1956 Hungary, genuine proletarian uprising or CIA backed fascist counterrevolution?

[Let's Get Free]

???

[Geiseric]

You're insane, out of your mind, psychopathic, if you think that the Hungarian revolution was supported by the CIA, or Fascists of any kind. If you know what fascism is, that theory doesn't make any sense. It was a movement for communism without the Stalinist bureaucracy. It was nothing like Kronstadt, which was led by White army generals who later fled to finland, which was known to support the white movement. Workers councils were actually the ones organizing the insurrection.

[Ostrinski]

You're insane, out of your mind, psychopathic, if you think that the Hungarian revolution was supported by the CIA, or Fascists of any kind. If you know what fascism is, that theory doesn't make any sense. It was a movement for communism without the Stalinist bureaucracy. It was nothing like Kronstadt, which was led by White army generals who later fled to finland, which was known to support the white movement. Workers councils were actually the ones organizing the insurrection.I think you would have gotten much more respect for this post by a great many more people if you simply the left the part out about Kronstadt.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Check out this short movie about the Hungarian Revolution. It's directed by Peter Watkins, the same guy who did "Punishment Park" (about an alternate history America becoming a bizarre fascist dictatorship sometime in the 1970's). It's very sympathic towards the anti-regime forces in Hungary, but it's somewhat interesting/entertaining imagining of some of the participant's motives:

QtiZFnrOnrc

[Geiseric]

I think you would have gotten much more respect for this post by a great many more people if you simply the left the part out about Kronstadt.

I'm not here for rep... Kronstadt was very different from the Hungarian uprising. Kronstadt was a hundred percent supported by the french and czarist forces, and to this day is used as the bourgeois high school anti-climax of the Russian revolution. Hungary was completely different, with workers taking over their factories and collective farms, with the intent of using it to build a socialist economy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It was nothing like Kronstadt, which was led by White army generals who later fled to finland

Not to derail this thread with another boring Kronstadt discussion, but even Victor Serge called that bullshit out:


At intervals along the deserted streets there were little wall posters announcing treacherous seizure of Kronstadt by the counter-revolutionary general Kozlovski and his accomplices, and summoning the workers to arms. But even before I reached the District Committee headquarters I ran into several comrades who had already turned out, mauser in hand, and they told me that the Kozlovski business was a contemptible lie: the Kronstadt sailors had mutinied, and what we were up against was a naval rebellion led by the Kronstadt Soviet. If anything, that was still more serious; and the worst of it was the paralyzing effect of the official lie upon us. For the party to lie to us this way was something new. 'They had to do it because of the mood of the people,' some of my acquaintances explained. But they were frightened too. The strike had become almost general. Nobody even knew whether the street-cars would run.

From: http://www.revleft.com/vb/kronstadt-t80959/index.html

[Geiseric]

It wasn't directly led by a white general, but it was completely petit bourgeois in character.

Well the Kronstadt soviet was dominated by SRs and overall petit bourgeoisie. Their slogan was "Soviets without Communists," which was supported by SRs, Mensheviks, and Liberals alike, because without the communists, the soviets wouldn't of lasted as long as they did. On top of all that, the sailors who came from a working class origin which supported the bolsheviks (which at the point of the revolution didn't have a very strong precence in Kronstadt aside from the working class sailors) were dead.

On top of all of that, the imaginary massacre in Petrograd that was supposedly in solidarity with Kronstadt never happened, and the movement in Petrograd that was about improving conditions during the civil war was if anything repelled by the mutiny.

Also Victor Serge supported the Bolsheviks while this entire thing was going on. But my point is that Hungary was completely different. We can talk about Kronstadt in some other thread if you'd like.

[bricolage]

Check out this short movie about the Hungarian Revolution. It's directed by Peter Watkins, the same guy who did "Punishment Park"
and this absolute epic (epic in terms of length not quality...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Commune_(Paris,_1871)

[campesino]

un-proletarian nationalist movement headed by discontent former Hungarian nazis leading the equivalent of a 1956 Hungarian tea party(the modern one not the colonial era one)

[Leo]

Hungary 1956 was a genuine proletarian uprising. (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/hungary-1956)

[Geiseric]

un-proletarian nationalist movement headed by discontent former Hungarian nazis leading the equivalent of a 1956 Hungarian tea party(the modern one not the colonial era one)

On the contrary, the Soviet backed government was actually the one made up of ex nazis. The premier for a while, Bela Miklos, was rewarded the Iron Cross.

[campesino]

on the contrary, the soviet backed government was actually the one made up of ex nazis. The premier for a while, bela miklos, was rewarded the iron cross.

lalalalalalalalalala i can't hear you

[Ostrinski]

lalalalalalalalalala i can't hear youIs this supposed to satirize Stalinists? Can't tell but I hope so.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

lalalalalalalalalala i can't hear you

I*

[o well this is ok I guess]

It wasn't directly led by a white general, but it was completely petit bourgeois in character.

Well the Kronstadt soviet was dominated by SRs and overall petit bourgeoisie. Their slogan was "Soviets without Communists," which was supported by SRs, Mensheviks, and Liberals alike, because without the communists, the soviets wouldn't of lasted as long as they did. On top of all that, the sailors who came from a working class origin which supported the bolsheviks (which at the point of the revolution didn't have a very strong precence in Kronstadt aside from the working class sailors) were dead.

On top of all of that, the imaginary massacre in Petrograd that was supposedly in solidarity with Kronstadt never happened, and the movement in Petrograd that was about improving conditions during the civil war was if anything repelled by the mutiny.

Also Victor Serge supported the Bolsheviks while this entire thing was going on. But my point is that Hungary was completely different. We can talk about Kronstadt in some other thread if you'd like. Man I really shouldn't be getting into this, but could you please go back to and read some of the old Devrim and M.H. posts on Kronstadt? This topic never dies because no one bothers to actually read what's been said on the topic.

[campesino]

yah, I was satirizing, but that doesn't mean I don't love my M-L bros.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

yah, I was satirizing, but that doesn't mean I don't love my M-L bros.

Posting in huge-ass fonts can hardly be called satire, maybe “screaming for attention” would be a better term.
If only you were actually funny.

[Geiseric]

I thought it was pretty funny. Anyways, there was no bourgeoisie nor petit bourgeoisie inside of Hungary, so I fail to see how it could of possibly been anything other than a working class movement.

