Log in

View Full Version : What really happened in Hungary



A.J.
14th November 2006, 14:29
50 years ago
What really happened in Hungary
By Stephen Millies

Published Nov 9, 2006 7:46 PM
Why did George W. Bush just send New York Gov. George Pataki to Budapest to
praise the 1956 uprising of the “Hungarian freedom fighters”?

It’s also the 30th anniversary of the heroic Soweto rebellion, in which
hundreds of African youth were killed fighting apartheid. But Pataki didn’t
go to South Africa.

No capitalist politician commemorates the 1919 Hungarian Soviet Republic,
which was the second socialist revolution following the victory of the
Bolsheviks in Russia.

The Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted 133 days. Allen Dulles, at that time a
young U.S. diplomat, played a role in coordinating the invasion that drowned
it in blood. In the 1950s, after he became CIA director, Dulles overthrew
progressive governments in Guatemala and Iran.

Admiral Miklós Horthy, a leading player in the overthrow of that early
soviet republic, later became Hungary’s fascist dictator and allied himself
to Hitler. Under fascist rule, over 400,000 Hungarian Jews were murdered.

During World War II, many Hungarian soldiers who had been press-ganged to
fight against the Soviet Union died during the failed Nazi attempt to seize
the city of Stalingrad.

The Soviet Red Army finally liberated Hungary from fascism at tremendous
cost.

Unlike in Yugoslavia and Albania, the main agent of change in Hungary was
the Soviet Army, not revolutionary forces inside the country. The country
had been devastated. Few communists had survived the decades of death camps
and torture.

Nevertheless, workers took over the factories. Two-thirds of the land had
been owned by 40 families while 3 million peasants didn’t have any. “Hungary
remained one of the last strongholds of feudal or semi-feudal forms of
tenure in Europe up until 1945,” wrote scholar Alexander Eckstein in August
1949. Peasants chased the landlords off their huge feudal estates, which
were divided up.

Schools were opened to the poor. College enrollment rose 400 percent by
1955. The number of women students increased five times. Workers and
peasants were guaranteed 60 percent of college seats.

Health care was made free. A campaign against tuberculosis—called the
“Hungarian disease”—saved thousands of lives.

Socialist economic planning made these advances possible. Industrial
production increased by 14 percent per year in the early 1950s, but from a
very low base.

Meantime the “cold war” was intensifying. Pentagon brass were preparing for
a nuclear war against the Soviet Union. They launched a massive invasion of
Korea in 1950.

Despite the Hungarian Communists’ attempts to bring about greater equality,
they were under tremendous pressure.

By the mid 1950s, with an infusion of U.S. capital through the Marshall
Plan, Western Europe was becoming prosperous again. But Eastern Europe—where
the fascist offensive had claimed millions of lives and destroyed most of
the infrastructure—remained poor.

Many collective farms had been established in Hungary, but too hastily,
alienating the peasants, who didn’t have enough tractors to work large
spreads because the industrial base was weak.

Mass discontent in Hungary was fanned by the formerly privileged classes who
had been expropriated. Struggles within the Communist Party made things
worse.

In the background was the extremely influential Catholic Church. This wasn’t
the church of El Salvador’s martyred Archbishop Romero. Hungarian Cardinal
Mindszenty was ideologically far to the right; he wrote that Darwin should
have been burned at the stake.

A “secret speech” by Nikita Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the Soviet
Communist Party in February 1956 denounced Stalin—but from the right,
seeking an accommodation with the imperialists. It gave a green light to
pro-capitalist elements throughout Eastern Europe.

In October Imre Nagy became Hungary’s premier and opened the door to
reaction—in the same way that Mikhail Gorbachev later did in the USSR.

Workers had grievances in Hungary. But their discontent was misused in a
bloody struggle that was welcomed by Wall Street.

Book burnings of Marxist literature were carried out, just as the Nazis had
done. Red stars were removed from buildings. Socialist symbols were cut out
of the Hungarian flag. And Communists were lynched.

Hungarian workers were told they could keep their socialized factories and
other achievements after they “overthrew communism.”

“Workers’ councils” allowed pro-capitalist parties like the Smallholders to
be brought into the government. Fascist Mindszenty was released from prison.
Hungarian “freedom fighters” called for U.N. intervention, which, as in
Korea, really meant U.S. intervention.

