1956 Hungary Revolution

[Red Enemy]

I don't know much about it, can anyone who does know fill me in?

Was it a true case of, to use Cliffite language, "Socialism from below"?

[Blake's Baby]

People will give yo very different answers depending on their tendency. The Council Communist view is that it was a genuine workers' uprising, with workers' councils. The Stalinist view is that is was a neo-fascist CIA-backed coup attempt.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

My personal view, based on my admittedly limited knowledge and reading, si that it was. Happy to be proven wrong if their are other sources or points of view.

From wiki -

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.

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.

[Old Bolshie]

The Stalinist view is that is was a neo-fascist CIA-backed coup attempt.

No it isn't. This revolution was a natural outcome of Kruschev's revisionist liberal policy commonly referred as "De-stalinization", a view which most of the studies marxists or non-marxists about the subject agree.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

People will give yo very different answers depending on their tendency. The Council Communist view is that it was a genuine workers' uprising, with workers' councils. The Stalinist view is that is was a neo-fascist CIA-backed coup attempt.

Indeed, as Wiki states -


Pravda published an account 36 hours after the outbreak of violence, which set the tone for all further reports and subsequent Soviet historiography:
On 23 October, the "honest" socialist Hungarians demonstrated against mistakes made by the Rákosi and Gerő governments.
Fascist, Hitlerite, reactionary, counter-revolutionary hooligans financed by the imperialist west took advantage of the unrest to stage a counter-revolution.
The honest Hungarian people under Nagy appealed to Soviet (Warsaw Pact) forces stationed in Hungary to assist in restoring order.
The Nagy government was ineffective, allowing itself to be penetrated by counter-revolutionary influences, weakening then disintegrating, as proven by Nagy's culminating denouncement of the Warsaw Pact.
Hungarian patriots under Kádár broke with the Nagy government and formed a government of honest Hungarian revolutionary workers and peasants; this genuinely popular government petitioned the Soviet command to help put down the counter-revolution.
Hungarian patriots, with Soviet assistance, smashed the counter-revolution.

[Delenda Carthago]

I don't know much about it, can anyone who does know fill me in?

Was it a true case of, to use Cliffite language, "Socialism from below"?
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:

Neither socialism, nor from below.

A. The biggest "star" in that anti-revolutionary situation was the Prime Minister of the country, Imre Nagy.
B. On the 23/10 he opened the borders with Austria and fascist elements(that are strong till today) came in and helped to overthrow socialism and restore capitalism.
C. That situation was being prepared for a long time by the capitalists. It was not by luck that within 2 days, there were 28 new capitalist parties set up!
D. At least two western newspapers(France Soir and a german that I cannot find what is the name, something like "Veli Autzodang") admited both the western and fascist intefere.
E. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi6-trained-rebels-to-fight-soviets-in-hungarian-revolt-1359599.html

[Blake's Baby]

So there you go, the Stalinist view is that it wasn't a CIA-backed neo-fascist coup attempt, it was a demonstration in favour of Stalinism, that was also a CIA-backed neo-fascist coup attempt.

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.

[svenne]

Last time some ML linked to a couple of declassified CIA documents, which, instead of proving his point, showed that the CIA had no idea at all what was happening, and that they suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to send in people from Austria (i think). I'm probably slanted a bit towards the council communists position, but yeah: it propably was a lot of things, at the same time. Of course there were a lot of assholes involved in the revolution. You could propably turn the question around to the ML:s: wasn't there a lot of assholes in the Russian Revolution, like the Kronstadt sailors in 1921, or the makhnovists? (i kinda like both, but i guess those who think '56 was a fascist revolution doesn't). No revolution is perfect. Add to that that Hungary had been a fascist state until 11 years before this, and you can probably understand why there was some fascist involvement. And of course there might have been cries for help to the west: it was in the middle of the cold war - you were either with the russians, or against them, which in practice meant sleeping with the yankees. And can you blame them for trying to stop a lot of practices that the Soviet occupation had instilled? Hungary in 1956 wasn't a particularly nice place, especially when you compare it with a lot of western countries.

[Old Bolshie]

So there you go, the Stalinist view is that it wasn't a CIA-backed neo-fascist coup attempt, it was a demonstration in favour of Stalinism, that was also a CIA-backed neo-fascist coup attempt.

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.

This kind of idiocy is structural of left comms and that's why you never saw and never will left comms running anything. I didn't say that was in favour of stalinism but rather a consequence of Kruschev's De-stalinization policy. His "liberal" speech and ideas behind the De-stalinization led to this Hungarian revolt. Considering your comment above you'll probably think that I am saying that Kruschev organized and masterminded the revolt. No. Motivated by the shift and "openness" of Kruschev's liberal speech and departure from Stalin path the Hungarians tried to breakaway from the rule of the Communist Party of Hungary.