[hetz]

You're insane, out of your mind, psychopathic, if you think that the Hungarian revolution was supported by the CIA, or Fascists of any kind.
Sorry but these are well known facts.
You can even search revleft for more info.


I thought it was pretty funny. Anyways, there was no bourgeoisie nor petit bourgeoisie inside of Hungary, so I fail to see how it could of possibly been anything other than a working class movement.

Small capitalists were very strong in Hungary, even the collectivization there wasn't over till the 60s.
Besides, you can have a movement of the working class that is a completely anti-working class movement, take the various fascist and quasi-fascist organizations...
Who makes up the majority of the Tea Party anyway?

[Prof. Oblivion]

Small capitalists were very strong in Hungary

So, are you saying Hungary wasn't socialist? If so, what was it? Capitalist?

[Grenzer]

I thought it was pretty funny. Anyways, there was no bourgeoisie nor petit bourgeoisie inside of Hungary, so I fail to see how it could of possibly been anything other than a working class movement.

Yeah man, Gorbachev's move towards a bourgeois republic was a movement of the working class, since that's the only class that existed!

[Rational Radical]

Okay , let me get a shot at this...it was an um,anarcho-trotskyist francoist fascist counter-revolution betrayed by the CIA,the ghosts of the Kronstadt Rebels and the revisionists :D :laugh:

[Geiseric]

Yeah man, Gorbachev's move towards a bourgeois republic was a movement of the working class, since that's the only class that existed! well the only other option would be the hungarian revolution being done by the bureaucracy, or "state capitalists," as you guys call them, which is unlikely. The petit bourgeosise wasn't an important factor in the event by any means.

[Geiseric]

Sorry but these are well known facts.
You can even search revleft for more info.


Small capitalists were very strong in Hungary, even the collectivization there wasn't over till the 60s.
Besides, you can have a movement of the working class that is a completely anti-working class movement, take the various fascist and quasi-fascist organizations...
Who makes up the majority of the Tea Party anyway?

Well by 56 i'd assume the collectivization was nearly over. And the tea party is completely petit bourgeoisie, and is in no way similar at all to the hungarian revolutionaries.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Wasn't it kind of a short-lived council communism?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Wasn't it kind of a short-lived council communism?

That's the impression I got when I was reading up on it, the quote from wiki below suggests it too.

Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party. By 30 October, these councils had been officially sanctioned by the Hungarian Working People's Party, and the Nagy government asked for their support as "autonomous, democratic local organs formed during the Revolution". Likewise, workers' councils were established at industrial plants and mines, and many unpopular regulations such as production norms were eliminated. The workers' councils strove to manage the enterprise whilst protecting workers' interests, thus establishing a socialist economy free of rigid party control. Local control by the councils was not always bloodless; in Debrecen, Győr, Sopron, Mosonmagyaróvár and other cities, crowds of demonstrators were fired upon by the ÁVH, with many lives lost. The ÁVH were disarmed, often by force, in many cases assisted by the local police.
In total there were approximately 2,100 local revolutionary and workers councils with over 28,000 members. These councils held a combined conference in Budapest decided to end the nationwide labor strikes and resume work on November 5, with the more important councils sending delegates to the Parliament to assure the Nagy government of their support.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956#The_New_Hungarian_Nat ional_Government)

[Crimson Commissar]

It certainly wasn't fascist, but to call it proletarian would be a pretty far stretch as well. CIA-backed though? Certainly. It's no secret that the USA and NATO openly backed or at least supported counter-revolution in the East just as they did in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the entire Eastern Bloc in 1989/1990.

I don't think it's a movement that can really be blanketed under one label though. There were certainly Leftists involved in the revolution, but there was also a very distinct Capitalist and incredibly pro-western tinge to it and it's hard to believe that Hungary wouldn't have just swung right back to a bourgeois free market economy if they had succeeded in breaking away from Communist control. Whether the people on the ground sought to dismantle the Socialist regime or not, I get the feeling that those who could have plausibly taken power with their support would have definitely wanted so.

Either way I find it inaccurate to say that the revolution was unsuccessful or was "crushed" by the intervention. Reforms took place afterwards regardless, and the Stalinist relic that was the pre-1956 government was gone for good. The Soviet intervention was never because of reform in the country, it was because of worrying signs that Hungary was attempting to move itself towards the Western Bloc and away from the Warsaw Pact and Socialism.

[Prof. Oblivion]

It certainly wasn't fascist, but to call it proletarian would be a pretty far stretch as well. CIA-backed though? Certainly. It's no secret that the USA and NATO openly backed or at least supported counter-revolution in the East just as they did in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the entire Eastern Bloc in 1989/1990.

I don't think it's a movement that can really be blanketed under one label though. There were certainly Leftists involved in the revolution, but there was also a very distinct Capitalist and incredibly pro-western tinge to it and it's hard to believe that Hungary wouldn't have just swung right back to a bourgeois free market economy if they had succeeded in breaking away from Communist control. Whether the people on the ground sought to dismantle the Socialist regime or not, I get the feeling that those who could have plausibly taken power with their support would have definitely wanted so.

Either way I find it inaccurate to say that the revolution was unsuccessful or was "crushed" by the intervention. Reforms took place afterwards regardless, and the Stalinist relic that was the pre-1956 government was gone for good. The Soviet intervention was never because of reform in the country, it was because of worrying signs that Hungary was attempting to move itself towards the Western Bloc and away from the Warsaw Pact and Socialism.

Was Hungary socialist, or were there capitalists there?

[Crimson Commissar]

Was Hungary socialist, or were there capitalists there?

It was it's own form of Socialist with some quite strongly Stalinist tendencies pre-1956. There were no Capitalists in the sense of those that owned capital and exploited labour, but I mean it in a more general term of "those who support Capitalism". Of which there were inevitably going to be a sizable number of no matter how free, progressive or liberal the ruling party could have tried to be.

Also take into account the foreign Capitalists and corporations which no doubt saw the opportunity to move in to Hungary should the planned economy have been removed. Exactly what happened in 1989/1990 as foreign companies like Coca Cola became ecstatic at all the new free markets that were emerging from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the "democratization" of the East.

[Paul Cockshott]

I thought it was pretty funny. Anyways, there was no bourgeoisie nor petit bourgeoisie inside of Hungary, so I fail to see how it could of possibly been anything other than a working class movement.

Are you claiming that prior to 1956 the entire former capitalist class and middle class had been put to death by the communists?

