Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Hungary 1956: Revolution or Counter Revolution?

POST REPLY

What’s your opinion on 1956?

Poor Hungarians! It was outrageous what they did to them!
32
33%
It’s a shame that it happened.
23
24%
I’m indifferent.
5
5%
They got what was coming for them.
11
11%
Those treacherous Hungarians deserved to be crushed beneath the righteous Soviet heel!
15
15%
Other...
11
11%
 
Total votes : 97
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4796
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 11:09
Ideology: Other Leftist
Central Committee
Post 27 May 2005, 10:09
Americans are incredibly complacent... Especially if you look at local government participation rates, they're practically non-existent. If you look at polling figures, the numbers for "faith in government" are not good at all, yet the system continues. I think it was something like 70 percent for Congress, the President and the judicial branches had very little or "only some" confidence in these institutions. I'm not saying I myself am any better, I refuse to participate and don't see a point in participating in the current system in any form. Nor can i figure out a way to make any difference, every time I've tried I have found very little to encourage me or for that matter, support.

There are lots of intelligent Americans, yes, but either they are for the "Anybody but Bush" side of things, or are like myself and figure that they cannot make any real difference (which I have stated, "legally" in America is very difficult).

The forming of Unions was great, until McCarthy took the first step of neutering them (by inserting clauses that you could not be a communist) and then Reagan took the final steps (by virtually making them illegal). Today labor unions are utterly worthless. But for the most part, labor unions did not put up any violent resistence to the government nor did they seek to change the "regime" or general system of government/economics.

If you want to blame America for world problems, blame the system first, then the people behind it and the people who uphold it. Believe me, if those of us here who actually wanted change knew how in the hell we could actually do it, things would change... At this point, the only start we have is a whole laundry list of ideas that we know don't work.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 27 May 2005, 18:20
Well the problem is that America is such a large, nation. No change is worth doing nationally, and everybody has no connection to anybody else. It's rather brilliant how the Federal system was used to make people feel this way. What needs to happen is support for the different regional movements. Like the Cascadian Independency Movement, the Alaskan Independence Party, the support for Puerto Rican independence, Hawaiian independence, New England, it goes on, and they all exist.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 30 May 2005, 23:17
But what do you think would happen if one of these states actually voted itself to independence? For some reason I have a strong belief that history would repeat itself…


Hungary 1956…

Czechoslovakia 1968…

Cascadia 2006?

Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Feb 2005, 03:52
Unperson
Post 30 May 2005, 23:32
Quote:
There are lots of intelligent Americans, not all of them are the complacent pigs that you make them out to be.


Of course there are those that want to make change and actually pursue their wishes, however as I said, a politically active minority will never shift the complacency of the silent and distracted majority at the ballot box. Now, I ask you, Comrade Bendeguz, have you been anything other than complacent? Are your politics anything other symbolic? How much change and reform have you pursued?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 30 May 2005, 23:48
Hungary is a complex case, that underscores how fragged up conditions were in eastern Europe.

On one hand, the political systems in Eastern Europe were imposed from outside, and often had only shallow roots among the people (East Germany and the Balkans were exceptions)

The various local rulers in Eastern Europe found themselves imposing things with a harsh hand, and then when Krushchev came to power in the USSR and announced a blossoming of all things bourgeois -- it blew the lid off of things in Hungary.

The uprising there was deeply reactionary and pro-imperialist -- but under conditions where it developed a real mass support. The forces they revolted against WERE themselves revisionist -- even though the Communist forces of the world had not yet understood or analyzed that the rise to power of Krushchev (and his followers throughout eastern europe) represented the final and thorough restoration of capitalism.

The Chinese Communist Party (under Mao) did not support the Krushvhevite reforms, and they did not approve of many of the methods used throughout Eastern Europe. Their own approach to similar problems was not to organize some huge military clampdown -- but to call for ways to "expose our dark side openly from below." (as Mao put it).

Clearly Communists are not, and should not be, naive; there are times when you need to use the army to suppress reactionary uprisings and attempts at power. That, after all, is one reason that socialist revolutions need armies. At the same time, things have gone very bad if the socialist forces find themselves principally relying on the armed suppression (by police or armies) of major chunks of the population.

