Thank you for your response. I accept your response as sincere and honest. I would consider it rude and intellectually dishonest for me to flood you with any more questions. Instead it might help for me to express my views and life experience. You are correct: I only know the Soviet system from books and imagination of what communism would look like in America given our current state of economic development, culture, social interactions between various groupings of people, vastness of territory and ideological concepts. You ask: >>> 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.<<< Answer: Because the people were angry - dissatisfied, with their individual and collective life and had a vision of a better life and better self organization. Your explanation does not sound confusing to me at all but confirms my understanding and experience with industrial workers. Reform movements under socialism or capitalism are spontaneous movements of people seeking to reform the system in their favor. In their favor means a fight - striving, for expanded political liberties and a more equitable share of the social products. The goal of these reform movements are never to overthrow the system of production because such is not possible. The system of production is not the political regime. The system of production we are talking about is the industrial system and not just an abstract industrial system but an industrial system at a historically definable state and stage of development. Here is the complexity and why I reject Ralph's screaming Stalinism as analysis. I am familiar with the life of that section and sector of the working class living their lives out in large scale industry and large industrial combines at the stage of development of the productive forces in America, having entered the auto industry at age 16 and retiring at age 49 - October 2001. I was also a trade union official for the UAW - Autoworkers union. Here is why I asked about stratification and real material groupings of the workers. My understanding - (no where as concrete and detailed as the life you have lived), is that the Hungarian Communist Party - (a "Stalinist" or Leninists Party (depending on point of view) was attempting to build socialism in a predominately peasant, Catholic country, with the lived experienced of a failed communist insurrection - 1918, in post WW II conditions of emerging from roughly twenty five years of fascist dictatorship, that included an alliance with Nazi Germany during WW II. My understanding of the internal divisions and popular (yes popular) unrest is taken from books exclusively, but so is my understanding of my own - American, history. Outside the time frame in which I lived as an adult. At the end of October 1956, the Hungarian uprising occurred and the remnants of fascist gangs sought to take advantage of the popular uprising to assassinate, beat and lynch Communist and their supporters. This uprising only ended after Soviet military intervention in early November. The struggle of the workers can never be separated from the environment of the value system in which they live and act out their economic impulses. Ralph is sinning against reality when he writes: "Capitalism can only corrupt Eastern Europe because Stalinism had thoroughly corrupted it for 45 years, and for 60 years in the USSR itself. Good riddance to bad rubbish." The value relations is of course exchange of labor and with and in a peasant country this means that as producers, it is not possible for them - the peasants, to alienate their products except on the basis of exchange. Ideally for industrial products. Politics and magical dialectics cannot resolve an economic formation. Also the workers themselves - even under some form of socialism, engage in the value relations because labor exchange operates and must operate as a law of industrial production and not an abstract capitalism. The difference between capitalism and socialism (at least in the past century) is that the law of value is unrestricted under capitalism and allows means of production to pass in the individual holder of money. The law of value is restricted under socialism and this means that means of production - ownership of them and not the concept of "control," cannot pass into the hands of individuals - at least ownership of socially necessary means of production. This explanation needs expansion, but what is obvious is that industrial socialism, born in the less industrial developed countries was not and could not be as industrially productive as the industrial system in the America. All the talk about socialism being more productive than capitalism is pretty meaningless and misleading without a detail explanation of what one is talking about. Industrial socialism owes its "productiveness" to the fact that capital or the social power of capital is directed to compartments of the economy designed to first develop the industrial infrastructure and the industrial artifacts that sit upon it, to ensure the overall transition from peasant to industrial economy. Generally, what is called consumer products take a back seat and this creates dissent and spawns a spontaneous reform movement of workers seeking greater political liberties and a more equitable share of the social products - consumer products. The pressure of the value relations comes from several directions - none of them related to political Stalinism. Can I talk about this in more detail later? Hungary was dominated by another state or rather drawn into the orbit of Soviet socialism on the basis of military conquest of the Soviet Armed forces. This alone is and was a problem that no ideology can wish away. This also gives one a clue about the weakness of Hungarian communism and the Hungarian communists. If people are not won to the cause of communism it will not win. See . . . all reform movements - (which are neither good or bad in the sense of them being spontaneous movements generated on the basis of subtle and "geological shifts" in the productive forces, calls forth tendencies of "revolution" and "counter revolution" as was witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. If people do not want socialism and are not won to it then they are not going to accept socialism . . . period. Actually, what is called forth by the reform movement are the two tendencies of the revolutionary insurrectionists expressing competing and opposing political programs and political regimes. My point on the 1956 Hungarian Revolution is that it was not and could not be a revolution, but was a revolt and even a popular uprising, where the Hungarian communists faced the prospect of losing political power. The backdrop I must consider and not wave away with the shake of my hand is the role of Hungary during the war.
My point on the value system is that socialism is not a new social system and no where does Marx claim such or Lenin and Stalin for that matter. Socialism is a political regime that transitions society to advance forth on the basis of blocking the unrestricted operations of the law of value and preventing private ownership of socially necessary means of production. I can say a few things about the so-called "workers movements" (which really has meant the industrial workers movement and upon closer inspection the industrial workers in large enterprises rather than the poorest strata of the proletariat) and the whole concept of a workers government, which in my opinion has nothing in common with modern Marxism and what Marx and Lenin wrote about. 1). The proletarian revolution is not a social revolution of the workers or a workers revolution. 2). It is called the proletarian revolution because the proletariat - the lowest strata of modern society in particular - at least in America, and not the highest paid industrial workers, must liberate all of society to liberate itself. 3). The reform movement of the workers for self management and self organization, under all conditions of modern society, is only one aspect of the proletarian - communist, revolution. Do I believe that the Hungarian so-called Revolution of 1956, is worthy of the support of world communism and to be viewed as a genuine workers movement towards communism? No . . . such is not my view. Do I believe that the communist of this era and experience can look back and reassess their experience? Yes. Communists and everyone else in Russia today, are reevaluating their experience and today see clearly that the insurrection - not revolution, was carried out by the bourgeois fascists, in league with AMerian led world imperialism, after the communists lost the ideological and political battle with world imperialism and then dropped the ball. Is the former Soviet Union and Russia better today for the most poverty stricken sector of the proletariat? I am astute enough to understanding the complex logic of revolution and counterrevolutionary tendencies and the deep stratification within modern society. There were probably communist led revolts of the workers - for genuine reform of their conditions of labor, in and outside Budapest. The reality is that the Soviet military command could not allow any of its war time gains to be lost to the forces of world imperialism. The material available today indicates that Soviet political command was split on the issue which the voice of the CPC weighing in on containment - Soviet intervention, of Hungary. It is my understanding the CPC itself threatened to send troops to preserve the then Soviet Block. In 1956 I was four (4) years old. Thus, if I am asked in retrospect, how I would have voted in 1956, if I was who I am today, it would have been with the Molotov group and the CPC. And you would probably not like my retrospective vote. Sorry. I hope I have not offended you but my desire was honest understanding. Today, the revolutionary advance is not to a form of industrial socialism but economic communism. Melvin P. In a message dated 10/21/2006 11:43:58 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An attempt at answering some of your questions -- since answering all of them would need either 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 -- supposedly 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 _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