I have never seen such a ridiculous claim.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Also, I wanted to make a separate post as this is a separate issue than the previous question posed.

Regarding CIA operations in Hungary, we have the privilege nowadays of having access to previously classified, primary source material on both the American and Soviet sides.

We know that as of October 23, 1956 there was only a single CIA operative in Hungary:


On 23 October there was no Hungarian Operations Section...and there were no Hungarian speakers among the case officers. On the agent-roster there was one Hungarian...Before 23 October his activities were not directed towards the Hungarian target. During the months just previous to October 1956 only a small number of the total reports received by the agency on the intellectual and political ferment of Hungary originate [REDACTED]. At the outbreak of the revolution, [REDACTED] in sum, was not facing in the direction of Hungary...the Hungarian target was relegated to the next lowest priority...The CIA admitted it had no role in the uprising (that's right, not even its one Hungarian operative), as it simply was completely unprepared and therefore unable to organize to respond. By the time they could have done so, it was much too late:


The period 23 October to 4 November, the only period under consideration here, was too short to effect a [REDACTED] reorganization to meet a crisis, whose exact nature, duration and final significance could not be rightly judged at any time during that period. To have taken time to reorganize would have meant to lose time from the job of finding out what was going on. Besides, during the original crisis there could be little concept of mission and objectives on which to base a reorganization. [REDACTED] reacted to the suddenly fluid and frenetic circumstances of the situation the only way it could, which was by throwing everyone available into the job of covering the crisis on a hit-or-miss basis, somewhat the way a newspaper office does, when suddenly confronted with a catastrophic event.Clandestine Services History: The Hungarian Revolution and Planning for the Future Oct 23 - Nov 4 1956. V1 prepared 1958. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf)

So it is a cold hard fact that the CIA didn't even have an organized section in Hungary until December 11, 1957, more than a year after the revolution smashed.

The USSR was about as unprepared and surprised by the uprising as the CIA.

EDIT: I suppose we could look at the Soviet documents as well. Based on the Oct 28 notes from the CPSU CC Presidium Session, Cde. Suslov states:


The popular view of our troops now is bad (and has gotten worse). The reason is the dispersal of the demonstration on 24 [sic] Oct. 56. Shooting began. 70 ordinary citizens were killed...Workers are leaving their enterprises. Councils are being formed (spontaneously) at enterprises (around various cities). There is an anti-Soviet trend to the demonstrations.

Document No. 40: Working Notes from the CPSU CC Presidium Session, October 28, 1956 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/Doc%2040.pdf)

[Crimson Commissar]

Are you claiming that prior to 1956 the entire former capitalist class and middle class had been put to death by the communists?

I have never seen such a ridiculous claim.

To death? Of course not. I just don't think they had any real power left over the Hungarian working class after a good 8 or so years of Communist rule.


So it is a cold hard fact that the CIA didn't even have an organized section in Hungary until December 11, 1957, more than a year after the revolution smashed.

The USSR was about as unprepared and surprised by the uprising as the CIA.

My mistake then. I still think it's rather ignorant to think the CIA and the entire US government didn't wet their pants with anticipation the moment they got word of the revolution though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some Hungarians call for an American intervention in 1956 to depose of the Communists entirely? We should be glad they were so unprepared to be honest..

[Prof. Oblivion]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some Hungarians call for an American intervention in 1956 to depose of the Communists entirely? We should be glad they were so unprepared to be honest..Who are these "some Hungarians" and how many were they?

Anyways, feel free to answer the above query but I don't think it will lead to any meaningful, substantive claims, so I'll move back to this:


It was it's own form of Socialist with some quite strongly Stalinist tendencies pre-1956. There were no Capitalists in the sense of those that owned capital and exploited labour, but I mean it in a more general term of "those who support Capitalism". Of which there were inevitably going to be a sizable number of no matter how free, progressive or liberal the ruling party could have tried to be.

Also take into account the foreign Capitalists and corporations which no doubt saw the opportunity to move in to Hungary should the planned economy have been removed. Exactly what happened in 1989/1990 as foreign companies like Coca Cola became ecstatic at all the new free markets that were emerging from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the "democratization" of the East.

So if someone is pro-capitalist in the ideological sense, are they then a capitalist? How does one become a "pro-capitalist" inside of a socialist country if they have a proletarian relation to the means of production? What would make one become a "pro-capitalist"? I'm not trying to be facetious; this concept is essential to the Stalinist understanding of socialism and therefore is fundamental in the discussion.

[Crimson Commissar]

Who are these "some Hungarians" and how many were they?

Have to admit it's just something I heard on a whim a few times. Whenever I read what modern Hungarians have to say about the situation they always try to squeeze in a little lament about how "the US army did nothing to save them when they asked". Just something I wanted to bring up really.


So if someone is pro-capitalist in the ideological sense, are they then a capitalist?

Not in the sense of owning capital, no. Sorry if I sometimes use the term "Capitalist" a bit interchangably here. I understand if it can be confusing.


How does one become a "pro-capitalist" inside of a socialist country if they have a proletarian relation to the means of production?

Because you're never going to reach a point in which 100% of people are always happy with Socialism 100% of the time. Especially in the flawed structure of Socialism in pre-'56 Hungary. I suppose I'd have to ask you why you think having proletarian control of the means of production suddenly means everyone will just up and abandon their personal beliefs? If the USA became a Socialist state, would all the nationalists and conservatives that fall under the definition of working class suddenly turn into red-blooded radical Communists?


What would make one become a "pro-capitalist"? I'm not trying to be facetious; this concept is essential to the Stalinist understanding of socialism and therefore is fundamental in the discussion.

Quite simply, supporting a return to Capitalism, bourgeois control of production and free market processes would class as "pro-capitalist".

[Prof. Oblivion]

Because you're never going to reach a point in which 100% of people are always happy with Socialism 100% of the time. Especially in the flawed structure of Socialism in pre-'56 Hungary. I suppose I'd have to ask you why you think having proletarian control of the means of production suddenly means everyone will just up and abandon their personal beliefs? If the USA became a Socialist state, would all the nationalists and conservatives that fall under the definition of working class suddenly turn into red-blooded radical Communists?So I suppose what you're saying is that there is an ideological struggle within a socialist state, but not a material one, and that the economic struggle has been completed but the ideological one continues on?

[Crimson Commissar]

So I suppose what you're saying is that there is an ideological struggle within a socialist state, but not a material one, and that the economic struggle has been completed but the ideological one continues on?