A great deal of Bob Avakian's recent work is making a critical analysis of the method and assumptions of even the best of earlier Communists that led to such dynamics... including scathing criticisms of Stalin and Mao.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 31 May 2005, 06:12
[quote]The forces they revolted against WERE themselves revisionist/quote]

If what you are saying here is what I thick it is, I do not agree. The Hungarian people, my people, were not happy under the Communist party. The economy was collapsing under incompetent collective farms, the people were being brutally suppressed by the AVO and the Party was taking all the perks for itself. You say that the rise of Khrushchev was the end of Communism in Eastern Europe. So Stalin and his government was Communism? Who do you think was placed into power by the Soviet Union? Who do you think was a friend of Stalin himself? Who do you think the AVO got their ideas and methods from? Where do you think Rakosi got the idea of the Cult-of-personality? Do you think Stalin would have given orders any different? Or Mao for that matter?

Ha! If that’s what Communism is…
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 31 May 2005, 22:32
The question of the People's Democracies in Eastern Europe from 1945-1956 is a very difficult one, and one that doesn't seem to be fully summed up yet by the International Communist Movement today. Like The Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (available at http://www.awtw.org/ ) says: "The socialist camp that emerged from the Second World War was never solid. Little revolutionary transformation was carried out in most of the Eastern European Peoples' Democracies. In the Soviet Union itself powerful revisionist forces unleashed going into, in the course of, and in the aftermath of the Second World War grew in strength and influence. In 1956, following the death of Stalin, these revisionist forces led by Khrushchev succeeded in capturing political power, attacked Marxism-Leninism on all fronts and restored capitalism in that country."

If the Red Army was to completely and totally defeat the Nazis, they couldn't have simply stopped at the USSR's borders; they had to go to Berlin itself, bring Hitler to his grave, and wipe away Nazi power in Eastern Europe. In doing so, the Soviets decided that instead of just giving power in Eastern European countries back to their old ruling classes, that instead they should put into power the Communist parties of those respective nations. Today, we look back and see that this move didn't exactly work the way it was intended to do: firstoff, there were powerful revisionist (phony Communist) trends and people within both the Eastern European parties and within the Red Army itself. Second, there was little popular basis among the masses for these Communist/Socialist parties (minus a few countries, like Yugoslavia and such) which made socialism in these countries basically imposed from the top-down; and as we all know, imposing socialism on a people where there's no basis for popular support is going to be a failure from the start. Thus, the seeds for capitalist restoration- and brutal rule under an iron fist- were planted in the Eastern Bloc (even if they were planted unintentionally, or even with good intentions).

On the other hand, I don't think it was wrong for the Soviets to at least TRY to bring socialism to the peoples of Eastern Europe at that time. I mean, honestly, would it have been very Communist of the Soviets to have given back power to the decrepit monarchies of Romania and Bulgaria and the authoritarian dictatorships of Poland and Hungary? I don't think so! Nevertheless, this does open up some questions for debate: if a socialist country today were caught in a similar situation, what would be the best way to handle restoring power in liberated countries where there is little basis for socialist transformation? I don't know personally, and I don't have the answer to that question, but it is a good question to think about and mull over... for we don't want to have to repeat Hungary 1956 again.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 31 May 2005, 23:13
Damn straight we don’t want 1956 repeated!

But on that subject what is better: oppression by a ‘communist’ dictatorship, or oppression by a monarchical dictatorship?
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2940
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jul 2004, 16:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 May 2005, 23:26
If the "communist" dictatorship actually implements some socialists ideas into its rule then I would choose that over monarchy any day.
Image


The future belongs to those of us still willing to get our hands dirty!
-Kaptn K
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 01 Jun 2005, 23:18
Yes, undoubtedly that is a good reason. But the monarchy also has its privileges no? otherwise, why would it still exist in certain countries?
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 05 Jun 2005, 23:08
Comrade Holt wrote:
The advantages of a monarchic despot are mostly monetary. The ruling class shield the the wealthy merchant class with massive tax cuts, who in turn nurture the government's lucrative interests. Everyone gains and grows rich except for the people. This is clearly documented in countries such as the ex-Soviet state of Turkmenistan where the insane dictator, Niyazov, spends huge quantities of money on ridiculous giant, revolving, solid gold-plated statues of himself and unsustainable museums eg. carpet, melon and horse museums which provide money for development corporations, while the common workers live in crumbling Soviet tower blocks - without running water!




