Hungarians feel life was better under communism

[nvm]

Most Hungarians believe that life was better in the János Kádár era before "Communism" collapsed in 1989-90, according to a survey by market researchers Gfk Piackutató.
In all, 62% of the 1,000 people interviewed said they were happiest in the period preceding the change of regime, up from 53% in 2001. Those favouring the Kádár era were generally the elderly rather than the young, and those with lesser schooling. The number saying that the pre-1990 era was the worst fell from 20% in 2001 to 13% today.
Only 14% of respondents said the period since 1990 has been their happiest, while 60% said it has been the least happy, compared to 17% and 48% seven years ago.
Another 11% chose the period before the Second World War as the best, down from 14% in 2001.
Some 80% of those 50 years of age or older consider the time before the change of regime happier. Nearly 75% of those aged 40-49, and 55% of those who were students and young adults during the late 1980s concur, whereas only 24% of those aged 15-29 agree.
Sociologist Pál Tamás of the Academy of Sciences sociology institute told Népszabadság that the poll does not reflect political nostalgia. "In general this region was less happy in the 1990s than Western Europe. It has been shown that an East German who has a job is less happy than a jobless West German. The struggle and the basic feeling of 'I have been promised much and I received little' characterizes this region," he said.




In Defence of Marxism (http://www.marxist.com/)






I see that in all Eastern European Countries.

If the youth were not so brainwashed with anti - communist propaganda(some of that is true but wtv), they would go back to socialism. Because as we can see , most people that experienced "communism" would rather go back to it.

But these people are "old" now.



Do you guys have any statistics from other Eastern European Countries?

Note also that Hungary was invaded by the Russian tanks in 1956(but these is another story), and that invasion would normaly cause anti-communist sentiment to older people, which is not the case

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course this is the case in much of the former proletarian states. Despite everything, the bureaucratized proletarian states were and are vastly superior to capitalism.

* * *

Take a look at this section of Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html) for more:


17. Since the earliest years of capitalism, working people have attempted -- in various geographic locations and to varying degrees of success -- to overthrow their exploiters.

In 1871, a revolutionary uprising in Paris, France, created the Paris Commune, considered the first attempt at establishing a proletarian state.

The first successful attempt at overthrowing capitalism came in 1917, when the October Revolution sent shockwaves through the world by overthrowing capitalist rule throughout the vast Russian Empire and laying the foundation for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The October Revolution, which was carried out by the proletariat – under the leadership of its Bolshevik party – destroyed the capitalist state and paved the way for the construction of a proletarian state in its place. Due to the USSR’s backwardness, isolation, imperialist encirclement, the failure of the socialist revolution to successfully spread to other (especially more advanced) countries, and the loss of many of its most advanced members of the working class in the civil war, the revolution began to degenerate after a few years, giving rise to a privileged bureaucratic caste that eventually seized political power, thus making the USSR a bureaucratized proletarian state.

The bureaucracy did not own the means of production, which were brought into public ownership in the wake of the October Revolution, thus it was not a class. The bureaucracy was a conservative, nationalist caste that controlled the state.

18. After the October Revolution, capitalist rule was overthrown, and capitalist property relations subsequently overturned, in Mongolia, China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and the northern half of Korea. But the methods in which capitalism was overthrown in these countries gave rise not to healthy proletarian states, but bureaucratized proletarian states like that which existed in the USSR.

The bureaucrats who controlled these states came from various backgrounds. Some were communists who had genuine revolutionary intentions but viewed “actually existing socialism” in the bureaucratized proletarian states that has already come into existence as the model for socialism and/or looked to the leaders of bureaucratized-socialist states (especially the USSR), who nationalistically subjected the interests of the international working class as a whole to the interests of their own countries, for leadership and direction. Others were opportunists, looking for a way to “get ahead.” Finally, some were professional, administrators, et. al., in the old society seeking privileged positions for themselves in the new society.

In the states liberated from fascism by the Red Army during World War II (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany), the soon-to-be bureaucrats were placed a top bureaucratic states constructed by the Red Army on the model of the Soviet state.

In the states created through mass revolutions (China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Ethiopia and north Korea), the soon-to-be bureaucrats insured the creation of bureaucratic proletarian states by patterning themselves on the bureaucratic castes that ruled the existing bureaucratized proletarian states.

19. While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to “peacefully coexist” with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany.

But this is not the only danger. The bureaucracy, along the proletarian state itself, cant be directly overthrown by counterrevolutionary forces, as was the case in Ethiopia.

20. Today, bureaucratized proletarian states remain in existence in China, Laos, Viet Nam and north Korea. All four are in serious danger of collapse, counterrevolution and capitalist restoration. If successful, such counterrevolution would represent a set back for the working class as a whole.

While bureaucratized proletarian states are a far cry from the proletarian states we fight for, they still represent a gain for the working class. Despite their distortions, the bureaucratic proletarian states exist over top of collectivized property form born out of the overthrow of capitalism, thus allowing working people much better living conditions than they had prior to (or in the cases of those which no longer exist) after the states’ existence. More importantly on a historic scale, the very existence of these states contributes to the defeat of world imperialism, thus removing all barriers for the construction of genuine socialism in every country and paving the way for a communist world.

Communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, but they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements. We struggle for the ouster of the bureaucrats and their governing system, to be replaced by genuine workers’ democracy, while pointing out the need for the preservation of the gains represented by collectivized property, economic planning, and control of trade.

The best way for the working class to defend the gains in these countries is to defend the countries themselves from attack by the imperialist powers while at the same time fighting for socialist revolutions in the remaining capitalist countries. The victory of socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries can create the openings necessary for the removal of the bureaucratic castes in the bureaucratized proletarian states (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.).

21. Other than the working class in the USSR, the working class of Cuba is so far the only in history to carry out socialist revolution (in 1959), take power, and hold on to it by establishing a healthy proletarian state. Today, Cuba is the only healthy proletarian state in existence. Still, revolutionary Cuba is in danger. It is a testament to the Cuban workers’ internationalism and commitment to the revolution that the limited bureaucracy that exists in Cuba has been kept in check and prevented from taking power. If Cuba is not broken out of isolation by the victory of the socialist revolution in other countries, it will eventually degenerate under the harsh pressures it faces.

[Saorsa]

If the youth were not so brainwashed with anti - communist propaganda(some of that is true but wtv), they would go back to socialism. Because as we can see , most people that experienced "communism" would rather go back to it.

It's not quite that simple. The reason why we haven't had a socialist revolution in (insert you're respective FW country here) is not because of "media brainwashing", although the media and the dissemination of bourgeois culture through it does play a role. There's a lot more going on than that.

The basic requirements for a revolution to take place are a crisis of some kind (e.g. war, economic collapse, repressive government actions etc), and the existence of revolutionary leadership and a revolutionary Party to channel the anger caused by this crisis in a fruitful and focussed direction, rather than allowing it to be spread thinly and weakly all over the place. Sunlight will only cause a fire if you channel it through a magnifying glass.

After the negative experiences the people of Eastern Europe had under their bureaucratic "socialist" regimes, they won't be in any hurry to rise up in revolutionary struggle any time soon. You can't have a socialist revolution based on nostalgia, and Eastern Europe is not going to suddenly say "y'know, we should go back to the days of Brezhnev".

[The Author]

20. Today, bureaucratized proletarian states remain in existence in China, Laos, Viet Nam and north Korea. All four are in serious danger of collapse, counterrevolution and capitalist restoration. If successful, such counterrevolution would represent a set back for the working class as a whole. And Cuba is not in danger?

How come there is an article printed in Juventud Rebelde called "Bureaucracy in Cuba: Between Distortion and Rigidity"?

http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/columnists/2007-09-13/bureaucracy-in-cuba-between-distortion-and-rigidity/

It was written by Luis Sexto, and according to the website, it was published on September 13, 2007. That's fairly recent. He claims,

"Today, rigidity, paperwork, the inefficient management that the dictionary attributes to bureaucracy has made the prerogatives of the Cuban socialist state mediocre while de-contextualizing them...bureaucracy has become an unwitting or involuntary accomplice of the US blockade. Maybe, also unconsciously, it is to bureaucracy’s advantage that the blockade continues, as a guarantee to bureaucracy’s interferential and anarchic existence...Any project to renew and perfect socialism in Cuba will have to face and quell the resistance of the bureaucracy – not to mention the opposition of the United States and its permanent war, and the efforts of those people in our country who try to push Cuba into capitalism, one way or another."

According to him, bureaucracy is still a major problem in Cuba.

If he is correct, that means we now have to classify Cuba as a bureaucratic socialist state, along with the D.P.R.K. and Vietnam.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The rest of the piece I quoted/linked actually goes into Cuba:


21. Other than the working class in the USSR, the working class of Cuba is so far the only in history to carry out socialist revolution (in 1959), take power, and hold on to it by establishing a healthy proletarian state. Today, Cuba is the only healthy proletarian state in existence. Still, revolutionary Cuba is in danger. It is a testament to the Cuban workers’ internationalism and commitment to the revolution that the limited bureaucracy that exists in Cuba has been kept in check and prevented from taking power. If Cuba is not broken out of isolation by the victory of the socialist revolution in other countries, it will eventually degenerate under the harsh pressures it faces.

There is a limited bureaucracy in Cuba, and that's a result of isolation, imperialist encirclement, and other realities of the current situation in the world, and this bureaucracy needs to be combated; but Cuba is still controlled by the working class. It's not controlled by a bureaucratic caste, as say, Hungary was. Indeed, the fact that there is (and has been -- Che was leading fights against bureaucracy in the earliest days of the revolution) an active fight going on against the rise of any sort of privileged bureaucracy demonstrates the differences between a healthy proletarian state like Cuba and a bureaucratized proletarian state where a bureaucracy has usurped power and become entrenched.

[Saorsa]

I would argue that Vietnam has fully restored capitalism, in the same way that China has, and is now simply a capitalist country run by a capitalist party that calls itself "Communist". No country that has Special Economic Zones can be called in any way socialist.

There's a bit more to be defended in the DPRK, and we should definitely oppose imperialist attacks on it, but it's a total mess and there's never been a huge amount to uphold there in terms of it's political structure.

Agree with NHIA on Cuba - it has it's problems, but it represents the most genuinely socialist country in the world today.