[page 11]
Labour in power-lessons of the second and third Labour governments 1987 IS almost certainly to be the year of the general election. And the most likely result is the return of a Labour government, at least as a minority and more probably with an outright majority in Parliament. Almost from the outset this will be a government of crisis. Faced with the economic catastrophe threatening British capitalism it will come under remorseless pressure from the ruling class not only to abandon any programme of reforms but to further attack the living standards and conditions of the working class. But with their aspirations and hopes of a better future aroused by the defeat of Thatcher, a retreat by the Labour government under pressure from the capitalists would not go unanswered by the ranks of the labour and trade union movement. It would provoke a stormy reaction in which the ideas of Marxism will become a IT IS now more than two years since the Labour Party came to power. Developments inside the Labour Party and movement, and the mood and attitude of the working class to the government in the present period can be better understood by a comparison between the second and third Labour and the economic and governments political conditions in which they functioned, especially in the first two years. Despite cuts announced as a result of the dollar crisis, these cannot be expected to have immediate results in a fundamental transformation of the attitude of the working class, following the reforms granted by the government in its first period of functioning, in a period of "full employment"' and shortage of labour.
Economic background in 1929 The second Labour government functioned in a period of slump and mass unemployment, of offensive on the part of the employers against the standards of the working class, which rapidly led to a crystallisation within the Labour Party in the development of a left wing. The third Labour government came to power at a time of economic revival and full employment and the employers have difficulty in withstanding the offensive of the working class. This has necessarily delayed the inevitable differentiation within the Labour Party and the crystallisation of the lett wing.
The whole life and activity of the working class and their attitude towards the second Labour government was coloured by the economic background of mass unemployment and world slump. Precisely because of this, the Labour Party came to power 12 government.
with tremendous enthusiasm from basic sections of the workers, who had high hopes that Labour would introduce extensive reforms, above all, abolish unemployment and alleviate the Unemployment was the main issue on which the Labour government succeeded in rallying basic sections of the In the election manifesto, Labour and the Nation, the Labour leaders boasted: "We can conquer unemployment". In their election propaganda, the Labour leaders promised, apart from the provision of work, that the unemployed be treated in the traditional manner demanded by the labour movement: "Our palliative measures for dealing with unemployment are simple. We claim full and complete maintenance for those who cannot find work." (Declaration by George Lansbury in election propaganda in 1929).
For the relief of unemployment, the Lord Privy Seal, JH Thomas, announced that £6.5m would be available for railway development, and £43m on road development and bridges over five or six years! This was greeted with ironical approval by the Tories, who jeered and baited the Labour leaders for Churchill greeted with malicious enjoyment the King's speech at the opening session of the Labour parliament, as he gave Tory approval to the proposed measures, but deplored them as mere palliatives: "I am glad to see old parliamentarians whom I have known for a quarter of a century, who have played so distinguished a part in our proceedings, having at last their turn and their share in the responsibilities of government, and testing what are called by those who have not experienced them 'the sweets of office'. I also major pole of attraction for workers seeking a way forward. To forearm our readers for the events ahead the Militant International Review is re-printing an article by Ted Grant first published in the October 1947 edition of the Marxist journal, Workers International News. Written to warn against the mechanical idea that events under the 1945 - 50 Labour government, operating as it was at the outset of the postwar boom, would take the same turbulent course as those under the crisis government of 1929 - 31, Ted Grant's analysis provides a remarkably fresh and powerful insight into the processes that will unfold under a new Labour This is the first in a number of articles the Militant International Review will carry in the months before the election under the theme, LABOUR IN POWER. look forward to having the Financial Secretary to the Treasury deliver to us a clear exposition of the gold standard and the solid advantages which it will confer upon the country; and generally to defend orthodox views upon financial matters. No doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to do this when his education by the treasury officials, the Bank of England, and the high financial authorities of the City of London has been completed...
Ruling class confident "The creation of the Socialist Party has been an astonishing thing. I have seen it grow in the course of 30 years from a handful to the largest party in the House of Commons... They have ranged great masses of the British people under false and foreign conceived standards... They have built it up (power) by fomenting class hatred and organising industrial strife. They have dabbled in subversive agitation. They have pandered to rapacious appetites satisfy. It is now their fate, it is indeed their punishment, to have to disappoint those who have believed in them and have believed what they have said, and to discard or explain away the doctrines by which they have risen to great as His Majesty's power...As long ministers are content to administer and by administering, to fortify the capitalist system of civilisation on which we have grown great, and on which the United States is growing greater, there is no reason why they should not enjoy, although they are a substantial minority in the country, a lengthy tenure of office."
He went on to explain that the moment that the Labour government
[page 12]
The election of the Labour government in
adopted 'socialist' measures (ie nationalisation measures), they would be swept immediately from office by their opponents.