That is quite an interesting dictator you have there comrade. Could you possibly post some more info you have on him?
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 142
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Mar 2004, 23:00
Pioneer
Post 06 Jun 2005, 00:21
The capitalist trotskyist coup deserved to be smash to bits.
"There's no reason for the establishment to fear me. But it has every right to fear the people collectively -I am one with the people."-Huey Newton
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 06 Jun 2005, 04:44
Oh dear....

please elaborate
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Mar 2004, 19:31
Komsomol
Post 06 Jun 2005, 10:37
Yes! Damn those trotskyists! They wanted a free and fair society that was free of the control of Moscow! How dare they?!

...oh dear indeed.
...that rare figure of the strong yet peace-loving man against whom the weapons of night are blunted.

Primo Levi on Alberto
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4796
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 11:09
Ideology: Other Leftist
Central Committee
Post 06 Jun 2005, 10:47
It's not really clear what the aim of the revolution was more than just breaking free from Moscow... If anything it looked more like a liberalization effort than anything (backing out of the Warsaw pact, asking for the US's help).
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Mar 2004, 19:31
Komsomol
Post 06 Jun 2005, 18:39
Possibly, but what right does an outside force have to impose a social and economic system on a people by force if they, rightly or wrongly, misguided or not, reject it? "No one likes an armed missionary".
From what I know about it, it seems more of a struggle for self-determination, and freedom from imperial control.
...that rare figure of the strong yet peace-loving man against whom the weapons of night are blunted.

Primo Levi on Alberto
Soviet cogitations: 142
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Mar 2004, 23:00
Pioneer
Post 06 Jun 2005, 21:08
Quote:
Yes! Damn those trotskyists! They wanted a free and fair society that was free of the control of Moscow! How dare they?!

...oh dear indeed.


Maybe if your idea of freedom is yankee capitalism.

Quote:
Possibly, but what right does an outside force have to impose a social and economic system on a people by force if they, rightly or wrongly, misguided or not, reject it? "No one likes an armed missionary".
From what I know about it, it seems more of a struggle for self-determination, and freedom from imperial control.


Because yankee fascism, trotskyism, and capitalism must be opposed on every front. The Hungarian counter revolution was led by Fascists and CIA agents. The CIA was helping the clerics and other reactionary filth create an neo-Arrow Cross clerical dictatorship.

Would you have opposed a soviet invasion of Nazi Germany when Hitler came to power?

Either way, few people supported the fascist yankee hungarians. If the masses of working people supported them, then they would of beaten off the soviets (like the masses of Vietnam beat off the yankees, or the bolshevik defeat of the whites/yankees/european imperialists)
"There's no reason for the establishment to fear me. But it has every right to fear the people collectively -I am one with the people."-Huey Newton
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4796
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 11:09
Ideology: Other Leftist
Central Committee
Post 06 Jun 2005, 21:19
Quote:
Either way, few people supported the fascist yankee hungarians.


How hungarians can be yankees is beyond me.

Quote:
if the masses of working people supported them, then they would of beaten off the soviets (like the masses of Vietnam beat off the yankees, or the bolshevik defeat of the whites/yankees/european imperialists)


Citing dissimilar cases to make an analogy is a bad idea. I think it is plain as day why Vietnam and the bolshevik cases are quite different. Vietnam is a much different place geographically than Hungary and the bolsheviks had the advantage of World War I going on. In many cases the Hungarians did fight well against the Soviets.

Quote:
then they would of beaten off the soviets


Heh, that just makes me giggle.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 06 Jun 2005, 22:29
Quote:

How hungarians can be yankees is beyond me.

Remember, these are the same people who thought that Trotsky was a jewish nazi-fascist.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 07 Jun 2005, 04:22
Quote:
The Hungarian counter revolution was led by Fascists and CIA agents.


Ah! So you are Hungarian then? You know all about 1956 than don’t you!

The fact that we had been horribly oppressed and wanted something else is completely besides the point! We were just jumping to have nice big chains wound around us again, weren’t we.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.