[Red Enemy]

This kind of idiocy is structural of left comms and that's why you never saw and never will left comms running anything. I didn't say that was in favour of stalinism but rather a consequence of Kruschev's De-stalinization policy. His "liberal" speech and ideas behind the De-stalinization led to this Hungarian revolt.
Unlike Stalinists, Left comms don't seek to "run" anything.

It is the working class which must "run" things.

[subcp]

Indeed, and not only not run things, but actively discourage anyone 'in the name of communism', who would try and run things- and in the case of Hungary, it seems to mirror the same line taken at Kronstadt; replace 'White Gaurdists' with 'Fascists', capitalist Western interference, etc.

Like Kronstadt, it appears from some of the literature that isn't biased by the above kind of obfuscations, that there was a genuine uprising resulting in the formation of revolutionary worker's councils (soviets), organized in the factories and geographically, in a short time. But, Hungary had experience, directly in 1919, with council power. It's not surprising that its working-class had the collective experience and history to pull it off (just like the workers and sailors at Kronstadt- who also formed revolutionary soviets to protest the statism and bureaucracy of the revolution).

If you're looking for something to read on the subject, the Johnson-Forest tendency published a book about it that is pretty good.

[Blake's Baby]

This kind of idiocy is structural of left comms and that's why you never saw and never will left comms running anything. I didn't say that was in favour of stalinism but rather a consequence of Kruschev's De-stalinization policy. His "liberal" speech and ideas behind the De-stalinization led to this Hungarian revolt...

Ah, I see, the idiocy of Left Comms is a consequence of the inability of Stalinists to explain themselves.

Rather than it being an anti-Kruschev-pro-Stalin revolt, as I had previously interpreted your comments, you're now arguing that the trigger was that Kruschev wasn't a big enough bastard. Stupid old Nikita, he should have oppressed them more - is that it?



...Considering your comment above you'll probably think that I am saying that Kruschev organized and masterminded the revolt. No. Motivated by the shift and "openness" of Kruschev's liberal speech and departure from Stalin path the Hungarians tried to breakaway from the rule of the Communist Party of Hungary.

Why would I think that you were saying Kruschev organised it, if I thought you were saying it was anti-Kruschev? Why do Stalinists find it so difficult to explain what they mean?

[Leftsolidarity]

Well this is quite a friendly discussion :rolleyes:

The position I, and the party I belong to, hold is that the events in Hungary were counter-revolutionary, pro-imperialist, and anti-worker. I will look to see if I can find any articles or something written which go into it in more detail.

[Sam_b]

In 2013, do we really need to hold a 'position' on the uprising?

There must have been a whole lot of 'anti worker's amongst the Hungarian working class at that time...

[Leftsolidarity]

In 2013, do we really need to hold a 'position' on the uprising?



The way you analyize past events lets you hold a correct position on current events. Are the events in Hungary a big deal to me? No, not really but it's good to know the history and the party I belong to was formed directly because of the events so it is important for our members to at least learn about a bit.


There must have been a whole lot of 'anti worker's amongst the Hungarian working class at that time...

There are a lot of members within the working class today that hold anti-worker positions. Just because they're workers doesn't mean they are doing something in the interests of the working class.

[subcp]

If you think it is a positive example of working-class revolution in practice, it would be helpful to have an opinion of it, given how limited the experience at revolutionary attempts toward communism are historically. If you think it was just another example of the imperialist powers screwing with the 'expanding socialist zone' then I'd assume you wouldn't. Unless



The position I, and the party I belong to, hold is that the events in Hungary were counter-revolutionary, pro-imperialist, and anti-worker. I will look to see if I can find any articles or something written which go into it in more detail.

It makes sense that Marcy (and Copeland) wrote about it since it was a defining event in his formulation of 'Global Class Struggle' theory and the faction that became WWP. They sided with the tank drivers against the workers, because even if it was a 'legitimate' worker uprising, it would weaken the 'Socialist Bloc' and strengthen the 'Imperialist Bloc' by creating division in the ranks of the proletarian states.

I found his writings helpful (compiled at MIA in a .pdf file) to write about Marcyism, and they do contain specific references to Hungary 1956:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/marcy/index.htm

[Sam_b]

The way you analyize past events lets you hold a correct position on current events

Yeah, but having an analysis and having some set in stone 'position' or 'line' are two separate things.


Are the events in Hungary a big deal to me? No, not really but it's good to know the history and the party I belong to was formed directly because of the events so it is important for our members to at least learn about a bit.

