REMEMBERING THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

(Hungarian Workers Against Stalinism), Solidarity, October, 2006.

Fifty years have passed since the great uprising of the Hungarian people against the Stalinist dictatorship. In order to fully understand the developments which led to the Revolution of 1956, it is necessary to take into account the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet Socialist Republic of 1919, followed by brutal repression and the proto-capitalist dictatorship of Miklos Horty (1). Still others who managed to escape were killed in Stalin’s purges, including the leader of the Hungarian Communist Party Bela Kun. The minority that wasn’t physically exterminated was forced underground, leading a shadow existence, which would haunt the Hungarian socialist movement for the decades to come, but also, somewhat ironically, preserve the genuinely revolutionary ideas from their ideological appropriation by an abberant, bureaucratised mass party.

Death to Hitler, long live Stalin!

Immediately after the German defeat in WWII, Moscow-controlled communist parties entered governments in coalitions with the burgeois, anti-fascist peasant and social-democratic Central and Eastern European parties, sharing a common platform organised around putting down any independent, insurgent grassroots movements. With Russian help, the communist parties of the Soviet-occupied countries obtained key positions of state authority (2) – ministries of the interior and of defence, which soon enabled them to institute a state of terror against both the independent movements from below and their prior coalition partners – the peasant and social-democratic parties.

The nationalisation of 1947 marked the beginning of full-fledged Stalinist management (3). The level of control and exploitation went further, especially in terms of central planning and economic extraction to Russia. “In Hungary reparations consumed something like 90 per cent of the working capacity of the metal working and engineering industries in 1945; in 1948 reparations accounted for 25.4 per cent of budget expenditure, and in 1949 9.8 per cent.” (4) The government under Rakosi started instituting a forced regime of collectivisation and industrialisation. Meanwhile, the purges continued (and they included the denouncing of dissident Communist Party members as “titoists”, “fascist spies” and “western agents”), probably reaching the climax with the trial and execution of the foreign minister and veteran Communist Party member Laszlo Rajk.

Already in 1949, first signs of passive resistance started to appear, namely the rising level of absenteeism.(5) Immediately after the Berlin revolt (1953), hoping to avoid the same scenario and under Russian pressure, reforms were beginning to be (largely unwillingly) implemented. Moderate Imre Nagy replaced the conservative Rakosi as prime minister, opposing the worst irrationalities of the system (eg. less police activity, end to forced collectivization etc.). Despite the fact it was controlled reform from above, a crisis of confidence among the ruling class ensued. The ideological crisis, however, wasn't centerd around the bureaucrats, but primarily around the more critical elements - intellectuals, writers and students, who were the first to rebel. The students, assisted by the Writers’ Union, started so-called Petöfi circles (named after the famous Hungarian poet and revolutionary Sandor Petöfi) and organised a series of debates in which they discussed the issues of the day and produced propaganda. “Soon, the meetings of the Petöfi Circle were attracting thousands of people. These gatherings, already unanimous in their demands for intellectual liberty and truth, began to hear voices openly calling for political freedom.”(6)

In 1955, however, the reform course of the government was effectively terminated by the sacking of Nagy and the reinstalling of Rakosi. Then, in 1956, Nikita Khruschev gave the famous speech against Stalin and his legacy, which further intensified dissent in Hungary and Poland.

Inventing Democracy

The immediate catalyst for the revolution were the unrests in Poland. A 100 000 strong march in solidarity with the Polish people was held in Budapest in October. There the Declaration of the Writers’ Union was read out, presenting relatively moderate demands at the time – for Imre Nagy to take over the government, independent national policy, greater pluralism in political life, definite end to forced collectivisation, free elections, and – most radically - that factories be run by workers and specialists instead of bureaucrats. The revolution was sparked by an incident, when the secret police opened fire on the crowds, killing several demonstrators. Protestors quickly responded, forcing the secret police to hide in central points of the regime’s power structure, such as the Radio Budapest building. Meanwhile, parts of police and the military joined the insurrection or at least decided to stay neutral, as people’s rage and audacity intensified. The Hungarians also fraternised with a considerable number of permanent Soviet troops.

Imre Nagy was quickly reinstalled as prime minister, adding to confusion and contradictory demands among the discontented population, but already it was too late. The establishment proposed some reforms within the boundaries of the old system, with the simultaneousintroduction of martial law. The rebels responded by stepping up the level of approach - forming workers’ militias, occupying factories and establishing Revolutionary Workers’ Councils, new democratic organs of alternative dual power - parallel self-government. They organised the running of the factories, the distribution of food, publication of newspapers, transportation and various other day-to-day affairs, effectively replacing the old bureaucratic apparatus of the state. (7) Gradually, an idea of forming a Central National Council (named the Central Workers’ Council of Budapest to avoid repression) began to develop. All delegates were mandated, directly responsible to their base and subject to immediate recall, without special privileges. In the best libertarian socialist tradition, these directly democratic workers’ councils became the political form in which workers’ self-management, the right of all to participate in decision-making and public life, was finally realised.