In a certain sense, yes. I don't think it's all that necessary to bog it down with so many semantics though. All I'm saying is that ideological boundaries do not instantly disintegrate even within a Socialist state.

[Prof. Oblivion]

In a certain sense, yes.

Okay, because that is the very definition of idealism, and is completely antithetical to Marxian thought.

[Omsk]

It was a terrorist insurrection in Budapest, the blood hounds slaughtered many good Hungarian communists and civilians, and the poor Soviet soldiers which were sent there by the revisionists. The insurrectionists even released religious figures, former fascists, etc etc. They also legalized the pre-war bourgeois terror parties. Not to mention the insurrectionists wanted a bourgeois democracy and imperialist help. On the other hand, you had the Dudas groups which slaughtered people on the streets. I talked to some former AVH men, their stories were horrible, the insurrectionist scum lynched dozens of poor men, even young men, who had little to do with the system. Those are the details, as a whole, the insurrection was a complete mess, and it was definitelly used by the imperialists and the revisionists. Poor Hungarians.
For Hoxhas view on the Hungarian tragedy, see: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm)
(It's from his work about the Soviet revisionists.)

Here is something i wrote some time ago about this subject, it's from internet dicussion, so don't expect too much:

it was an event led by reformists,defended by right-wingers and full of nationalist,reactionary,anti-socialist and anti-communist rhetorics and acts.Don't listen to the romantic tales of the 'uprising' and 'heroism' - read about how Red Stars were removed,and how communist literature was burned or how the bandit groups of the likes of József Dudás rounded up and massacred communists or completely innocent people.Read how they rallied under nationalist monuments,sung nationalist songs,and promoted the Hungarian national flag. Or how they demanded that various reactionaries had to be released from the prisons they were in. Or how they basically fought for a social-democratic Hungary and a bourgeois multi-party system.

The Soviet backed regime of Erno Gero (The regime that was caught up by the insurrection.),was by no means in support of Stalin,in fact, Mátyás Rákosi which was not anti-Stalin was replaced by Erno Gero (ie he was removed by the Soviet Politburo under N.S. ) and sent to the Kirgiz Soviet Socialist Republic,in the USSR,in hopes to remove him from the political events in Hungary. So the Hungarian regime of the 56 events was not in support of Stalin,but was in fact,going toward the Khrushchev line.

This should not even be debated these days,we all saw the pictures of lynched and murdered communists and AVH members,their legs and backs broken,their heads crushed with rifles and rocks,the communist symbols teared off their uniforms and the pictures of revolutionary figures like Lenin and Stalin smashed with hammers while nationalist songs dedicated to 'great fathers of the nation' were sung.The flags of the state which had clear 'socialist symbols' ruined and replaced with nation-flags.Tanks (captured from the Soviets,their crew members shot or slaughtered.) rolled in the streats while mobs tried to hunt down communists who opposed the murdering groups of Dudas and similar terrorist bandits.

And the nationalists from various other countries gathered in the Hungarian socialist grave,like black birds looking for targets,their pens and notebooks ready to spread malicious lies and half-truths,their mind only focused on the 'brutality and harsh reactions' of the old loyalists and the Soviet soldiers.No one talked about the Soviet casualties,no one talked about the Soviet men who were sent in by the revisionists to do enforce their official party doctrines.The figures in Kremlin had no intention to evade the violence,they were partially responsible for the reformist and liberal circles to gain power,to eliminate those who were in favor of the 'old ways' , and to launch a state-scale insurrection against the dubious communists in Hungary.And how do these crowds of nationalists and opportunists could recognize who was a communist,and who was not?

The AVH members,even the most obscure and unimportant ones,were murdered and lynched if caught.How many of them?Hard to say,the AVH was big,and the size of the crimes was huge,even Western people noted that the "The secret police lie twisted in the gutter" the men were massacred,in their main command,in the streets,in the towns and villages,no one asked what was their role in the AVH,they were just lynched and slaughtered.All of this well documented.As for the 'political prisoners' (Reactionaries.) they escaped and were let loose by the hundreds.Words can't describe my disgust with the 'Hungarian revolution.'

Why did they topple the Red Star on the building of the radio station? Why did they burn communist books? (Lenin,Marx,Stalin,etc etc.) Why did the leaders of Hungary in that period call for social-democracy? Why did the group of Dudas massacre more than 20 AVH guards in just one raid? Why are there confirmed (By the Hungarian terrorists.) murders of party members who had nothing to do with the situation? (I think they minimalized it,saying 200 were killed.)The Public Communist symbols such as red stars and Soviet war memorials were removed, and vandalized,while the statues of 'Great national heroes' were of course,used as grouping stations. What did they do with their flag? Oh nothing,they just removed the communist red star from it. The Hungarian insurrection was absolutely anti-communist.


The Red Stars were destroyed,AVH murdered,party members murdered,statues of Red Army soldiers crushed,statues of Stalin destroyed,pictures of Lenin and Stalin burned,books burned. The terrorist militias slaughtered many soldiers and party members,who were decent,true communists. When the Dudas group stormed an AVH building,more than 20 officers were lynched in the most vile way. Public executions of communists,demands like: "Social-democracy" and "A multi-party sustem" , "Out with the Soviets" ,not to mention the reactionaries and formerly banned parties emerged like an infection,like maggots on a wound. And what do the revisionists in the USSR doo? Get their man (Kadar.) to lead the country after they disposed of the 'old man' (Nagy was also a Soviet/Yugoslav agent.)

The Hungarian 1956 insurrection is a good myth for liberals,but we as communists should examine it's roots,it's leaders and the actions of the "revolutionaries". When examined,they show the ugly right-wing reactionary face of the "revolution".


As far as i know,most of them are the generic right-wing "battle for democracy" or "freedom" - the Hungarian nationalists like to say that Stalinism was killed in Hungary (Based on the fact that the insurrectionists vandalized and destroyed a statue of Joseph Stalin.) The regime of Janos Kadar left little space for any historians to examine the insurrection,mainly because of the roles of Nikita Sergeyevich, Kadar,Imre Nagy and Josip Broz Tito in the insurrection. (They were all basically alies,at certain points,but later,they abandoned Imre,like they cast away Erno Gero.)