The Soviet Union was compelled to send in troops to stop this
counter-revolution.

The reaction was thrown back. The first job of new Communist leader János
Kádár, who himself had been imprisoned under a previous Communist regime,
was winning back the workers. A workers’ militia was formed.

After 1956 socialist Hungary advanced economically, but Washington spent
trillions of U.S. workers’ taxes to defeat the socialist bloc, initiating a
terribly costly arms race. They were finally victorious in 1989-91
throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

This was a real tragedy for the world working class and nations fighting
neocolonialism. Cuba and People’s Korea suffered terribly, losing most of
their foreign trade.

While the new ruling class now flaunts its wealth, the workers gained
nothing from these counter-revolutions. Hungary’s unemployment rate
skyrocketed from 1.7 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 1996. Fifty thousand
Hungarians were made homeless by capitalist “freedom.” Tuberculosis cases
increased 18 percent between 1990 and 1999.

Now current Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany is under attack from
even more right-wing forces.

All this shows why it was important to defend the Hungarian workers’ state
in 1956 and stop the right wing. The counter-revolutionaries had masqueraded
as friends of the workers, just as Hitler had disguised his reactionary
program as “national socialism.” But in fact they were totally allied with
world imperialism and, as partners of global monopoly capital, were ready to
exploit the workers doubly.

Today Bush may boast about the defeat of the socialist bloc in Europe. But
the rising resistance to U.S. imperialism all over the globe demonstrates
more clearly than any words that the tide is once again turning in favor of
the workers and the national liberation struggles.

chimx
14th November 2006, 18:26
By the mid 1950s, with an infusion of U.S. capital through the Marshall
Plan, Western Europe was becoming prosperous again. But Eastern Europe—where the fascist offensive had claimed millions of lives and destroyed most of the infrastructure—remained poor.

The marshall plan offered economic assistance to the eastern bloc too, including the soviet union, but russia refused assistance and forced the puppet regimes of eastern europe to follow suit. there was an attempt to copy the american policy with the molotov plan, which was laughably under funded.


The Soviet Union was compelled to send in troops to stop this
counter-revolution.

the soviet union was compelled to send troops in because students and workers were demanding, amongst other things, the right to hold secret elections free from soviet manipulation, the right for workers to strike, and the removal of soviet troops from hungary. it was very much a revolt to shake off the yolk of soviet domination.

more than anything it is impossible to view the hungarian revolution in any single light. to view it, as your "history" piece does, solely as a counter-revolution is pure propaganda and ignores the multiple facets of the revolt. intellectuals supported the revolt because they aspired for a social democracy in hungary; yet at the same time workers under the approval of the hungarian communist party, seized control of their factories through workers council and worked to destroy russian domination, opting for direct worker control of production; students on the other hand would press for free elections though a secret ballot and free speech. it was an extremely diverse movement.

but most importantly it is a testament to the bankruptcy of stalin's foreign policy.

grove street
16th November 2006, 08:37
It reminds me of the current riots, where the western media is saying the people are fighting against a corrupt communist ruler, yet when I watch the riots on TV all I see are large crowds of skinheads and we all know Hungary has a history of fascism and nazism.

RevolutionaryMarxist
16th November 2006, 11:38
I agree with many of the points in this article - there is much more to the story than many propagandists would let out.

Lamanov
16th November 2006, 11:52
http://libcom.org/library/hungary-56-andy-anderson
http://af-north.org/other%20pamphlets/1956.htm
http://www.vorhaug.net/politikk/hungarian_tragedy/
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/books...wbook&bookid=13 (http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=13)
http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/La...1956Hungary.htm (http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/LabHist/1956Hungary.htm)
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=250&issue=112


Originally posted by A.J.
Book burnings of Marxist literature were carried out...

Irrelevant. They burned books not becuase they disliked Marx (and how could they know what he really was, when they only knew Marx as portrayed by the Kremlin), but because they disliked everything which came out of Communist Party print. I'd probably do the same thing.

P.S.

Stephen Millies may go fuck himself. And so can you, "Stalin kiddie".

VukBZ2005
16th November 2006, 11:52
Originally posted by grove [email protected] 16, 2006 03:37 am
It reminds me of the current riots, where the western media is saying the people are fighting against a corrupt communist ruler, yet when I watch the riots on TV all I see are large crowds of skinheads and we all know Hungary has a history of fascism and nazism.
Yes, that is somewhat true. But you need to understand that the Hungarian Revolution had a point to it, no matter if the point was not too clear.