But the Labour leaders did not even attempt to introduce such legislation, using the excuse of their minority position in parliament. Instead of introducing a bill on nationalisation, being defeated and then going to the country on the issue, the Labour leaders were only too glad to use the excuse to do nothing.
As a relief for unemployment, the government announced it would assist the rationalisation of the iron and steel trades, of cotton, the mines and the railways. Unemployment in iron, steel, transport and cotton were the sore spots.
At the same time, Thomas announced a brutal programme of emigration to the Dominions and the Empire, and the migration from the areas of the heaviest unemployment to the other areas by direction from the Labour Exchanges. "Durham, Northumberland, Lanark and places like South Wales have got this great mass of unemployed and, as far as one can see, there is no hope of dealing with these people unless we get them out of those districts."
Commenting on Thomas' speech, Lloyd George said: "It seemed to meet the whole-hearted approval of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; (Churchill) at any rate, he could not conceal the satisfaction it gave him, and he assured the Lord Privy Seal that on the
1945 aroused the hopes and expectations of whole the schemes which had been sketched out would receive the support of the Conservative Party. I assume that the outline given will give satisfaction to Hon Members opposite. I am not quite sure that the unemployed will be equally pleased."
On the proposals for mining rationalisation and marketing, and concessions to the miners on hours, Lloyd George jeered:
"I do not say they are betraying the miners, because they cannot carry out nationalisation. They are going to carry what they can, and I think it right, but I am bound to point out that they are proposing to do now what they rejected in 1919."
World slump deepens
During the course of the discussion, one of the Tory spokesmen dealing with the helplessness of the government in face of the situation, said: "In this atmosphere, we all practically avow that unemployment depends upon forces that this House cannot control." (Lord H Cecil, 3 July 1929, Hansard Col 162).
In commenting on Labour's programme, the Tories openly proclaimed that the task of the Labour government was to preserve capitalism intact. Robert Boothby in a speech reflecting the tone of the Tories, said:
"It may be one of fate's little ironies that the principal task confronting the present so-called socialist administration should be to make Great Britain
he whole working class.
safe for the capitalist, although we all know that it has been one of the most cherished ambitions of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I would say is that I really think they can afford to be a little bold, to tackle the question a little more vigorously, without doing any serious damage to the economic structure which they have abused for the last 30 years and which, they are now so pathetically anxious to preserve intact." (4 July, 1929).
Despite the Labour victory at the polls, the Tories and the Liberals still had tremendous confidence in their class and their ability to handle the working class, especially their leaders.
The programme of the Labour government of 1929 was on orthodox capitalist lines. It was one, moreover, which could not be dressed up in palatable form as far as the most conscious elements in the working class were concerned.
In addition, the Labour government came to power at a time of economic world crisis, which steadily deepened during their term of office.
In 1929, the production of coal reached 257.9m tons; steel 9.6m tons; railway freights handled amounted to 57.6m tons and the number of passengers on the railways was about 869,000. In the succeeding years, production dropped steeply, till in 1931 coal mined was 219.5m tons; railway freights handled 47.5m tons; and railway passengers carried numbered 848,000. Meanwhile, Britain's trade
[page 13]
MIR Autumn 1986: Labour in Powerforeign nations dropped catastrophically.
Just before the Labour government took office, the number of unemployed was 1,165,000 in May 1929. This was 9.7 per cent of the insured workers. By February 1930, this had increased to 1,582,000, over 13 per cent of the insured workers. And if all those who were deprived of benefit, or in receipt of assistance were added, the total would have been two million youths and adults. In the basic trades, there were 13.2 per cent unemployed in the mines, 22.7 per cent in steel smelting, 24.6 per cent in shipbuilding, 24.2 per cent in cotton, 21.1 per cent in woollen and worsted, and 18.3 per cent in the building industry.
Under the conditions of world slump and crisis, the bourgeoisie wished to utilise mass unemployment in order to drive down the standards of living of the working class. Throughout the period of the Labour government, the emphasis was on the intensification of labour and the cutting down of wages. The miners, the railwaymen, the cotton and woollen workers and others, suffered cuts. Hand in hand with the rising number of unemployed, went the intensified attacks of the employers. And the Labour government went hand in hand with the employers in the attacks on the unemployed The political reflection within the Labour Party Then, as today, the Labour government waged a similar campaign for "increased production", but at reduced rates of pay and at a time when it had become clear to the advanced workers that the capitalist system had resulted in the crisis of "over-production". The government was demanding sacrifices from the workers. In the fake conferences of the trade union officials and the employers called by the Labour "sacrifices"
was the government, main theme of the government spokesmen. Thomas announced to the House of Commons on 4 April 1930, in regard to these meetings: "The House will be pleased to know that I have found no difficulty there, but that on the contrary, there was a frank recognition on both sides that changes and sacrifices would have to be made in order to pull the country through." This campaign was being waged at a time when the 90,000 capitalist super-tax payers were deriving as revenue from the production of the workers, the staggering sum of £550m a year.