Enver Hoxha wrote about the role of the revisionists in Hungary - and he described a conversation he had with the top Soviet leaders (Before the "anti-party group" was purged. - For those who don't know,the anti-party group was a force opposed to Nikita and his thugs,not the best men,but still,much better than N.S. [Molotov,Malenkov,etc etc]

This conversation happened in April 1957 :

- I was in Moscow with a delegation of our Party and Government. After a non-official dinner in the Kremlin, in Yekaterinsky Zal, we sat down in a corner to take coffee with Khrushchev, Molotov, Mikoyan, Bulganin, etc. In the course of the conversation Molotov turned to me and, as if joking, said:
“Tomorrow Mikoyan is going to Vienna, to try to cook up the same broth as he did in Budapest.”
To keep the conversation going I asked him:
“Did Mikoyan prepare that broth?”
“Who else?” said Molotov.
“Then Mikoyan can’t go back to Budapest again,” I said.
“If Mikoyan goes there again, they will hang him,” Molotov continued.
Khrushchev had dropped his eyes and was stirring his coffee. Mikoyan frowned, ground his teeth and then said with a cynical smile:
“Why should I not go to Budapest? If they hang me, they will hang Kadar, too, because we prepared that broth together.”

The same thing happened in Poland,after the death of Bierut.

[l'Enfermé]

Yes, yes it was. Though our Stalinist revisionists surely disagree, because you see, 1956 was a terrorist insurrection, worse than 9-11! Comrade Hoxha, in his infinite wisdom, has done us all a kind favour and skilfully documented in his diaries Osama bin Laden's involvement in this terrorist campaign against honest Hungarian socialist.

[Let's Get Free]

"Terrorist Insurrection." Hmmm, that's a new one.

[Ostrinski]

Terrorism and insurrectionism unfortunately are the only real political options under repressive regimes such as the Stalinist nations. I don't think characterizing them that way really paints them negatively at all.

[Geiseric]

Are you claiming that prior to 1956 the entire former capitalist class and middle class had been put to death by the communists?

I have never seen such a ridiculous claim.

Wow are you honestly serious? Do you seriously get off at twisting what people say out of context? I meant that there was nobody who employed anybody, at all for a profit, which is the fucking definition of a capitalist, nor any "working class but still capitalist supporting," parties or organizations! so it's impossible for it to of been a move too restore capitalism, and the insurrection would of been impossible without revolutionary ideology behind the entire thing, because that is the only thing that can get mass support from the proletariat, as in the majority of the proletariat.

You guys are rediculous. Capitalism was restored by the Bureaucracy in the eastern bloc, not the proletariat!

I mean the Bureaucracy was under attack, meaning the only social stratum left, the workers, was looking in its own interests.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The demands issued during the occupation of the Radio Hungary, though it cannot be said to be representative perhaps of the entire movement, reeked of reformist drivel, liberal nonsense and a vague beginning of a restoration to pre-war order of things and nascent nationalism.

Clips from Swedish television's news broadcast on the Hungarian event from the year in question show obvious nationalistic tendencies in acts, including restoration of the pre-war flags.

How does that factor into the idea of it as some sort of communist rebellion?

I think it quite clearly was not a coördinated ideological struggle, and doubt whether it can be seen as a movement of any group in particular. Both the idea of it as being an uprising of true communists against comfortable Soviet-allied potentates and the idea of exclusively a bunch of CIA-men seem ridiculous, but the influence of nationalistic elements in the uprisings do seem disturbingly large.

[hashbangbinzsh]

Okay, because that is the very definition of idealism, and is completely antithetical to Marxian thought.

You make some informative and insightful comments, but I think you lose the track here, comrade.

In theory, the theory and reality match, but life is not that simple. Any time we must deal with real people who have dreams and aspirations and can love one another and have flaws and are capable of violence and self-destruction, things will be messy.

In a capitalist system, capitalistic ideology is the dominant ideology. Likewise, in a socialist system, socialist ideology is the dominant ideology. This does not exclude people from having other ideas.

If material conditions should be the only determinant of ideology and action, we would not have seen the 1956 uprising. We would not have seen the October revolution nor the collapse of the Soviet system c.a. 1990.

If mode of production were the sole determinant of ideas, we would not be here discussing Marx and revolution. To say otherwise is anti-revolutionary defeatism-- if the mode of production is the sole determinant of ideas, then there is only room for reform, never revolution.

[Omsk]

This one is dead, my dear ultra-leftists, the insurrection was something completely morbid, and you simply can't defend the nationalists. Unlike you, i actually read books about the uprising, and i know what i am talking about, you on the other hand, don't know anything but you like to mock and ridicule. I don't have to deal with childish posts.

Just the account of the people present when the crazed hounds killed three Hungarian communists, is enough to realize what a dark incident Hungary '56 was. They shot them when they went out with a white flag, and than started to kick the officers and lynch them like they were not human beings. They also removed the hearth of an AVH officer. Disgusting. I'm glad the insurrectionists got what they wanted though. In the end, the revisionists used the poor Hungarian civilians who were tainted with wrong ideas by the bourgeois student circles.

The infamous scene of a massacre that the disgusting pigs and agents committed was captured by John Sadovy. I will post some of the SFW photographs.

As a note, there is no "historical revisionism" here, these are all facts.

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/51212041.jpg?w=700

http://ux1.eiu.edu/~nekey/syllabi/world/images/hungary_burninglenin1956.jpg

[Crimson Commissar]

Wow are you honestly serious? Do you seriously get off at twisting what people say out of context? I meant that there was nobody who employed anybody, at all for a profit, which is the fucking definition of a capitalist, nor any "working class but still capitalist supporting," parties or organizations! so it's impossible for it to of been a move too restore capitalism, and the insurrection would of been impossible without revolutionary ideology behind the entire thing, because that is the only thing that can get mass support from the proletariat, as in the majority of the proletariat.

This is getting a bit ridiculous now. I don't see how you can honestly assert that there was no one in Hungary or any other Eastern Bloc country that sincerely wanted the restoration of Capitalism. There doesn't need to be an organized movement for the ideas to be there. And what about the cases where there was an organized movement committed to destroying Socialism? Solidarity ring a bell?


You guys are rediculous. Capitalism was restored by the Bureaucracy in the eastern bloc, not the proletariat!

Yes, it was restored by the bureaucracy that had been allowed to root out every last element of Communist and Socialist ideology in the Eastern Bloc parties due to the massive counter-revolutionary support from large parts of the populace and the outside world in 1989/1990. The restoration of Capitalism would not have been allowed to occur without the utter unwillingness of the global and native Communist movements to defend the Socialist states in Eastern Europe at the time, and the subsequent ferocity of the right-wing and pro-Capitalist movements in trying to destroy them.