They wanted to end the Bureaucratic control of Hungary and put the socialist state under their command through the workers councils.

Unlike the people who claim that the Hungarian revolution was a capitalist revolution and the people who claim that the Hungarian people wanted return to the kind of fascism that was present under Admiral Horthy, the Hungarian people had no desire to support such a return, otherwise, the positions of capitalists in the country would have been supported by the overwhelming majority.

ern
16th November 2006, 16:50
Hi

Agree with DJ-TC about rejecting the Stalinists attacks on a workers' revolt that end up drowned in blood by the Stalinist, nationalists and the 'West'. What took place in 1956 was a proletarian insurrection against Stalinism:

This was a real revolt of the Hungarian proletariat against the capitalist order in its Stalinist form, which weighed like a leaden yoke upon the workers of the Eastern European countries. This is a fact that the bourgeoisie has spent the last 50 years hiding or (more often) distorting. In the censured, falsified version, the role and the decisive action of the proletariat are reduced to a minimum. And when it comes to the central role of the workers’ councils, no more than lip service is paid to them in anecdote. Or else they are lost in a mishmash of committees, national or municipal councils, each more nationalist than the other, when they are not quite simply tossed into the dustbin.
Even in 1956 the most disgusting lies circulated in the East as well as the West. According to the Kremlin, and this was relayed by the European CPs, the events in Hungary were no more than a “fascist insurrection” manipulated by “western imperialists”. For the Stalinists at the time there were two aims. They had to prepare and justify the crushing of the Hungarian proletariat by Russian tanks. They also had to maintain the illusion in the eyes of workers in the West that the Soviet bloc was “socialist” and prevent them at all costs from realising that the uprising of their Hungarian brothers was a proletarian struggle.

So the Hungarian insurrection was presented by one side as ”the work of fascist bands in the pay of the United States”, whereas for the other, the bourgeoisie of the Western bloc, it was palmed off as a struggle for “the triumph of democracy”, for “freedom” and “national independence”. These two lies are complementary and share the aim of hiding from the working class its own history and therefore its profoundly revolutionary nature. However, it is the version claiming that it was a patriotic struggle, in which there was a hodgepodge of classes called “the people” fighting for “the victory of democracy”, that has become the sole axis of bourgeois propaganda, now that the crimes of Stalinism have come to light and the Eastern bloc has collapsed.
Hungary 1956: a proletarian insurrection against Stalinism (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/hungary-1956)

The Author
16th November 2006, 21:12
Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] November 16, 2006, 07:52 am
Irrelevant. They burned books not becuase they disliked Marx (and how could they know what he really was, when they only knew Marx as portrayed by the Kremlin), but because they disliked everything which came out of Communist Party print. I'd probably do the same thing.

This is an interesting tidbit. Because the workers were burning Marxist literature thanks to being discouraged by the Khrushchevite revisionists, this indicates that their political consciousness was low. And if their political consciousness was low, how are we to seriously believe that these workers wanted Communism or that they were taking steps to go in that direction? After all, the "Council Communism" being proposed by the Parliament of Workers' Councils sounds an awful lot like what was practiced in Yugoslavia under the Titoites- that "workers' self-management" which created the conditions to maintain capitalism...

As was pointed out in another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58740&st=0), the Writers Union wanted, of all things:

"6. The removal of the Rakosi clique, a post in the Government for Imre Nagy, and a resolute stand against all counter-revolutionary attempts and aspirations."

Why him? Why a man who can be compared to an early version of Gorbachev? Who after the Red Army arrived fled to (of all places!) the Yugoslav Embassy under the wing of the Titoites?

I'm not convinced that the workers actually were the leaders of this uprising. In fact, I suspect that the workers were unfortunately being deceived by the more politically conscious, more organized groups of fascists and anti-Semites and bourgeois intellectuals. It seems where the counterrevolution failed in 1956, they succeeded by 1989...

VukBZ2005
16th November 2006, 23:40
This is an interesting tidbit. Because the workers were burning Marxist literature thanks to being discouraged by the Khrushchevite revisionists, this indicates that their political consciousness was low.