It's still a huge deal for the people of Hungary, however you look at the situation. I think mistakes were made on both sides during the uprising but I don't think one can take much pride personally in being formed directly out of one or other side.


There are a lot of members within the working class today that hold anti-worker positions

The point I was alluding to was more to do with the fact that the majority of the original petitioners of the Technical University were loyal members of the MKP, so if there is some sort of pro-imperialist 'degeneration' at work it has much to do with the fact that the MKP couldn't effectively caderise or control their own organisation. You would assume by tankie logic that the MKP were operating as a unit in the interests of the entire class, non?

[Tim Cornelis]

Ah, I see, the idiocy of Left Comms is a consequence of the inability of Stalinists to explain themselves.

Rather than it being an anti-Kruschev-pro-Stalin revolt, as I had previously interpreted your comments, you're now arguing that the trigger was that Kruschev wasn't a big enough bastard. Stupid old Nikita, he should have oppressed them more - is that it?

Why would I think that you were saying Kruschev organised it, if I thought you were saying it was anti-Kruschev? Why do Stalinists find it so difficult to explain what they mean?

De-Stalinisation is generally seen by historians as the trigger for the Hungarian revolution. When the Soviet Union broke with Stalinist excesses, segments of the Hungarian people believed this meant they could break from the Soviet Union without retaliation. They, apparently, misinterpreted what "de-Stalinisation" meant and their revolt was crushed by Russian tanks.

[Ostrinski]

Everyone but the Stalinists and Sparts (because, you know, we support political revolution against the bureaucratic deformation of the worker's state, except you know, when it actually happens :rolleyes:) I think will hold generally favorable views toward the Hungarian Uprising. I think I've seen the Trotskyists say that it was a genuine political revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy and many council communists and left communists holding that it was a genuine socialist revolution against a capitalist state.

Heh. Whether it's a fascist conspiracy orchestrated by the CIA or a fucking revolt against de-Stalinization and revisionism (mother of god, how do the Stalinists always manage to top themselves*), it's so typical of the Stalinists. It almost seems like these positions that they hold are an elaborate plot to parody themselves.

Ok, this was my face when I saw Xico's posthttp://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a536/ceterliko/mother-of-god.png

[Delenda Carthago]

You people...:mad:

Is it possible maybe to take a position on the subject based on FACTS and not what is your general political views? Are you fuckin idiots?

"No I m a stalinist, I cannot say this"

"No, I m a left comm, I must support that"

How can one say the revolt was not western influenced but a real workers revolt, based on that he dislikes the stalinists and not to give a fuck about FACTS?
:cursing:

[subcp]

The facts are that the Hungarian workers, when pent-up frustration with the state met the student protests, escalated their struggle to the point of forming soviets and toppling the regime- sure, the West had an interest in turning Hungary against Moscow in its geopolitical maneuverings due to the bloc system, but, like the Kronstadt revolt, it doesn't mean the entire thing was thus the product of Western manipulation or counter-revolutionaries and had no proletarian content. Do you deny the formation of soviets by the workers in Hungary in '56?

[sixdollarchampagne]

Everyone but the Stalinists and Sparts (because, you know, we support political revolution against the bureaucratic deformation of the worker's state, except you know, when it actually happens :rolleyes:) I think will hold generally favorable views toward the Hungarian Uprising. I think I've seen the Trotskyists say that it was a genuine political revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy and many council communists and left communists holding that it was a genuine socialist revolution against a capitalist state.

I was interested to read that the Sparts would have opposed the Hungarian revolution, which, after all, did lead to the formation of workers' councils. Could it be that Cde Ostrinski is, instead, thinking about the well-known opposition by the Sparts to Solidarność in Poland?

I would be very surprised if the Sparts, in retrospect (since they were not around in 1956) would have departed from the position of Trotskyists in general (as far as I know), of supporting the revolt by the Hungarian workers in '56, as cde Ostrinski himself noted.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that official Trotskyism, in 1952, I believe, put forward the guess that there would be "centuries of deformed workers' states," but, the following year, I think, workers in the DDR ("East Germany") revolted against the ruling bureaucracy (over the question of speed-up, of having their production quotas raised, if memory serves), which was a [negative] answer, from the class struggle itself, to the notion of "centuries of deformed workers' states," so again, for the Sparts to have opposed the Hungarian workers' revolt, would be very surprising, I think.

In his post, cde Ostrinski included a religious exclamation; I certainly am not opposed to prayer, but, I would bet that revleft includes a lot of people who are. :) And I wouldn't want the comrade to be penalized for any reason.

