An attempt at answering some of your questions -- since ansqwering all of them would need erither a book or a two-day conference. (Maybe I can answer some other points later.) Workers´ councils. Formed at some factories outside of Budapest (the capital which otherwise was the centre of the uprising. BTW hardly any of those who try to see the urprising as an event "against socialism" - by what they mean Soviet "socialism" - ask the simple question: How come that ten years after "socialism" was "introduced" dozens of thousands of people of all social groups mutiny against the system?) and try the manage the production - in other words trying to instal what a "real" CP should have done. Which of course was unthinkable given the Soviet system the USSR installed in all over Central and Eastern Europe after 1945. In my opinion, in spite of all "dialectic", trying to find "socialist" traces in this system - except in its very beginning in early 20s - is a futile exercise as it had nothing to do neither with a new social system -- suposedly following the revolution-- nor with Marxism. I am well aware my "explanation" sounds a bit confused for anybody who knows the Soviet (Communist) system from books and cannot give up his faith that the SU was a socialist state -- but my words may be just a first step in a discussion. Stephen
______________________________________________________________ > Od: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Komu: [email protected] > Datum: 20.10.2006 22:09 > Předmět: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] 1956 Hungarian Revoolution > >>> In einer eMail vom 19.10.2006 21:40:55 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit >schreibt >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) : > >If those who do not remember that the Hungarian uprising created the first >(and only) real "soviets" - workers´ councils - in Central Europe do not >want >to celebrate this anniversary -- what do they understand of Stalinist >regimes? I lived the whole period there, in "socialist" Czechoslovakia, so >I have my >own experience very different from any West European "Marxist" who may be >nostalgic on Communists. Stephen Steiger << > >Comment > >I remain interested in such real world experience for practical and profound >theoretical reasons. Did not Hungary enter the Soviet political economic and >military orbit on the basis of the defeat of German led European fascism? . >. . and did not fascism - real military form fascism, have deep roots in >Hungary amongst a section of the people and in its military institutions? > >Some of the material provided indicates that there was intense political >struggle within the Soviet Party over how to respond to the Hungarian Crisis. >In >fact the dominant political sector of the CPC - Chinese Communist Party, >registered its objections to the path advocated by Khrushchev clique in >contradistinction to a party sector associated with Molotov. My point is that >every >section of world communism was affected and no one acted arbitrarily and to >the best of everyone's ability, an earnest effort was made to think things >out >rationally. > >Simply screaming "Stalinism" becomes a cloak for an inability to think >things out. Let us assume the CPSU and the CPC were wrong. The issue is not >why >were they wrong at this point, but rather, on what basis was post war Europa >approached? . . . from the standpoint of the continuing military aggression of > >American led world imperialism? > >A much deeper and interesting issue for me is the question of "the workers" >and their democratic impulses versus what I will call the emancipatory >instinct and impluses of classes and peoples. The reason I continue to object >to the > charge of Stalinism, as the watchword for every democratic champion of "the >workers" is my experience with American bourgeois democracy as a state form >of rule. > >Here is why I would value your experience greatly, (Since you "lived the >whole period there") if for instance you were able to describe in simple terms > >exactly who these workers were that formed "first [and only) real "soviets" - >workers´ councils." Specially, there economic status within the working class >and what sector of workers? > >At least afford some of us the opportunity to understand your passion and >appraisal. > >Without question the leaders of the CPSU were concerned and scared that >Hungary would leave the Soviet orbit and open a breach for not just the value >system for the military forces of American led imperialism. I do not call >this >fear and consideration "Stalinism" or the military considerations of the CPC >and the CPSU "Stalinism." Rather I call Stalinism a fusion of the >personality >traits and gigantic personality of Stalin the person onto the objective >logic of constructing an industrial system without the economic logic-circuit >of >private capital, as this privately held capital creates the contours for >reproduction. Because capital is not privately held the state assumes a >pronounced importance in economic construction and ensuring that nothing can >pass to >the individual except means of consumption. > >My own criticism of Stalin the person is rather complex. What is painfully >clear today is that he did not hit the political structures of the bureaucracy >- the industrial bureaucracy, and the layers of party organization hard >enough and his life came to an end before the carrying out of his next purge. >The >real world problem of course, is that the industrial bureaucracy is >absolutely indispensable to the building of the industrial infrastructure and >the >entire system of industrial architecture that sits upon it. During the rising >curve of industrial development the industrial bureaucracy, in contradiction >to >and contradistinction with the historically evolved feudal bureaucracy, is >the precondition for the triumph of the industrial revolution. > >In other words, Lenin and Stalin and everyone else to rise to the heights of >Soviet Power, were to a considerable degree trapped by the logic of history >itself. The so-called fight against the bureaucracy can only be carried out in >a bureaucratic manner and it matters not if this fight arises from the "top" >or "bottom." > >Today we have a clearer vision of the internal dynamics of this "revolution >within the revolution" because it is apparent in large corporations like IBM, >Cisco Systems, and all the new forms of organizations that arise on the basis >of the revolution in the means of production. > >Stalin most certainly had faults and the Soviet form of industrial socialism >stamped with the personality of Stalin had many shortcoming. The >Sovietization (Russianization) of Marxism and its codifying in the tenets of >the Third >International became a barrier to the advance of the communist movement as >distinct from the "workers movement" but these are question of history >demeaning >insight and analysis rather than screaming "Stalinism." This much talked >about workers movement is of course a reform movement, better lead by >communists >. . . , with all our warts and faults, than bourgeois democrats, in my >opinion. > >And yes, we are going to make a hundred million mistakes along the way . . . >but they will be new mistakes. > >The "1956 Hungarian Revolution" was really a mass revolt in which >insurrectionaries came to the fore seeking to take state power . . . OK. > >Exactly what is it we are to be celebrating? It is obvious that certain >weaknesses of Hungarian communists and communism and probably a host of >mistakes, >going back to 1918, exacerbated the conflict with the remnants of the post >WW II fascist order. I am not scared of openly discussing mistakes. > >Melvin P. > >_______________________________________________ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >[email protected] >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
