Hungarians were prepared to die."

from one of my links above

[manic expression]

I cant see where it says that.
Then you obviously didn't read it.

[svenne]

Manic Expression: Oh, for christs sake. An anti-imperialist should well know that in practice, the enemy of my enemy is my friend somestimes makes the strangest bed partners (marxists and religious fundamentalists, for example). If all the western alleged communist parties supports the Soviet Union, the insurrections enemy, of course the rebels try to get support from where they can, in this case - the US. The United States, as we all know, had a bad habit of supporting pretty much anything that in a geopolitical sense worked against the Soviet Union, even if it meant the Talibans in Afghanistan (just look at Rambo 3 for a lot of... funny hype of the same people whom later killed 3000 US citizens) or the Hungarians which worked against the Stalinist/Soviet/whatever system.

And while reading the pages you provided (84 and 86), i think you also should point at page 83, where the cause for the contacts seems to have had different causes; not only for weapons, but also for medical supplies, ways to communicate in Hungary (the radio systems later mentioned on page 84) and as a way to tell the people of the West what was happening. Another obvious thing in the aforementioned report is that the CIA seems to have been somewhat taken by surprise of the rebellion, which is obvious in the first two pages.

And one of the finest pieces of the link you provided is "At no time in the period 23 October - 4 November, if one looks at the situation realistically, did we have anything that could or should have been mistaken for an intelligence operation." (page 82)

Of course there were tendencies of the Hungarian revolution whom wanted to install a capitalist system of the western kind. But was it the hegemonic tendency? Or was it a democratic socialist? And of course neither you nor (or anyone else) has any idea what would have been the result if the Warzaw Pact withdrew.

[manic expression]

@Svenne: An anti-imperialist should know very well that collaboration with imperialism is neither friendly nor practical. The clients of imperialism, from the Taliban to the Hungarian rebels, were reactionary and did not stand to progress the interests of the workers purely by virtue of their association with the greatest enemies of the masses. A victory for the Hungarian mobs would have represented the destruction of socialism and a distinct opportunity for the imperialists to not only reestablish rule in Hungary but also threaten peoples throughout Europe. It was vital for all workers that imperialism's allies be defeated in Hungary, and thankfully that was what happened.

Yes, I admit that there was no one cause of the Hungarian rebels, but then again that only presses home the idea that this had no potential to be progressive. A divided if not divergent rebellion making common cause with imperialism...that's a recipe for terrible things.

And yes, I admit that the CIA was caught by surprise and that they weren't able to deploy very many resources inside the country...but we know from their documents that they would have had it not been for the internationalist intervention. The rebels were eager to do work with the CIA and the CIA was finally getting in a position to act upon this, but this was fortunately cut short by the reliberation of Hungary.

And no, we can't know for sure what would have happened, but we do know that capitalist parties were legalized and promoted, and that the tendency of the rebels was in no way progressive. We don't know where it would have ended but it was heading to the right, and violently so. That is enough to justify the timely internationalist victory.

[svenne]

@Svenne: An anti-imperialist should know very well that collaboration with imperialism is neither friendly nor practical. The clients of imperialism, from the Taliban to the Hungarian rebels, were reactionary and did not stand to progress the interests of the workers purely by virtue of their association with the greatest enemies of the masses. A victory for the Hungarian mobs would have represented the destruction of socialism and a distinct opportunity for the imperialists to not only reestablish rule in Hungary but also threaten peoples throughout Europe. It was vital for all workers that imperialism's allies be defeated in Hungary, and thankfully that was what happened.So, honestly speaking: being in contact with the west (or rather, the CIA), knowingly or unknowingly solemly decides an insurrections character? I find that to be, well, un-marxist. The forming of factory councils etc. doesn't bother you, as it's pretty obvious that it's progressive thing, in opposition to both the Soviet and the western system. Also: workers work in factories. Also obvious: it was a revolution where the working class participated. While not communist in itself, it's a pretty good idea about the general feeling of the public.


Yes, I admit that there was no one cause of the Hungarian rebels, but then again that only presses home the idea that this had no potential to be progressive. A divided if not divergent rebellion making common cause with imperialism...that's a recipe for terrible things.As you know, the Russian revolution also included a lot of non-progressive elements. And while we propably have differing opinions on the result, i guess we can both agree with the idea that a progressive option won.