[Ostrinski]

Yeah I was wrong on the Sparts. I just remembered that we had this weird user, A Marxist Historian, who I think I recall support the crushing of the Hungarian Uprising, and he was a Spartacist. That was the source of the confusion. My bad.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yeah I was wrong on the Sparts. I just remembered that we had this weird user, A Marxist Historian, who I think I recall support the crushing of the Hungarian Uprising, and he was a Spartacist. That was the source of the confusion. My bad.

We're diverging a bit but I wanted to add that I talked to him and iirc he wasn't actually a Spart, he just supported them. I could be wrong though.

[tuwix]

I don't know much about it, can anyone who does know fill me in?

Was it a true case of, to use Cliffite language, "Socialism from below"?

If there is state, there can't be a socialism. This is why it is pointless to discuss about socialism in Hungary. Even if there were very genuine workers' goal in that, there could be only two solutions to the revolution: soviet intervention or imperialist intervention. And the first solution occurred.

[Ostrinski]

Yeah I talk to him on email from time to time. He's a sympathizer because only someone who is insane could be true rank and file Spart militant. But yeah iirc he does support the crushing of the Hungarian uprising.

edit: Okay, nevermind. He fiercely supported it.

[Geiseric]

Yeah I talk to him on email from time to time. He's a sympathizer because only someone who is insane could be true rank and file Spart militant. But yeah iirc he does support the crushing of the Hungarian uprising.

edit: Okay, nevermind. He fiercely supported it.

He also supported the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[Rurkel]

The AMH guy? I remember him supporting the 1956 uprising a while ago.

[Ostrinski]

He also supported the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.Which only makes him consistent, with, say, supporting Soviet aggression against Finland.

[Geiseric]

Which only makes him consistent, with, say, supporting Soviet aggression against Finland.

I don't know much about Finland, they had a revolution which was crushed which I thought was the rational behind the invasion before WW2, when Finland was likely to be used as a channel for invasion of the USSR.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't know much about Finland, they had a revolution which was crushed which I thought was the rational behind the invasion before WW2, when Finland was likely to be used as a channel for invasion of the USSR.
Finland was anti-Nazi. Actually the Nazis set up a naval blockade of Finland during the Winter War in support of their Soviet allies. They even threatened Sweden with war to prevent Sweden from aiding Finland.

[Geiseric]

Finland was anti-Nazi. Actually the Nazis set up a naval blockade of Finland during the Winter War in support of their Soviet allies. They even threatened Sweden with war to prevent Sweden from aiding Finland.

I know though that Finland recieved volunteers from all around northern europe, who later became Nazis. Also many supplies they got came from France. However you're probably right about the Nazi thing.

[Sentinel]

Finland was anti-Nazi. Actually the Nazis set up a naval blockade of Finland during the Winter War in support of their Soviet allies. They even threatened Sweden with war to prevent Sweden from aiding Finland.

It should be pointed out here for those who don't know, that while Finland wasn't allied with the nazis during the Winter war (1939-40) it certainly was later, during the so called Continuation war (1941-44). My grandfather fought in this war.

Armed and supported by Germany, Finland joined in the Operation Barbarossa in 1941; temporarily capturing the areas ceded in the Winter war and also parts of Eastern Karelia. However in 1944 the Soviets set in a massive invasion, and allowed Finland to withdraw from the conflict on rather unfavorable terms but without being occupied.

After the war Finland remained capitalist, but was (inofficially) within the influence sphere of the Warzaw pact. Communists got good results in the post war elections.

[bolshie]

So there you go, the Stalinist view is that it wasn't a CIA-backed neo-fascist coup attempt, it was a demonstration in favour of Stalinism, that was also a CIA-backed neo-fascist coup attempt.

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.

Surely the Russians/Stalinists made up those kind of stories to justify using tanks against the Hungarian workers?

[Sam_b]

sure, the West had an interest in turning Hungary against Moscow in its geopolitical maneuverings due to the bloc system

The West was actually pretty content with just leaving Hungary as they were more concerned with the Suez crisis, and wanted to avoid a situation where they would be in direct contact with the Soviets at that time.


How can one say the revolt was not western influenced but a real workers revolt, based on that he dislikes the stalinists and not to give a fuck about FACTS?

Putting 'facts' in caps lock does not make an argument.

[Red Enemy]

If there is state, there can't be a socialism. This is why it is pointless to discuss about socialism in Hungary. Even if there were very genuine workers' goal in that, there could be only two solutions to the revolution: soviet intervention or imperialist intervention. And the first solution occurred.
I am talking as a movement, not actually achieving socialism. Was this revolution proletarian/socialist in character?

That is my question.

[Geiseric]

I am talking as a movement, not actually achieving socialism. Was this revolution proletarian/socialist in character?

That is my question.

Yeah it was, they founded workers councils, which kinda means it was a working class thing.