Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and told them “I can’t talk to you because you’re too ignorant, you have to read this book first”? How did that go?
So ignoring your namecalling and dogmatism, I read the first two chapters of the book, introduction and the chapter on psychological warfare in the 1950s and 1960s. The only thing it says about Hungary is that it was a counter-revolution. Do I have to keep reading into the 1970s and 80s to find out where it’s revealed that the imperialists orchestrated the whole revolution? Should I cite histories by marxists and communists that talk about spontaneous worker councils?
Nobody said there weren’t contradictions in Hungary. What was said is that the CIA was actively exploiting these contradictions to foment a counter revolution. And this precisely the formula that has been used since. And of course, history shows us how these spontaneous worker councils work out in practice. Also, somebody whitewashing western imperialism by using disingenuous arguments is not my comrade. People like you are the reason the west is where it is today. You reject practical ways of combating capitalism while peddling Utopian snake oil.
No you didn’t. You think the Hungarian Revolution was a counter-revolution initiated by bourgeois reactionaries funded by the CIA, with no popular support. I think it was an uprising initiated by students that then became a massive proletarian revolution against the repression of the Rákosi government. You didn’t “address” this disparity. You just insulted me.
The book you cited doesn’t really talk about the revolution itself, so I have to infer that the author thinks that the psychological warfare waged by the West against the Warsaw Pact countries fooled the revolutionaries into revolting against their government because it convinced them that communism was bad. Again, although the CIA was present, I don’t accept this as the primary motivation for the revolution.
It’s not what I think, it’s what documents released by the CIA say. You’re the one who keeps pretending that it was some organic worker movement. Meanwhile, the book describes with numerous examples, of how these reactionaries are groomed and used by the west. It’s obvious that you’re going to continue believing whatever you need to believe, so there’s really no point continuing the discussion.
That’s what’s so baffling to me. If you read any history, e.g. the one I linked, you can also try the numerous ones on marxists.org, even wikipedia, honestly pick your source on any part of the political spectrum, you find out that there was a student movement, followed by mass protests, strikes at factories followed by a general strike, the Red Army was kicked out, a provisional worker’s council committee was established that was democratically elected by workers, then the Red Army came back in force and ended it, after which there were more strikes and mass mobilizations that were repressed by the Soviet military and the Kádár government. There are many accounts of revolutionaries clarifying that they didn’t want to return to capitalism, they just wanted the Red Army out so that they could build what they referred to as real socialism.
I’m well aware that Radio Free Europe was propagandizing throughout the 1950s, there were leaflet drops, and the CIA document shows a relationship with Béla Király after the revolution, when they sponsored his organization. The Artemov book on page 36-38 talks about the information warfare waged on Hungary by the West but it doesn’t give an account of what actually happened.
The idea that Béla Király was training militants in the mountains with the CIA is also contradicted by the fact that he was imprisonned from 1951 until a few weeks before the revolution. As a sidenote, while he fought on the Axis side, he was later named one of the “Righteous Among Nations” by the World Holocaust Remembrance Center because of his relatively humane treatment of Jewish prisoners.
Anyway I just don’t see the weight of historical evidence on the side of “reactionary coup”, but I guess I should thank you for forcing me to do more research on this. I did learn a lot.
Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and told them “I can’t talk to you because you’re too ignorant, you have to read this book first”? How did that go?
I try to avoid interacting with imbeciles in day to day life.
So ignoring your namecalling and dogmatism, I read the first two chapters of the book, introduction and the chapter on psychological warfare in the 1950s and 1960s. The only thing it says about Hungary is that it was a counter-revolution. Do I have to keep reading into the 1970s and 80s to find out where it’s revealed that the imperialists orchestrated the whole revolution? Should I cite histories by marxists and communists that talk about spontaneous worker councils?
Here, just for kicks
https://www.union-communiste.org/it/1996-12/30-hungary-1956-the-workers-councils-5619
I look forward to the next round of insults, comrade, you’re really doing your movement a service.
Nobody said there weren’t contradictions in Hungary. What was said is that the CIA was actively exploiting these contradictions to foment a counter revolution. And this precisely the formula that has been used since. And of course, history shows us how these spontaneous worker councils work out in practice. Also, somebody whitewashing western imperialism by using disingenuous arguments is not my comrade. People like you are the reason the west is where it is today. You reject practical ways of combating capitalism while peddling Utopian snake oil.
I realize that continuing this is pointless but I’ll just suggest that you attack the idea and not the person next time.
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension because I addressed your idea.
No you didn’t. You think the Hungarian Revolution was a counter-revolution initiated by bourgeois reactionaries funded by the CIA, with no popular support. I think it was an uprising initiated by students that then became a massive proletarian revolution against the repression of the Rákosi government. You didn’t “address” this disparity. You just insulted me.
The book you cited doesn’t really talk about the revolution itself, so I have to infer that the author thinks that the psychological warfare waged by the West against the Warsaw Pact countries fooled the revolutionaries into revolting against their government because it convinced them that communism was bad. Again, although the CIA was present, I don’t accept this as the primary motivation for the revolution.
It’s not what I think, it’s what documents released by the CIA say. You’re the one who keeps pretending that it was some organic worker movement. Meanwhile, the book describes with numerous examples, of how these reactionaries are groomed and used by the west. It’s obvious that you’re going to continue believing whatever you need to believe, so there’s really no point continuing the discussion.
That’s what’s so baffling to me. If you read any history, e.g. the one I linked, you can also try the numerous ones on marxists.org, even wikipedia, honestly pick your source on any part of the political spectrum, you find out that there was a student movement, followed by mass protests, strikes at factories followed by a general strike, the Red Army was kicked out, a provisional worker’s council committee was established that was democratically elected by workers, then the Red Army came back in force and ended it, after which there were more strikes and mass mobilizations that were repressed by the Soviet military and the Kádár government. There are many accounts of revolutionaries clarifying that they didn’t want to return to capitalism, they just wanted the Red Army out so that they could build what they referred to as real socialism.
I’m well aware that Radio Free Europe was propagandizing throughout the 1950s, there were leaflet drops, and the CIA document shows a relationship with Béla Király after the revolution, when they sponsored his organization. The Artemov book on page 36-38 talks about the information warfare waged on Hungary by the West but it doesn’t give an account of what actually happened.
The idea that Béla Király was training militants in the mountains with the CIA is also contradicted by the fact that he was imprisonned from 1951 until a few weeks before the revolution. As a sidenote, while he fought on the Axis side, he was later named one of the “Righteous Among Nations” by the World Holocaust Remembrance Center because of his relatively humane treatment of Jewish prisoners.
Anyway I just don’t see the weight of historical evidence on the side of “reactionary coup”, but I guess I should thank you for forcing me to do more research on this. I did learn a lot.