I mean the Bureaucracy was under attack, meaning the only social stratum left, the workers, was looking in its own interests.

Right. If this was the case I don't think we would see such violently anti-Communist and reactionary regimes in power in Eastern Europe today. The "revolutionaries" in the East wasted absolutely no time in dismantling their Socialist state structures and economies when they managed to seize power from the Communists. This might not have been what the working class wanted, but the simple fact is that many of them allowed it to happen. Rather than arguing for reform of the system, they openly allied with those in the west that wanted it destroyed entirely.

[human strike]

http://ux1.eiu.edu/~nekey/syllabi/world/images/hungary_burninglenin1956.jpg

Lovin' this photo. :)

[hetz]

Lovin' this photo.
Sadist.

[human strike]

Sadist.

Sadist? Are you implying the published works of Lenin has feelings? That's some hardcore fetishism.

[hetz]

Only a sadist can "like" a photo of violent anti-communist thugs burning works by communists.

[Prof. Oblivion]

You make some informative and insightful comments, but I think you lose the track here, comrade.

In theory, the theory and reality match, but life is not that simple. Any time we must deal with real people who have dreams and aspirations and can love one another and have flaws and are capable of violence and self-destruction, things will be messy.

In a capitalist system, capitalistic ideology is the dominant ideology. Likewise, in a socialist system, socialist ideology is the dominant ideology. This does not exclude people from having other ideas.

If material conditions should be the only determinant of ideology and action, we would not have seen the 1956 uprising. We would not have seen the October revolution nor the collapse of the Soviet system c.a. 1990.

If mode of production were the sole determinant of ideas, we would not be here discussing Marx and revolution. To say otherwise is anti-revolutionary defeatism-- if the mode of production is the sole determinant of ideas, then there is only room for reform, never revolution.

There is an obvious problem with this line of thinking. The general argument regarding false consciousness is that the ideas of society are those of the ruling class, which concludes that workers can adhere to seemingly self-destructive ideologies such as nationalism or racism, as CC brought up earlier.

But the ultimate failure in your reasoning is taking this argument and attempting to apply it to a supposedly socialist country, where the ruling class is supposedly the workers. So if the ruling class is the workers then that means the argument, in its strict sense, doesn't apply.

Which means you have to revise it to fit. In this case the revision is that the "ruling ideas" come from outside of the country and "contaminate" the socialist workers.

So, then, how does this happen? Propaganda? How many people do you rely think were reached by RFE, or pamphlets, or "agents provaceteurs"? Clearly the CIA didn't have any there, at least. So how could these workers minds have been corrupted?

Even further, assuming they would have been in contact with some fo of propaganda, what would have convinced them to become an anti-socialist "reactionary"?

Finally, even if this were the case, not only would thousands upon thousands of people have to come in contact with propaganda and be influenced by it, they would also have to organize in secret around it. So what you're saying is a vast percentage of the population would have had to been won over to ideas that go directly against their socialist interest and then successfully conspire to set about a plan without anyone knowing.

This is fundamentally anti-Marxist, conspiratorialist nonsense.

[human strike]

Only a sadist can "like" a photo of violent anti-communist thugs burning works by communists.

Correction. I don't "like" it, I "love" it. Also, that should be 'anti-Communist thugs' and 'works by Communists.'

[hetz]

No, "communist" is not capitalized in the English language, because it is a common noun.

[human strike]

No, "communist" is not capitalized in the English language, because it is a common noun.

Except when it refers to ideas, people and things associated with the Communist Party.

[hetz]

Communist party is also a common noun, just like a liberal party.
The Communist Party of ... or the Liberal Party of ... is a different thing.

[Crimson Commissar]

But the ultimate failure in your reasoning is taking this argument and attempting to apply it to a supposedly socialist country, where the ruling class is supposedly the workers. So if the ruling class is the workers then that means the argument, in its strict sense, doesn't apply.

The working class is not a single, monolithic entity.


Which means you have to revise it to fit. In this case the revision is that the "ruling ideas" come from outside of the country and "contaminate" the socialist workers.

Not necessarily. In the case of 1956 Hungary, it hadn't even been a decade since the People's Republic was formed and Socialism began to develop in the country. Anyone who was an adult at that time had lived through WW2, and therefore through the fascist pro-Nazi regime. Is it so inconceivable that those ideas could have lingered around for some time?


So, then, how does this happen? Propaganda? How many people do you rely think were reached by RFE, or pamphlets, or "agents provaceteurs"? Clearly the CIA didn't have any there, at least. So how could these workers minds have been corrupted?

Even further, assuming they would have been in contact with some fo of propaganda, what would have convinced them to become an anti-socialist "reactionary"?

The Eastern Bloc nations were persistently, since the beginning of their existance to the moment of their deaths, under assault from western propaganda. Radio and television broadcasts from Austria or West Germany were sometimes caught by neighbouring Socialist nations. And when all that they're hearing from the west is how "free and rich and socially expressive" they are, it's not hard to believe how some might be swayed by some kind of idealistic and ignorant view of Capitalism. As they say, "The grass is always greener on the other side".


Finally, even if this were the case, not only would thousands upon thousands of people have to come in contact with propaganda and be influenced by it, they would also have to organize in secret around it. So what you're saying is a vast percentage of the population would have had to been won over to ideas that go directly against their socialist interest and then successfully conspire to set about a plan without anyone knowing.

It wasn't planned, no. I'm just saying that, as the revolution began to kick off, those who already had anti-Socialist and pro-Capitalist ideas in their heads were likely to try to get involved in some way. Think of it as a spur of the moment thing. As the state becomes unstable, anyone who has disagreements with the ruling ideology is going to take the chance to revolt against it, whereas they might have layed dormant in a more peaceful time.

[Prof. Oblivion]

The Eastern Bloc nations were persistently, since the beginning of their existance to the moment of their deaths, under assault from western propaganda. Radio and television broadcasts from Austria or West Germany were sometimes caught by neighbouring Socialist nations. And when all that they're hearing from the west is how "free and rich and socially expressive" they are, it's not hard to believe how some might be swayed by some kind of idealistic and ignorant view of Capitalism. As they say, "The grass is always greener on the other side".Unfortunately this is, again, idealist at its core. The idea that workers were "won over" to reactionary ideas and that is what caused the supposed counterrevolution is a thoroughly idealist analysis. It has to be, because one cannot make a material analysis of the situation and still believe that Hungary was socialist. It just doesn't add up. Which is why I am pointing out the thoroughly idealist nature of Stalinism, particularly in this case with regards to Hungary, but it applies elsewhere, most notably in their explanation of the collapse of the Soviet Union or of "revisionism".