Right from the beginning of the se- Labour government, pressure cond 14 began to be exerted by the left-wingers under the influence of the crisis and in response to the mood of the membership in the country. Maxton, speaking began to reflect the disillusionment of advanced elements within the "Frankly | would be dishonest to my right hon friends if I did not express very plainly my complete dissatisfaction with the King's speech, and with the speech of the right hon gentleman, the Lord Privy Seal, in detailing one particular part of the Kings's Speech.. "I hope the legislation arising out of the King's Speech will not be as much whittled down, compared with the King's Speech, as the King's Speech was whittled down from "Labour and the Nation", or there will not be very much left for us...
About one week before the last parliament dissolved, the right hon gentleman who is now the Home Secretary described the administration of the Employment Exchanges in their dealings with unemployed men as 'administrative persecution', I think. As far as I know, the method of administering Employment exchanges today is exactly the same as it was when the statement was made. Now that ought to stop. It is an administrative matter... There are now 2,000 people packed into our great Poor House in Glasgow -now-with a Labour government in office; told that they must either go into the Poor House, in which case their wives and children will be maintained, or they will be taken up for cruelty to children and put into The ILP, traditionally the organisation of the most advanced of the Labour workers, reflected immediately the growing ferment within the ranks of the working class.
Right from the start of the Labour government, they raised a running fire of criticism, particularly on the issue of unemployment. The world situation was such as to encourage the growth of revolutionary aspirations and ideas among the working class. The complete incapacity of reformism to fulfil its promises of moving towards socialist system by gradual measures through parliament, was demonstrated in action to the advanced workers. Far from granting even mild reforms, the Labour leaders were compelled to launch attacks upon the standards of the workers. Naturally, this provoked disillusion, and under the pressure of these events, the ILP began to swing left and to express the groping movement of the advanced workers in the direction of communism.
Nevertheless, among the mass of the workers, particularly the unorganised and backward sections, the first result of the growing unemployment, of the wage cuts, was to compare the result of five years of Tory government with their deteriorated position under the Labour government. As a consequence, we had the paradox that while the advanced workers were swinging left, the backward elements within the working class and middle class were swinging right towards the capitalist parties. Even in Labour strongholds, the vote of the Labour Party was falling, while that of the Tories and Liberals actually increased over their 1929 The ultra-left tactics of the Stalinists tended to alienate the workers from the Communist Party, except among the ranks of the most desperate sections, above all the unemployed where they gained a considerable basis. In the municipal elections a like situation was reached. The Labour vote dropped, a section abstained, and bigger sections went over to the capitalist The 1931 crisis While this peculiar and temporary process was taking place within the broad masses, the trade union and Labour workers were disheartened and embittered, even though remaining loyal to the Labour government as a minority government, the eyes of the more advanced strata within the Labour Party were opened. The left members grew bitter, their criticism of the Labour leaders more extreme; and this development among the rank and file pushed the ILP further to the left. Under the pressure of events, the ILP leadership swung also over to the left.
The ILP as an organised opposition led the struggle in the labour movement. However, despite the broad support and tradition, the number the ILP succeeded in attracting was never at any time large in proportion to the numbers of the organised workers generally. The mass of the Labour workers belonged to the Labour Party passively as individual members, or through their affiliation in the unions. The dues-paying membership of the ILP in 1909 was 28,000; in 1914 it fell to 20,000 and in 1920 in the first postwar wave, it reached its highest point at 37,000. At the time of disaffiliation from the Labour Party, the ILP had under 12,000 dues-paying members. During the 1931 crisis, the bourgeoisie began a furious offensive against the Labour government. They demanded economy cuts in the standards of the state employees and a fur-
[page 14]
ther reduction in the low standards of the unemployed. The Labour Party tops conspired with the capitalist class in order to prepare the way for a coalition government.
But the General Council of the TUC, expressing the pressure of the organised workers, came out against economy cuts and the ILP, which nominally had a great section of the Labour MPs within its ranks, conducted a campaign against the acceptance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission which had been set up by the Labour government to review the situation.
The TUC leaders demanded that the Labour leaders should resign rather than accept the economy cuts and make themselves responsible for an attack on the standards of the unemployed. Thus, the opposition of the masses to the reactionary measures of the Labour government were reflected by the trade unions, which outwardly played the part of a semi-opposition to 'their' government, and tried to act as a safety valve to the opposition of the masses.
As a result of the feeble policy of the Labour government, and its vicious role in assisting the employers in attacking the standards of the workers; and with the growth of the crisis and the enormous rise in unemployment to the greatest heights experienced in history; the masses became disillusioned.