And yes, I admit that the CIA was caught by surprise and that they weren't able to deploy very many resources inside the country...but we know from their documents that they would have had it not been for the internationalist intervention. The rebels were eager to do work with the CIA and the CIA was finally getting in a position to act upon this, but this was fortunately cut short by the reliberation of Hungary.Internationalist intervention? Huh...

The rebels were eager to get help from whoever would help them, and since the western communist parties were on the side of the Soviet Union... You see where i'm going here? Internationalist intervention, if it were to occur, would have been from one working class to another. Not in the form of a military intervention against a revolution with clear democratic and socialist purposes.


And no, we can't know for sure what would have happened, but we do know that capitalist parties were legalized and promoted, and that the tendency of the rebels was in no way progressive. We don't know where it would have ended but it was heading to the right, and violently so. That is enough to justify the timely internationalist victory. Problem being, you see the only left-option as being the way of the Soviet Union. While i do not endorse capitalist democracy, i'm pretty sure it's a bad idea to forbid capitalism as an idea. My feeling of the rebellion is that it was a rebellion against both bad living standards and non-existense of democracy. If the then current system could offer those thing, it's pretty obvious you're sooner or later gonna meet massive opposition. Look at Greece today.

And honestly speaking, reading "reliberation of Hungary" when clearly the masses where against it, makes me kinda afraid of the dark and wondering about how many seconds i would get to live if (and let me tell you this: it's an if, not a when) a Soviet style party rule were to be installed in the country where i live...

[A Marxist Historian]

Manic Expression: Oh, for christs sake. An anti-imperialist should well know that in practice, the enemy of my enemy is my friend somestimes makes the strangest bed partners (marxists and religious fundamentalists, for example). If all the western alleged communist parties supports the Soviet Union, the insurrections enemy, of course the rebels try to get support from where they can, in this case - the US. The United States, as we all know, had a bad habit of supporting pretty much anything that in a geopolitical sense worked against the Soviet Union, even if it meant the Talibans in Afghanistan (just look at Rambo 3 for a lot of... funny hype of the same people whom later killed 3000 US citizens) or the Hungarians which worked against the Stalinist/Soviet/whatever system.

And while reading the pages you provided (84 and 86), i think you also should point at page 83, where the cause for the contacts seems to have had different causes; not only for weapons, but also for medical supplies, ways to communicate in Hungary (the radio systems later mentioned on page 84) and as a way to tell the people of the West what was happening. Another obvious thing in the aforementioned report is that the CIA seems to have been somewhat taken by surprise of the rebellion, which is obvious in the first two pages.

And one of the finest pieces of the link you provided is "At no time in the period 23 October - 4 November, if one looks at the situation realistically, did we have anything that could or should have been mistaken for an intelligence operation." (page 82)

Of course there were tendencies of the Hungarian revolution whom wanted to install a capitalist system of the western kind. But was it the hegemonic tendency? Or was it a democratic socialist? And of course neither you nor (or anyone else) has any idea what would have been the result if the Warzaw Pact withdrew.

In fact, the report proves even less than that. It's all about doings out in the sticks, the countryside. The CIA guy was forced to work out there up to no good, hiding his identity, as the working class in the main centers of the Revolution, in Budapest and other worker centers, wouldn't have anything to do with him or people like him.

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Budapest Workers Council had even the slightest desire to get arms from the West, which in any case wasn't providing any. Allegedly so as "not to provoke the Russians," in fact because, though they had hopes that Russian tanks would slaughter workers so as to create anti-Communism, the imperialists didn't have the slightest desire for the workers to actually win.

-M.H.-

[manic expression]

So, honestly speaking: being in contact with the west (or rather, the CIA), knowingly or unknowingly solemly decides an insurrections character? I find that to be, well, un-marxist. The forming of factory councils etc. doesn't bother you, as it's pretty obvious that it's progressive thing, in opposition to both the Soviet and the western system. Also: workers work in factories. Also obvious: it was a revolution where the working class participated. While not communist in itself, it's a pretty good idea about the general feeling of the public.
Yes, knowingly being in contact with the US greatly decides the character of individuals and organizations and movements. To say otherwise is willful ignorance. Progressives don't collaborate with imperialism unless they're fighting fascism. End of.