While the western mass media tried to portray the Hungarian struggle as capitalist restoration, the vast majority of Hungarians saw it as a struggle for democratic socialism, a pluralist democratic society, independence from the Soviet grip, and generally better living conditions. The western powers, naturally, weren’t too keen on helping the Hungarian revolutionaries, partly because the French and the British were fighting their own war of imperialist conquest in the Suez Canal. The divison of Europe into blocs made it easy for the US administration to remain neutral, and, in any case, the risks were too great.(8)

A new Soviet invasion (with fresh troops of higher morale) followed after a short ceasefire in November, and the new forces launched air strikes, artillery bombardments, tank and infantry actions (primarily in urban, working class areas).(9) Eventually, faced with such an enormous, overwhelming power (10), Hungarian revolutionaries were forced to call for ceasefire, although a general strike (probably the longest in history) continued for some time. Order was reinstalled only in 1957.

Janos Kadar, Party Secretary who helped crush the revolution, became the new leader. Imre Nagy hid in the Yugoslav Embassy, only to fall prey to the Soviet authorities who promised he would be safe if he leaves the Embassy and seeks exile. Attempting that, he was kidnapped and executed by the Soviet military. (11)

To pacify the population, new government provided huge increases in wages and other economic improvements, but bitterly opposed self-management, which took the power out of their hands at the start of the revolt. “In the minds of the party bureaucrats the workers’ councils were a nightmare which reminded them of everything they feared most.”(12)

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 – despite all the limitations of context, ideological confusion with impulses towards self-organisation and self-government on the one hand, and the old instinct of looking to politicians for salvation on the other, as well as its unsustainable expressions of spontaneity - has twofold major significance. It revealed, once again, the savagery of the Soviet regime, diminishing its international reputation and influence on the international anti-capitalist movement. The Hungarian experiment also embodied a new system of direct democracy, anticipating the ideas of the New Left, Paris events of May 1968 and the Prague Spring, as well as various struggles for genuine democracy to this day.

Solidarity, October, 2006

  1. “A White Terror was let loose on Hungary by Horty’s foreign-assisted counter-revolution. The first fascist regime in Europe was set up. For the Hungarians, all former horrors were now surpassed. Thousands of Communists and Socialists were rounded up by fascist gangs, beaten, tortured, killed. The trade unions were violently suppressed. Those merely suspected of socialist sympathies were tortured and finally murdered. Thousands of people, quite unconnected with such ideas, suffered persecution and death.(…)Perhaps Horthy’s regime could best be called ‘rule by aristocratic fascists’. Whatever its name, its sickening bestiality, as far as the ordinary people were concerned, remains a scar on the body of humanity.” (Andy Anderson, Hungary ‘56, Active Distribution, AK Press & Phoenix Press, London, pp. 16-17)
  2. “There was one position, control of which was claimed by our Party from the first minute. One position where the Party was not inclined to consider any distribution of the posts according to the strength of the parties in the coalition. This was the State Security Authority…We kept this organization in our hands from the first day of its establishment.” (Rakosi in Andy Anderson, ibid., p.22)
  3. “The term ‘nationalization’, when used by leaders of either East or West, has only one meaning: to ensure and consolidate their own control over the means of distribution, production and exchange.” (Andy Anderson, ibid., p.27)
  4. Chris Harman, Class Struggles in Eastern Europe, 1945-83, Pluto Press, London, 1983, p.43.
  5. ”The Hungarian leader, Rakosi, complained in similar terms, pointing out that days lost through sick leave in Hungary in 1949 were two to three times higher than before the war.”(Chris Harman, ibid., p.56)
  6. Andy Anderson, op.cit., p.42.
  7. ”Everywhere in the localities, on the steets, in the factories, it was not the old state apparatus but the new revolutionary councils that could get things done. A factory that must work? Ask the council. Food to be obtained? See the council. The danger of disorder? The council will prevent trouble.”(Chris Harman, op.cit., p.154)
  8. “Any action by the West to assist a Satellite to free itself from Soviet domination would be likely to result in violent Soviet reaction, and, through a confused series of events, including threats and counter threats made under mounting nervous pressure, could lead up to a global war.”(Joint Intelligence Committee Report of December 1956 in Peter Hennessy, The Secret State, Penguin Books, London, 2003, pp. 36-37)
  9. “The Russian troops met the armed resistance with barbarous fury. The same inhuman savagery that put down the Paris Commune in 1871, that crushed Bela Kun’s regime in 1919, and that laid Warsaw waste in 1944 was now seen on the streets of Budapest.” (Chris Harman, op.cit., p.160)
  10. ”All the heroism in the world would not drive out 3000 Russian tanks and 200 000 troops” (Chris Harman, ibid, p.175).
  11. Chris Harman, ibid., p.185.