The lack of a mass revolutionary alternative, the traditions of Britain and the peculiar electoral system led the bourgeoisie, skilfully utilising the desertion of the top upper crust of the Labour Party, to panic the masses and crushingly defeat the Labour Party in the general election of 1931.
The ILP supported the Labour Party at the general election. But these events could not but lead to tremendous repercussions within its ranks. Despite the centrist vacillations of the leadership, the rank and file became more and more imbued with a hostiltiy towards reformism, and drove the leadership forward. In 1932, after the fall of the Labour government, the ILP conference decided by 241 votes to 142, to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. Because of its failure to transform itself into a Marxist party, the ILP was doomed to vegetate during the political changes in the years that followed.
Thus, the second Labour government in its two and a half years of office functioned continually in the shadow of crisis, wage cuts, and unemployment. In this background, the measures adopted by the Labour government characterised by orthodox capitalist timidity, had no power of attraction for the masses, especially the advanced strata. As a consequence,
there developed a tremendous left ferment within the ranks of the Labour Party, 'which reflected itself in the move of the ILP in a revolutionary direction, resulting in the transformation of the ILP from a left reformist into a centrist current.
In such an atmosphere, the clashes between the reformist leadership and the rank and file led to a differentiation within the reformist organisations. A leftward development of the working class always finds its reflection in a period such as this, in the formation of centrist and left reformist currents and tendencies within the mass labour movement.
The background of the third Labour government both economically and politically, is strikingly different to that of the previous Labour government. As a result, there has been a much slower tempo of developments.
From unchallenged supremacy for four or five decades, British imperialism has dropped to the level of a secondrate power. Her industrial supremacy has been largely undermined through technical backwardness in the basic industries of the country. The two world wars, especially the last, have enfeebled her hold on the Empire and former satellites in the sterling bloc, which Britain had established after 1931 in an endeavour to shelter from the competition of, above all, American imperialism.
Two years of
third
Labour government
A large part of the accumulated wealth which Britain piled up in the past centuries has been dissipated and lost during the war. Britain's invisible exports have as a result, declined drastically. The unfavourable balance of trade payments still remains, and must remain. A great part of the investment and income which the City of London made on loans, commissions and insurance, has fallen into the hands of New York. Thus, the perspective of British imperialism is bleak indeed, faced as it is with the imperative need to re-equip its basic industries by huge capital expenditure, and simultaneously increase its exports above pre-war levels.
In contrast with the earlier confidence in their mission and their hold over the Empire, the British bourgeoisie of 1945 had lost complete confidence in themselves in face of the collapse of their world position. They were paralysed and saw no perspective for their class. The decay of the capitalist system and the obvious necessity for drastic measures, emboldened the petty bourgeois leadership of the Labour
ALI
HIN
Labour Parry
Militant
For further reading see A History of the Labour Party, articles reprinted from Militant, price 35p, post free, from World Socialist Books, 3/13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB.
Party. This, coupled with the radicalisation of the masses, imbued the Labour leaders with greater confidence. They had a 'plan': the rationalisation and modernisation of the basic industries which the individual capitalists and trusts had brought to the brink of utter ruin. They saw as the cure for the ailing basic industries of British imperialism, nationalisation under the control of the capitalist state. They thought their programme of state capitalism, which they put forward as socialism, could reorganise British capitalism and save it from collapse.
The nationalisation measures of the Labour government, unprecedented under capitalism before the outbreak of the last war (though paralleled by similar developments on the continent of Europe), provoked only the mildest opposition from the bourgeoisie. To have nationalised even the mining industry in 1929 would have provoked a movement among the bourgeoisie which would have not stopped short of violent reprisals and conspiracy. The opposition would have gathered around the House of Lords and the monarchy, which remain reserve weapons in the hands of the ruling class, and which they would have used to block such a measure-even if the Labour leaders had had the overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. But today, apart from minor changes which they introduced to demonstrate the powers they possess, the Lords have allowed these measures of nationalisation to go through without attempting to operate their rights of veto, and the King has signed the nationalisation bills. Only in the case of steel was any real opposition offered by the capitalists, bèfore which
[page 15]
MIR Autumn 1986: Labour in Power
the Labour leaders retreated somewhat-although they have announced that steel nationalisation will be proceeded with.
Far from challenging these nationalisation measures, which in the eyes of the workers are the beginnings of the transition to socialism, the most representative Tories have announced that they will not undo the nationalisations that have taken place if they are returned to power in the future. The nationalisations put into operation so far will be beneficial to the capitalist class and as such, the Tories are prepared to accept them.
The shattering defeat which was inflicted on the Tories in the general election has forced them to bide their time. Only now are they beginning to recover from the effects of their defeat. Utilising the discontent of the masses and of the backward strata of the workers, the conservative representatives of British imperialism are beginning to recover their confidence and look towards the future with the perspective of being returned to power.
