Originally posted by Klement
[email protected] 15, 2006 04:07 pm
This was in Hungary, not in Czechoslovakia. Unlike in Poland, the Hungarian chauvinists were not pressing for reforms. They pressed to overthrow the socialist system.
Ok.
Then explain to me why there were workers councils formed in the industrial areas of Hungary (such as Pécs, Debrecen, and Budapest) and took over the factories and managed it by themselves for?
And explain to me then why did 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."
Even though it was drawn up in the early days of the 1956 Hungarian revolution, it demonstrates its growing revolutionary nature (despite their limited conceptions of how things were going to work out). It is obvious that they were out to overthrow the bureaucracy, and establish a reformed "workers state" based on a more democratic form of Council Communism.
Another example, this statement written by the Writers Union -
"We want
1. An independent national policy based on the principles of socialism;
2. Equality in relations with the USSR and the People's Democracies;
3. A revision of economic agreements in the spirit of the equality of national rights;
4. The running of the factories by workers and specialists. (My emphasis.)
5. The right of peasants freely to decide their own fate.
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.
7. Complete political representation of the working class - free and secret elections to Parliament and to all autonomous organs of administration."
Again, this emphasis that the Hungarian Revolution was counterrevolutionary can be proving wrong using this text, because even though it was somewhat reformist, it can be said that this is what the majority of the population was favoring.
If it was capitalist, then it would have said so in its actions and its words.
Seeing as how Tito supported the suppression of the counterrevolution, this movement did not try to establish a truly non-aligned, neutral Hungary.
How could they? They were focused on overthrowing the bureaucracy and defending Hungary from "Soviet" intervention.
I believe that if there was enough time and the right weapons given to the Hungarian revolutionaries, then the bureaucracy would have been defeated.
The Hungarian counterrevolution was specifically Russophobic and nationalistic chauvinist. They rallied around the oppressor Cardinal Mindzenty. They received the political support of Radio Free Europe. A movement that embraces the Catholic Church and national chauvinism cannot be regarded as revolutionary.
They were not, stop your lies. First of all, there were elements of the Russian army that were associating with the revolutionaries, that is why the Politiboro of the USSR sent in the troops from their far east regions to prevent such association.
Cardinal Mindzenty was probably supported by a minority of the population, the majority obviously ignored him. You just can not use the statements of a person and then say that is what the 1956 Hungarian Revolution stood for.
Also, despite the fact that the capitalists in other nations did support the revolution, because they thought that there was a slim chance that Hungary was going to go capitalist again, they did not send the weapons or help that was being requested by the Hungarian revolutionaries.
Your accusations are built to confuse people about the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
You are just as bad as the right-wing Hungarian fascists who are, right now, trying to distort the memory of the Hungarian Revolution to the younger generations of Hungarians. It is a shame.