[Marxism] Re: Hungary 1956

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Mar 23 19:55:31 MST 2004


In a message dated 3/23/2004 6:54:24 PM Central Standard Time, 
ozleft at optushome.com.au writes:
The subsequent collapse of that system in most contries stemmed from its
organic anti-working-class contradictions, not from any fascist
conspiracy.

Amnesia, ignorance and the attempt to blacken the names of the tens of
thousands of proletarian revolutionaries who revolted against Stalinism in
1956, and the hundreds of thousands of Communists in the West who
supported them (indluding myself) is ahistorical nonsense.

Comment

There is no such thing as an anti-working class contradiction. At least 
within every recognizable facet of the Marxist intellectual movement. The law of 
the unity and conflict of opposites - as it is called, is a specific form of 
exposition and approach to a determined qualitative ingredient. Soviet society as 
well as the socialist camp, which was not formed on the basis of proletarian 
revolution or social revolution with communists in the leadership, but rather 
the results of the Soviet victory in the Second World Imperial War, most 
certainly expressed many contradictions. 

The hundred of thousands of communists in the West that entered into 
alignment with their bourgeoisie in support of dismantling the socialist camp should 
criticize themselves and accept a simple rule of thump: no matter how a social 
movement appears, if the imperialist bourgeoisie supports it it is generally 
reactionary. This rule of thump will keep one on the correct side of history 
nine out of 10 times and roughly 99.9% of the time. 

Politics are complex. It is fairly simple to understand a physical reaction 
resulting from a physical attack or machine like mechanical motion. But this 
question of motion, process and social movements becomes much more complex in 
the context of the political antagonism that existed between Soviet power and 
bourgeois property, external to the Soviet Union and within the socialist 
community, which was at various stages in development of the industrial system. 

A policy or political assertion that may not have direct impact for many 
years has to be assessed in front of the outcome. We very well understand the 
outcome of Hungary 1956 and the Prague spring of 1968 and why the petty bourgeois 
intellectuals spew forth their hatred for the iron hand of the Soviet 
proletarian brigade. 

State barricade socialism would be infinitely better in today's world. The 
barricade was of course against the bourgeoisie, with the petty bourgeoisie 
intellectual of the imperial centers being served sharp political and ideological 
blows. Internally the barricade was erected to fight the assertion of the law 
of value, especially as it expressed itself in agriculture.

The endless cries of the petty bourgeoisie intellectuals and their abstract 
notions of democracy is revealed in today's environment for what it is - 
genuflecting to the bourgeoisie. The world people are in the process of learning the 
true meaning of democracy and the enormous concessions the Soviet proletariat 
brigade enforced upon bourgeois property. 

In a political polarity you are on one side or the other. There is no middle 
ground or rather the middle is where the bullets fly.  The workers in America 
long ago formulated the question: "Which side are you on?" 

There is no such thing as an anti-working class contradiction. Here is the 
ideology of betrayal and cowardice, pandering to bourgeois property. Are not the 
workers - the working class stratified? What workers are being talked about? 

Any communist that places the fate of the social revolution in the hands of 
the most privileged, better paid and organized section of the working class is 
making an unforgivable anarcho-syndicalist error. Lenin was going to jail the 
railway workers and their union leaders. 

In the American Union we are going to win over a small section of these 
workers, neutralize the majority and run pass them. The concept proletarian 
revolution does not mean a workers revolution and this is not understood. 

Those who revolted against so-called Stalinism have in history condemned 
perhaps two billion people to a certain death in today's world. Only the bourgeois 
intellectual in the imperial centers cannot see the obvious. 

Tragic. 

Melvin P. 



More information about the Marxism mailing list