Economic upswing
The third Labour government came to power in a period of economic upswing in contrast to the experiences of the second Labour government which was elected in the midst of world-wide over-production, crisis, stagnation of production, and mass unemployment. The tremendous destruction caused by the war and the world wide famine in capital and consumer goods created a sellers market. Even America is not able to supply the internal and world markets with the goods which are in demand. The products of British industry find a ready market and have created the conditions for an economic boom. The American loan gave the Labour government the possibility of maintaining the balance of payments and thus the elements of stability in its economy for the first two critical postwar years. Without it, the standard of living of the workers would immediately have dropped back to catastrophic levels. But the loan, while it lasted, cushioned the shock and even afforded the Labour government the possibility of introducing improvements in the standards of living of the workingclass. Under the pressure of the workers, the Labour leaders introduced a series of reforms. The workers adopted a sympathetic attitude towards the government and have been prepared to wait and see, rather than launch into a series of great industrial strikes and struggles. All this has led to a different tempo of development from the corresponding period of
16
the second Labour government.
The overall production in the first two years of the present government has been 10 to 20 per cent higher than pre-war. In fact, overall production has reached record heights. Far from being faced with the problem of mass unemployment, there has been a chronic shortage of labour. Unemployment is well below the margin of the industrial reserve army. The number of unemployed in August 1947 was less than 300,000. Compared to the figures of the past, this is negligible, and has served to strengthen the illusions in the minds of the Labour supporters that the Labour leaders are seriously coping with the unemployment problem.
The economic upswing constitutes a favourable period for the workers to exert pressure on the employers for wage increases and improved conditions. Especially does this hold good for the highly organised workers, who constitute the backbone of the support for the Labour government. In the first two years, the wages of over ten million workers increased on average by nearly £1 per week. At the same time, six million had their hours reduced on average by three hours a week without reduction in pay. Even after the breaking of the dollar crisis 840,000 workers received increased wages totalling £340,000, and 250,000 had their hours reduced on the average by 3% hours per week.
These gains were somewhat offset by the rise in prices. But they have made a profound impression on the consciousness of the British workers.
The nationalisation measures, the existence of full employment, the reforms and semi-reforms in the social services, have resulted in an entirely different mood to that which existed in 1929-31. In the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the Labour workers, the Labour leaders have attempted to carry out the programme on which they were elected.
The second Labour government, in the midst of a slump, slashed viciously at the standards of the masses all along the line. The existence of the boom, coupled with US aid, gives the present government the possibility of bending under the pressure of the workers. Mass unemployment and the existence of the industrial reserve army acted as a leaden weight on the feet of the British workers during the second Labour government. The present condition of full employment creates favourable conditions to resist attacks. With US aid cushioning the blows at British capitalism, the bourgeoisie can still retreat in the face of a strong offensive on the part of the working ciass.
Given these conditions the British workers, while willing to struggle on the industrial field, have extended and are prepared to extend considerable credit and political loyalty to the government.
The striking difference between the position in 1929-31 and the present is that in the former case, powerful opposition developed within the Labour Party on home affairs, which assumed terrible urgency in the lives of the workers. In the previous Labour government, foreign policy was based on pacifist demagogy and was largely endorsed by the 'lefts'. What feeble opposition has developed in the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party today has been on the issue of foreign policy. But the opposition on foreign policy collapsed because of the weakness of British imperialism which resulted in the forced withdrawal from India, partly from Egypt, and now the government declaration regarding its preparedness to withdraw from Palestine. Moreover, an opposition, while it is confined in the main to foreign affairs, cannot hope to attract the support of the broad masses away from the right wing. Thus, the right wing Labour leaders have been able, owing to Britain's weakness, to pose as "liberators' of the colonial peoples with a "socialist" foreign policy I as against the blatantly imperialist policy of Churchill and the previous Tory governments, and even the previous Labour government.
Opposition collapses
The policy of the government on home affairs has been largely endorsed by the so-called opposition - a striking contrast to the situation in the Labour Party in the previous government. An instructive episode was the difference in attitude of the late James Maxton of the ILP, who welcomed enthusiastically the programme of the third Labour government and its suggested legislation.
The collapse of the "lefts" at the past two conferences of the Labour Party since the formation of the Labour government, especially the miserable and ignominous defeat at the last one, was not at all accidental but rooted in the objective development of events. In contrast to the previous Labour governments, far from the lefts gaining in support, the present period has been marked even during the dollar crisis, by a strengthening of the right wing leadership of the Labour Party. It reflects the mass consciousness in the past two years. It is a law of development within the mass organisations of the working class, that left reformist or
[page 16]
centrist currents develop on the basis of deep-seated opposition to the right wing leadership on the part of the rank and file. Currents of opposition within the labour movement will not flourish without mass backing. The "leaders' are pushed from below by the pressure of the rank and file. It is thus that the processes in the country reflect themselves through the opportunist leaders inside parliament and within the mass movement. Where deep-seated processes of differentiation have not take place, the "opposition'' can only make the feeblest of gestures.