As for the "factory councils", that's hardly very democratic after pro-Soviet socialists were lynched and intimidated from public view. And really, are we supposed to be that naive to think that any council formed in any factory is always going to be progressive? A truly insultingly silly proposition if I've ever seen one.

Further, that workers were involved means absolutely nothing. You can say the same thing about WWI or the KKK...not exactly proof of progressivism.


As you know, the Russian revolution also included a lot of non-progressive elements. And while we propably have differing opinions on the result, i guess we can both agree with the idea that a progressive option won.
Which?

And yes, we can both agree that progressives won.


The rebels were eager to get help from whoever would help them, and since the western communist parties were on the side of the Soviet Union... You see where i'm going here? Internationalist intervention, if it were to occur, would have been from one working class to another. Not in the form of a military intervention against a revolution with clear democratic and socialist purposes.
You said it yourself: if an internationalist intervention were to occur, how could it not come in the form of a military intervention? Any aid from one working class to another would inevitably utilize military force, it would be the whole point of the intervention...do you not agree?


Problem being, you see the only left-option as being the way of the Soviet Union. While i do not endorse capitalist democracy, i'm pretty sure it's a bad idea to forbid capitalism as an idea. My feeling of the rebellion is that it was a rebellion against both bad living standards and non-existense of democracy. If the then current system could offer those thing, it's pretty obvious you're sooner or later gonna meet massive opposition. Look at Greece today.
Well, if you knew my views I don't think you'd say that. I think Yugoslavia, the PRC and Albania were all progressive forces in the world and yet all of them went against the USSR quite directly. It's not about "Soviet Union or Bust", it's about the character of a movement as defined by their actions.

Yes, I agree that both living standards and the voice of the people are two important things in any society. However, I think the Hungarian rebellion would have triggered a decrease in both: living standards and democracy would have been at the mercy of NATO, and because of the horrors in Yugoslavia and across the world we know what they would have done.


And honestly speaking, reading "reliberation of Hungary" when clearly the masses where against it, makes me kinda afraid of the dark and wondering about how many seconds i would get to live if (and let me tell you this: it's an if, not a when) a Soviet style party rule were to be installed in the country where i live...
How were the masses "clearly" against it? Most anyone who had anything good to say about the Soviet Union were being hunted down...so they hardly had the capacity to raise any objection. And remember, not everyone participated in the demonstrations and the insurrection. We could go about calculating seconds if you found yourself on the wrong end of an anti-socialist mob, but it's enough to say it wouldn't be beneficial to any progressive.

[manic expression]

In fact, the report proves even less than that. It's all about doings out in the sticks, the countryside.
I admit it's not the easiest thing to read, it's redacted in points and so on, but the author does note that they met several individuals involved in the goings-on in Budapest, and that those people were no different in their pro-western stances.

Indeed, the border area with Austria is hardly "the sticks"...Gyor isn't far at all, and it was and is one of Hungary's more important industrial centers.


The CIA guy was forced to work out there up to no good, hiding his identity, as the working class in the main centers of the Revolution, in Budapest and other worker centers, wouldn't have anything to do with him or people like him.
Then if they didn't like him, why were they arranging to get material support from his spymasters?


In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Budapest Workers Council had even the slightest desire to get arms from the West, which in any case wasn't providing any. Allegedly so as "not to provoke the Russians," in fact because, though they had hopes that Russian tanks would slaughter workers so as to create anti-Communism, the imperialists didn't have the slightest desire for the workers to actually win.
Not true. It's universally acknowledged that the imperialist propaganda radio station Radio "Free" Europe played a large role in stiffening the rebellion's resolve against the internationalist intervention. Watch this at 8.04 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVdQ9PK9Q5o)

Also notice at 5.33 how they burned red flags and attacked communists (using those same tanks their supporters keep complaining about). Charming, real charming...but not the actions of any secret, latent communist movement.