If you were a average working class Hungarian who has been thought by the Hungarian Communist Party that the Hungarian "People's Republic" was what Marx was talking about when he mentioned the phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", then would you not burn such a book? Does that indicate a lack of class consciousness?

Let us then say that this is the case. If their consciousness were low, then why in the world did they take over the means of production within a matter of hours? Why did they demand a reformation of the Socialist system in Hungary to work for the workers? If you believe this to be the case, then what does that say about you?


And if their political consciousness was low, how are we to seriously believe that these workers wanted Communism or that they were taking steps to go in that direction? After all, the "Council Communism" being proposed by the Parliament of Workers' Councils sounds an awful lot like what was practiced in Yugoslavia under the Titoites- that "workers' self-management" which created the conditions to maintain capitalism...

As I emphasized then and now, they wanted to reform the socialist system in order for the soviets or workers' councils to control the means of production in a state that would have ensured that everything stayed in the hands of the workers.

They asked the "socialist" state to reform (in the months and days leading up to the events of October 23rd) the system in a way that would have benefited them - which may have resulted in a situation similar to Yugoslavia after Tito came to power. But the Bureaucracy resisted that, because they were essentially an extension of the USSR and the USSR was controlled by a Bureaucracy that preached Communism and practiced a different form of Capitalism.

Therefore, the only way to achieve those reforms were to overthrow the "socialist" state in Hungary and replace it with a Council Communist state that was based around the workers councils.

If PWC of Budapest does not give off such a indication overtly, and it did not show itself in practice due to the attacks of the Russian Army and due to the change from Myatas Rakosi to Imre Nagy by the desperate Bureaucracy, eventually, that would have lead to the downfall of the Bureaucracy if the USSR decided to stay out.



As was pointed out in
another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58740&st=0), the Writers Union wanted, of all things:

"6. The removal of the Rakosi clique, a post in the Government for Imre Nagy, and a resolute stand against all counter-revolutionary attempts and aspirations."

Why him? Why a man who can be compared to an early version of Gorbachev? Who after the Red Army arrived fled to (of all places!) the Yugoslav Embassy under the wing of the Titoites?

This is because the Writers Union was filled with reformists who thought that having Imre Nagy would have satisfy the need to increase the standard of living for the average Hungarian and would have solved most problems. It was they who demanded that.

The majority of the working population during the Revolution viewed him as a tool that could be used to ensure that the Russians stayed out of Hungary's internal affairs - they also viewed him as a easy picking that would result to the downfall of the Bureaucracy.


I'm not convinced that the workers actually were the leaders of this uprising. In fact, I suspect that the workers were unfortunately being deceived by the more politically conscious, more organized groups of fascists and anti-Semites and bourgeois intellectuals. It seems where the counterrevolution failed in 1956, they succeeded by 1989...

To make such accusations is historically inaccurate. The Revolution would not have happened if it were not for the spontaneous march of the students and the industrial workers to the parliament building on October 23rd. From there on in, the tempo of the Revolution was indeed in the hands of the workers.

Lamanov
17th November 2006, 16:58
Originally posted by C[email protected] 16, 2006 09:12 pm
I'm not convinced that...

Well, we don't give a shit.

The Author
17th November 2006, 17:41
Originally posted by Communist [email protected] November 16, 2006, 07:40 pm
Does that indicate a lack of class consciousness?

Well, yes. If the workers are not politically conscious in Marxism, then their movement will be nothing more than spontaneous, economist action. The important point is to seize political power, and the workers need political consciousness to do that.


Let us then say that this is the case. If their consciousness were low, then why in the world did they take over the means of production within a matter of hours? Why did they demand a reformation of the Socialist system in Hungary to work for the workers? If you believe this to be the case, then what does that say about you?

The workers seize the means of production, and then what? You have all of these "autonomous" factories acting on their own initiative without centralized planning (self-management), so what is to fill the void? The market? Just because an enterprise is only "employee owned" without integration into the country's socialized economy as a whole does not make it socialist.


As I emphasized then and now, they wanted to reform the socialist system in order for the soviets or workers' councils to control the means of production in a state that would have ensured that everything stayed in the hands of the workers.

They asked the "socialist" state to reform (in the months and days leading up to the events of October 23rd) the system in a way that would have benefited them - which may have resulted in a situation similar to Yugoslavia after Tito came to power. But the Bureaucracy resisted that, because they were essentially an extension of the USSR and the USSR was controlled by a Bureaucracy that preached Communism and practiced a different form of Capitalism.