Before you go off spouting how I'm an Economist and taking a mechanically materialist standpoint, answer a simple question for me: What caused these workers to adopt these reactionary ideas? What, in their material life, their environment, would have caused this?

[hetz]

But ideas become a material force when they grasp the minds of masses.;)


The idea that workers were "won over" to reactionary ideas and that is what caused the supposed counterrevolution is a thoroughly idealist analysis.
Correct, but it sure made the counterrevolution much easier.

[Sasha]

This one is dead, my dear ultra-leftists, the insurrection was something completely morbid, and you simply can't defend the nationalists. Unlike you, i actually read books about the uprising, and i know what i am talking about, you on the other hand, don't know anything but you like to mock and ridicule. I don't have to deal with childish posts.

Just the account of the people present when the crazed hounds killed three Hungarian communists, is enough to realize what a dark incident Hungary '56 was. They shot them when they went out with a white flag, and than started to kick the officers and lynch them like they were not human beings. They also removed the hearth of an AVH officer. Disgusting. I'm glad the insurrectionists got what they wanted though. In the end, the revisionists used the poor Hungarian civilians who were tainted with wrong ideas by the bourgeois student circles.

The infamous scene of a massacre that the disgusting pigs and agents committed was captured by John Sadovy. I will post some of the SFW photographs.

As a note, there is no "historical revisionism" here, these are all facts.

]

Impresive how you managed to start and end a post in a way like that and in between succeeded with not only posting a single source, no you didn't even name one single "fact" (disputed or not) outside one single, unsourced, anecdotel incident.
I stand in awe good sir, that's some expertly sectarian dogmatic bullshittery...

[Geiseric]

You're helping the imperialist high school teachers if you think that Hungary, and the capitalist restoration as a whole, was done by the soon to be proletariat.

Also I like how everybody ignores completely how actual history worked! It wasn't the factory workers, but the managers and Stalinist heirs of the soviet state bureaucracy, who actually struggled to restore capitalism. These poor hungarian workers have no reason to wish for such a thing, and you're insane if you think that masses, I mean millions of working class people would fight for the restoration of capitalism in a country with a planned economy.

As we saw from history, the enemies are not the hungarian working class, but the bureaucracy that ruled the USSR. This thread meets the definition of fucking tankies dude.

[Crimson Commissar]

You're helping the imperialist high school teachers if you think that Hungary, and the capitalist restoration as a whole, was done by the soon to be proletariat.

Also I like how everybody ignores completely how actual history worked! It wasn't the factory workers, but the managers and Stalinist heirs of the soviet state bureaucracy, who actually struggled to restore capitalism. These poor hungarian workers have no reason to wish for such a thing, and you're insane if you think that masses, I mean millions of working class people would fight for the restoration of capitalism in a country with a planned economy.

As we saw from history, the enemies are not the hungarian working class, but the bureaucracy that ruled the USSR. This thread meets the definition of fucking tankies dude.

Stalinists, as much as they had their own problems that needed to be addressed as well, had no real reason to attack the Socialist system that granted them power in the first place.

The reformism that dismantled the USSR and the Eastern Bloc is an entirely different beast. It often had it's roots in Social Democracy or "Democratic Socialism" which in this case was entirely meaningless and just a codeword for "neo-liberal capitalism".

[Grenzer]

Wow are you honestly serious? Do you seriously get off at twisting what people say out of context? I meant that there was nobody who employed anybody, at all for a profit, which is the fucking definition of a capitalist, nor any "working class but still capitalist supporting," parties or organizations! so it's impossible for it to of been a move too restore capitalism, and the insurrection would of been impossible without revolutionary ideology behind the entire thing, because that is the only thing that can get mass support from the proletariat, as in the majority of the proletariat.

I mean the Bureaucracy was under attack, meaning the only social stratum left, the workers, was looking in its own interests.

Wow, are you serious?

The proletariat wasn't the only extant class by any stretch of the imagination. A peasantry still existed, and so did a petit-bourgeoisie. You seem to have this weird fantasy were only people that are shopkeepers can be petit-bourgeois and only factory owners can be bourgeois. There was definitely a petit-bourgeoisie in all the eastern bloc states, although it was probably the smallest in the Soviet Union. Street peddlers who own there own wares and cab drivers who own their own cars technically fall into the petit-bourgeoisie as an example, and much more beyond that. It's going to be pretty much impossible to fully eliminate the petit-bourgeoisie without first abolishing money.

The Hungarian rebellion was led by anti-communist nationalists. I haven't really seen any evidence that it was instigated by the CIA or fascists.. that seems to be fiction. It is undeniable that the leadership of the movement was nationalist and anti-communist in nature. Nagy called for decollectivization(creation of an agrarian bourgeoisie and an expansion of the petit-bourgeoisie), a revitalization of the artisan craft(expansion of the petit-bourgeoisie), an end to anti-theist propaganda, and legalization of social-democratic and small landowner parties, in addition to making all his appeals on the basis of nationalism. The "workers' councils" were a farce; no different in nature from those in contemporary Yugoslavia. The Nagy government wanted to withdraw from the Warsaw pact, no doubt to link up with and receive aid from NATO.

There is no way that the Soviet Union would let that situation come to be, but if by some miracle they had succeeded then Hungary would have become NATO's bourgeois republican outpost in the east.

It's also pretty dumb to think that even if there was no petit-bourgeoisie or other non-proletarian classes in existence that they all would have magically been communists. Once someone is severed from their previous relationship to the means of production doesn't make them automatically become socialists. Reactionary ideology lives on long after that. It's an overly reductionist and vulgar materialist statement to say otherwise.

You should try pulling your head out of your ass for once and stop imbibing whatever ideologically driven fairy tales your party tells you, Syd; you could learn a lot.


You guys are rediculous. Capitalism was restored by the Bureaucracy in the eastern bloc, not the proletariat! Capitalism was restored by the Bureaucracy in the eastern bloc, not the proletariat!