This mood of "wait and see' has had peculiar results inside and out of the Labour Party. The masses are going through the experience without, up to the present time, directly participating in the life of the Labour Party. In the last period the reflection of the economic and political situation has been a general political lull which has affected not only the Labour Party, but all left wing organisations. The circulation of the left wing Labour press has dropped considerably. The rump of the ILP, incapable of withstanding the lack of political life in the workers' movement, is fast disintegrating. The Communist Party has suffered heavy losses since Labour came to power. While losing support in the political field, they have however, entrenched their positions in the trade unions where they are preparing points of support for a surge forward in the period that lies ahead
An important element in the stability of the Labour government has been the fact that the Stalinists have consistently attempted to sabotage any movement of the workers in the direction of struggle, and have rendered powerful support to the Labour leadership. Had the Communist Party come out in a full scale campaign against the Labour government on a "left" programme, encouraging instead of sabotaging strike struggles, the difficulties of the government would have been immeasurably increased.
After the first honeymoon period, the Labour leaders have been compelled to call a halt as a result of the drying up of the American loan at an unprecedented speed. They thought it would carry them through until 1950. After two years of reforms and semireforms, they are now introducing counter-reforms. With the ending of immediate American aid, resulting in the "gap" until the Marshall plan is put into effect, the Labour leaders have embarked on a plan of "austerity" They have begun to make cuts in the consumption of the masses. Beginning with the middle classes, whose standards are affected by the basic ration cut in petrol and the restrictions on
travel abroad, there has come the cut of 14 per cent in the meat ration, and a reduction in clothing, household and other consumption goods, which also affect the working class. At the same time, these are announced as only the first of more cuts to come. Freezing of wages, slashes in subsidies, longer hours, have been among the suggestions of the Tories and their representatives. However, under the pressure of the trade unions, the Labour leaders have retreated on the wage freeze, and while longer hours are being introduced, they are to be worked at overtime pay. A general intensification of labour is demanded of the working class.
But these attacks, coming as they do on the background of reforms introduced in the first two years, will not provoke immediate repercussions among the workers on a similar scale in the corresponding previous period. The reaction of the workers will first be seen on the industrial field, with a political reflection only at a later stage. This was clearly seen in Grimethorpe, where the miners evinced a bitter hatred for the capitalist Coal Board, but at the same time expressed their unshaken faith and confidence in the Labour government. In two byelections held soon after the crisis cuts were announced, Labour retained its seats, even in so marginal a constituency as Edge Hill.
Deep roots of reformism
It is the US imperialists' appreciation that Labour can 'hold the line' in forcing sacrifices from the workers without serious immediate repercussions, that has led them to the decision that Italy and France will be given immediate aid in the interim period, and that Britain can wait. They gave Britain the biggest loan that any European nation has hitherto received, because Britain was their most important base in Europe. They know that there is no likelihood of an immediate turn of the masses against the Labour government. If the pressure of the working class becomes strong, the reserves of Britain will have to be used and then America will come to her assistance.
As a result of the cuts, the struggles on the industrial field will be intensified. Any attempt to make far reaching and serious inroads into the standards of the masses will be followed by a series of strike struggles which will shake the Labour government. But it is precisely the recognition of this factor which stays the hand of the Labour leaders. In the last two years, the moment the workers took to militant struggle (dockers, transport, miners) important concessions were granted. In the
period of counter-concessions, the moment the workers show evidence of strong militant resistance, the Labour government and the employers will be compelled to retreat. The relationship of class forces in a period of economic boom and full employment, plus the foreshadowed loan, makes it more expensive to provoke a widening series of strike struggles, than temporarily to retreat, exert further pressure on the workers, and then, if necessary, retreat again.
While the Marshail plan will further enslave the Western European countries-including Britain-and tie these countries to the needs and orientation of Wall Street, it will at the same time tend to balance the economies of these countries in such a way as to ensure a rising curve of economic development in the next few years. In Britain, this will result in relatively stable economic and political relations. Sections of the workers will inevitably come into collision with the Labour government on many questions. If further sacrifices are demanded from the workers, large-scale industrial struggles will result. Opposition to the leadership will spread inside the Labour Party itself. But no great break-away can be expected during this period.