So you are admitting that these "reforms" would have created a situation in Hungary similar to what took place in Yugoslavia?

There was an interesting post provided by someone on a thread (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28608&view=next&sid=46ea279a2aadf3db4e17044c02b05995) in the Soviet empire forum:


policy was to combine state capitalism with private capitalism within Yugoslavia. This took many forms over time -- but one key (and rather famous) component of it was (ironically) called "worker self-management." On paper the workers ran each large enterprise. But in fact what happened was that the INTERACTION of the enterprises was left in the market (they acted as autonomous units, making decisions at the enterprise level). What this meant was that the law of the market forced each enterprise (regardless of WHO was running it on paper) to act like a capitalist enterprise -- investing their surplus in whatever made the most profitable sense for THEIR enterprise, making management decisions that served THEIR enterprise (including layoffs etc.)

A system was created that "on paper" was a form of socialism -- but in reality operated like capitalism, with unplanned production based on individual maximization of profitable investment. And inevitably this meant that the laws of capitalism, not the workers, would decide what was produced. (This history, btw, is an excellent example to show Anarchists: because it shows why you can't just have "workers running their factories" WITHOUT CENTRALIZED SOCIALIST PLANNING.)

Compare with:


the Parliament of Workers' Councils in Budapest drew up this -

"1. The factory belongs to the workers. (my emphasis.) The latter should pay to the state a levy calculated on the basis of the output and a portion of the profits.

2. The supreme controlling body of the factory is the Workers' Council democratically elected by the workers.

3. The Workers ' Council elects its own executive committee composed of 3-9 members, which acts as the executive body of the Workers' Council, carrying out the decisions and tasks laid down by it.

4. The director is employed "by the factory. The director and the highest employees axe to be elected 'by the Workers' Council. This election will take place after a public general meeting called "by the executive committee.

5. The director is responsible to the Workers' Council in every matter which concerns the factory.

6. The Workers' Council itself reserves all rights to:

a. approve and ratify all projects concerning the enterprise;
b. decide basic wage levels and the methods by which these are to be assessed;
c. decide on all matters concerning foreign contracts;
d. decide on the conduct of all operations involving credit.

7. In the same way, the Workers' Council resolves any conflicts concerning the hiring and firing of all workers employed in the enterprise.

8. The Workers' Council has the right to examine the balance sheets and to decide on the use to which the profits are to be put.

9. The Workers' Council handles all social questions in the enterprise."


The majority of the working population during the Revolution viewed him as a tool that could be used to ensure that the Russians stayed out of Hungary's internal affairs - they also viewed him as a easy picking that would result to the downfall of the Bureaucracy.

How can you be certain that this was the opinion the majority of the Hungarian working population held?


The Revolution would not have happened if it were not for the spontaneous march of the students and the industrial workers to the parliament building on October 23rd. From there on in, the tempo of the Revolution was indeed in the hands of the workers.

It's a spontaneous march by the students and industrial workers...and meanwhile where are the politically conscious fascists, anti-Semites and Cardinal Mindszenty in this picture...

Wanted Man
17th November 2006, 20:15
Originally posted by chimx+November 14, 2006 06:26 pm--> (chimx @ November 14, 2006 06:26 pm) but most importantly it is a testament to the bankruptcy of stalin's foreign policy. [/b]
Stalin died 3 years earlier.


DJ-TC
Well, we don't give a shit.
Then kindly go find a thread that you do "give a shit" about.

Louis Pio
17th November 2006, 20:26
Considering that the demands of the protesters were that of Lenin in 1917 I can't see why anyone claiming to be bolshevic would be against. But then again the stalinist pseudo bolshevics already changed most of his policy so why not on this point...

Lamanov
17th November 2006, 22:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 08:15 pm
Then kindly go find a thread that you do "give a shit" about.

I do "give a shit", allot of it, about Hungarian revolution.

I was so kind to post some links you, and that "stalin kiddie", could find to be very informative.

I don't give a shit about Stalinist press, though, and someone who feeds off it.

rouchambeau
18th November 2006, 03:54
It's very disingenuous to post an article where the first half of the content is propaganda irrelevant to the Hungarian Uprising.