According to Trotsky, this amorphous "bureaucracy" was part of the working class. That's why he considered the Soviet Union to be a proletarian dictatorship. By definition then, any movements to restore the bourgeois republican form of government in Stalinist states is a working-class driven effort, by the logic of Trotskyism.

People might take you more seriously if for once in your life you could stop vomiting out cliche and tired out old Trot slogans, and make an independent analysis. And Jesus Christ, learn some grammar. There's a built in spell-check utility in the forum after all.

[Paul Cockshott]

Wow are you honestly serious? Do you seriously get off at twisting what people say out of context? I meant that there was nobody who employed anybody, at all for a profit, which is the fucking definition of a capitalist, nor any "working class but still capitalist supporting," parties or organizations! so it's impossible for it to of been a move too restore capitalism, and the insurrection would of been impossible without revolutionary ideology behind the entire thing, because that is the only thing that can get mass support from the proletariat, as in the majority of the proletariat.
.

When I called you out on the implication of you saying that there was no capitalist class of middle class in Hungary, it was to point out what would really have to have happened for that to occur.

You must distinguish a class which is a collection of human beings from an economic relation. The capitalist class and the middle class are generated over time by certain economic structures, but they are not the structures themselves. They are collections of people with family connections, intermarriage relations, and broadly shared ideological views, These groups of people come into existence over historical time scales and can only pass out of existence slowly. Typically this will take a couple of generations unless the class were systematically slaughtered.

You should ask yourself what degree of intermarriage there had been between bourgeois families and manual working class families by 1956? That will give you an impression of the degree to which the upper and middle classes had really gone.

You also have to realise that the middle class do not rely only on ownership of their own tools or land. The professional middle classes have particular skills which enable them to command higher wages. So long as these skills are relatively scarce, the economic basis for their reproduction as a class persists - especially given the tendancy towards assortative marriage between young men and women of similar educational level.

[Geiseric]

Whatever dude, the petit bourgeoisie in the eastern european countries, which was more or less powerless and liquidized, were in no position to force an insurrection that literally took over entire cities. I'm unaware of the "de-collectivization," slogans by Nagy, however that hardly was the fundamental goal and cause of the entire movement.

I like how Omsk demonized the rebels, he obviously knows nothing about the torture that Stalinists used around the world at their enemies. Thousands of people were put down during this thing, which was foreshadowed by the Stalinist state employing ex Nazis in the AVH?

[Omsk]

Impresive how you managed to start and end a post in a way like that and in between succeeded with not only posting a single source, no you didn't even name one single "fact" (disputed or not) outside one single, unsourced, anecdotel incident.
I stand in awe good sir, that's some expertly sectarian dogmatic bullshittery...

It's information that is in the "common knowledge" sector,something which is well known, the Dudas groups slaughtered communists. I also posted things i remember, since i read the work on Hungary a long, long time.


I like how Omsk demonized the rebels

The insurrectionist gangs do need to be demonized, since their bloody swine hands wrecked Budapest and killed many good communists.


he obviously knows nothing about the torture that Stalinists used around the world at their enemies.

Do you really think i don't know anything about the special methods ?


Thousands of people were put down during this thing

Yes, hundreds of Soviet and Hungarian soldiers and communists, and a lot of the insurrectionists.


which was foreshadowed by the Stalinist state employing ex Nazis in the AVH?

The word "Stalinist" means nothing when you use it, Hungary was not a proletarian dictatorship, it was a "peoples democracy" and it had many problems, but at least it maimed reactionaries.

Again, you show how little you know about Hungarian history, it is a historical fact, that after the war,in the first months of postwar adjudication, no fewer than 6,200 Arrow Cross members were punished. Some Arrow Cross officials, including Szálasi (Head) himself, were executed.

The entire story about Nazis being in the AVH is rubbish, it was created to make them the ultimate "bad guys". "Oh my god, Hungarian Communist Nazis! Oh no, Jesus save us!" In reality, the insurrectionist liberated Fascists and tried to get them on their side.


were in no position to force an insurrection that literally took over entire cities

It took over Budapest only, stop vomiting garbage.


I'm unaware of the "de-collectivization," slogans by Nagy, however that hardly was the fundamental goal and cause of the entire movement.



It was, that and "social-democracy" , "Good relations with the West" "No more communism!" "Religious freedom" "Multi-party system" and many other reactionary demands.

Read about it, than engage in discussions.

[Paul Cockshott]

the petit bourgeoisie in the eastern european countries, which was more or less powerless and liquidized,
No it was not. Having traveled in eastern europe during the 70s and 80s the professional middle class there was alive and well and from discussions their political outlook was what in Britain would be termed 'Tory'. Prominent figures from the old capitalist class survived too. Havel who became president after the counter revolution was the Scion of a big Prague bourbeois family who had spent his childhood before 1948 in the lap of luxury being taken around in the family limo.

Stephen Gowans wrote:
Vaclav Havel, the Czech playwright turned President, came from a prominent, vehemently anti-socialist Prague family. Havel’s father was a wealthy real estate tycoon, who developed a number of Prague properties.

One was the Lucerna Palace, “a pleasure palace…of arcades, theatres, cinemas, night-clubs, restaurants, and ballrooms,” according to Frommer’s. It became “a popular spot for the city’s nouveau riche to congregate,” including a young Havel, who, raised in the lap of luxury by a governess and chauffeured around town, “spent his earliest years on the Lucerna’s polished marble floors.”

Then, tragedy struck – at least, from Havel’s point of view. The Reds expropriated Lucerna and the family’s other holdings, and put them to use for the common good, rather than for the purpose of providing the young Havel with more servants.

Four decades later, Havel, as president –celebrated throughout the West as a champion of intellectual freedom — presided over a mass return of nationalized property, including Lucerna and his family’s other holdings. As a business investment, Havel’s anti-communism proved to be quite profitable.

A champion of intellectual freedom, or the formerly pampered scion of an establishment family who had a material stake in seeing socialism overthrown?

[Ocean Seal]

Proletarian movement? Likely
Proletarian movement for socialism? You've gotta be kidding me. I think that anyone who isn't trying to defend their glorious leader would understand that Kronstadt had a greater communist character than the Hungarian uprising. This should be obvious. The Hungarian uprising was embedded in the proletariat, and undoubtably contained revolutionary elements, but it must be acknowledged that those were rather small (unlike Kronstadt). That is not to defend the actions that the Soviet Union took as anything other than a brash power play to retain power in the area.