Reformism is deeply rooted in the ranks of the British working class. Before any large-scale turn from Labour to more radical politics can be visualised, the Labour Party's policy must be fully experienced by the working class. The total incapacity of the third Labour government to transform society and create stable economic conditions for the mass of the population will be most fully exposed in the period of the next world-wide slump of capitalism. The basis of reformism will be shattered. The Labour Party will be rent from top to bottom. The workers, especially the most militant and courageous, will seek radical and revolutionary solutions, whilst the capitalist class will really begin to sudsidise and organise the fascist movement in preparation for a deadly reckoning with the working Class.
All the illusions of the Labour leaders will come up against the stark reality of declining capitalism- above all, the collapse of British imperialism. economic basis for reformism will have the ground cut away from beneath it. America, faced with her own crisis of over-production and slump, will not be able to continue to bolster up British capitalism. The complete inadequacy of reformism ever to give lasting reforms will be revealed. In the upheavals that impend the ideas of Marxism will find a mass response amoung the British working class.
[page 17]
Hungary '56 and the political revolution
THIS MONTH is the thirtieth anniversary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956. Even though its outcome was a tragic defeat, in which at least 20,000 Hungarian workers were killed and countless others injured, imprisoned and forced into hiding or exile, it nevertheless was undoubtedly the most significant pointer to future developments in the Stalinist states since the consolidation of the bureaucracy around Stalin in the 1920s. It was the most vivid confirmation of the perspectives of Trotsky, that the workers under Stalinist dictatorship, far from accepting their conditions or demanding a return to capitalism, would move in a political revolution to take power into their own hands. The tremendously inspiring events of the Hungarian October are full of lessons for the workers of Eastern Europe and the whole world.
The 1945 Revolution
Stalinist commentators have tried to paint a picture of these events as the work of CIA agitators and counter revolutionaries. Nothing could be further from the truth. The revolutionary traditions of the Hungarian working class in themselves make such a claim incredible. Even prior to world war one there were big strikes and wage demands. In 1905 there was a big movement of landless labourers against wage cuts. In the Hungarian revolution of 1919 the workers moved to overthrow the fragile regime of the bourgeois liberal Karolyi because. it could not satisfy their revolutionary demands. They established a soviet republic. It was only due to the inexperience and mistakes of the Hungarian Communist Party,(see Militant International Review No 18 Winter 1980), under Bela Kun, that the republic lost support from some layers of the peasantry, providing a base for counter revolution and the establishment of a brutal regime of fascist terror under Horthy.
No-one in 1956 would have wanted a return to the conditions under Horthy, the only conditions capitalism was capable of in Hungary. Then, forty families had owned 2/3 of the land, while 1.1 million peasants, out of a population of 9 million, lived without land on the verge of starvation. When industry was nationalised and a land
18
By Phil Hutchinson
reform carried through, in the wake of the victory of the Red army in 1945 and the flight of most of the old exploiting classes along with the retreating Nazi armies, there was widespread support for these measures.
Yet this second Hungarian revolution was carried through without the conscious participation of the mass of workers. On the contrary all genuine workers leaders were tortured, imprisoned, put on show trial and purged from the party, including many heros who had fought in the underground against the Horthyites and the Nazis. Some were even executed. The revolution was carried through in a bureaucratic form, and a swarm of careerists jumped onto the bandwagon of the party, including even some ex-fascists. Moreover the bureaucracy in the USSR systematically pillaged the economies of the other Eastern Block countries in the period 1945 to 1956. Goods were bought by the USSR below world market prices, sometimes even below the cost of production, while Russian goods were sold in Eastern Europe at intlated prices. In fact the 'fraternal bargaining' over these matters sometimes went a little beyond the traditional limits governing such friendly co-operation between 'socialist allies': two ministers of foreign trade (Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia) were executed quite specifically for trying to get more equitable terms of trade!
Nevertheless, despite looting, bureaucratic mismanagement and corruption, because the Hungarian economy was now on a more advanced social base an immense programme of economic reconstruction and development was carried through. Living standards rose in the period 1945-49. Immeasurable advances were made in the field of education, culture, and public health. Workers and youth for the first time gained recreational facilities. Big advances were made for women. Equal pay was established and all professions were opened up to them. A system of creches, kindergartens and maternity benefits including three months leave on full pay was introduced. Yet at the
same time the bureaucracy • aCcumulated for itself vast privileges: private holiday homes with luxury hotel accomodation, cut off by barbed wire from the mass of the population; imported luxury chauffeur driven cars while the mass of workers were herded like cattle onto crowded busses; private hiring of musicians while the average worker did not even have a record player; better food; bettter clothes; vastly superior housing.
Whilst their own living standards were rising, the mass of workers were prepared to put up with these injustices. But in 1955 the economy began to go into crisis due to a series of bureaucratic blunders. The oil helds in Western Hungary were accidentally flooded due to too rapid a rise in pro duction ordered by the head of state Rakosi. Dora Scarlett, a British Communist Party member who was working in Hungary at the time, describes the appalling mismanagement: "In the mines and factories work pledges had to be taken... seriously and there was a terrific rush to fulfil them, even if it meant completing a block of flats so badly that they would need repairing before the year was out, or sending a consignment of goods forty per cent of which might be rejects.
The 1953-55 Nagy
government
Shortages began in the shops, especially of meat. People had to queue all night to get the things they wanted. At the same time the bureaucrats carried on with their oppulent existence. The revolution of 1956 was a revolution to rid society of this gang of parasites, torturers and murderers, who claimed to rule in the name of the working class, and to reassert the traditions of 1919 of the involvement of the working class in the revolution and the subsequent running of society. One worker from the giant Csepel plant told a western correspondant: "The West should not believe that the workers fought to bring back Horthy or the landowners and counts. We shall not give back the land, the factories or the mines.
The causes of the 1956 events also lie in the political developments within the bureaucracy. Mirroring the economic crisis there were tremendous political upheavals. In 1953 with the
[page 18]
1543 Left: Civilians and soldiers burn photos of Stalinist leader, Rakosi, during the revolution. Right: Rakosi and Nagy during the first Nagy government of 1953-55.
death of Stalin there were some signs of a 'thaw' in the monolithic rule of Moscow and its puppets in Budapest. Rakosi, a hard line Stalinist, retired. Nagy, who had a reputation as a 'liberaliser' and was initially favoured in the Kremlin by Khrushchov, took over. In several Dastern Block countries during the fifties a similar switch was made. Bureaucrats who were denounced later as 'Titoists' came to the fore. This layer of the bureaucracy had no objection to a one party totalitarian system in which the leading layer had enormous privileges, but they did oppose the Russian bureaucracy plundering all the spoils of the nations economic progress for themselves. Gomulka in Poland played a similar role. It was the fact that these bureaucrats had been persecuted by the USSR earlier, for taking an anti- Russian stand, that gave them a certain credibility with the masses. The hopes which the masses had originally placed in the revolutionary changes of the immediate post war years were revived. Some sections of the masses believed that Nagys' 'new course' would give the regime a 'human face.' But behind the scenes there was a desperate struggle going on within the bureaucracy, and much trepidation within the Kremlin, as to the dangers inherent in even a microscopic dose of reform.
A real measure of just how little 'retirn to legality' took place under
Nagy was subsequently revealed during the 1956 revolution itself. Within the first week 5,500 prisoners of war were released. These were men who had been sent back from Russia 8 years before but had been imprisoned again by the hated AVO secret police.
The
Petofi Circle
They had not been charged and had no prospect of release. These people remained illegally in prison, many assumed by relatives to be dead, during the Nagy period of 1953-55. In fact the prison camps, allegedly intended for the enemies of the revolution, were at this time full of common people, workers, poor peasants, small stall holders etc. Sandor Kopacsi, the Chief of Police in Budapest in 1956, who subsequently resigned and got political asylum in the west, gives an account of his tour of inspection of these camps which reads like Dantes journey through hell. The camps were packed full of dejected demoralised prisoners, who had never been tried, who came up to him and told him of the petty crimes, such as chicken stealing, they had been incarcerated for. Yet even the minuscule moves in the direction of reform under Nagy proved eventually too much for the nerves of Moscow. Khrushchov changed his attitude towards 'the new course.'
In April 1955 Nagy was removed from the premiership and expelled
from the party as a 'right-wing deviationist.' Rakosi was wheeled back in with a clampdown on all the new policies. Yet the zig-zags of the Kremlin bureaucrats only whipped up a mood of discontent amongst the Hungarian masses. When, in February 1956 Khrushchov's speech at the 20th congress denouncing Stalin's crimes came to light, the whole of Hungary began to seeth with discussion. A group of intellectuals, naming themselves the Petofi circle, (after the famous poet of the bourgeois revolution who was executed in the defeat of the 1848 revolution and became a national hero) began to meet regularly and semi openly.
In his book, Kopacsi makes a very interesting revelation about the morale of the state forces at this time. In the spring of 1956 a squad of secret police were sent into the Petofi cirele and the active element of the Young Communist movement, which was also bubbling with debate. As the dissidents arguments became more fully explained the police spies became more and more open to the ideas about reforming the system which were being put forward at these meetings. "Suddenly a majority of these 'spies' declared that they were in agreement with the points made in the Petofi circle!" Kopacsi recounts, "together they issued a statement, which they signed, declaring themselves in solidarity with the ideas put forward by the
19
[page 19]
MIR Autumn 1986: Hungary 1956
young reformists of the party."
The whole of the eastern block was awash with discontent. The floodgates had begun to burst even as early as 1953 with a massive strike wave and street fighting in East Germany. In Plzen and Prague, Czechoslovakia, there had been riots. In the Hungarian industrial towns of Csepel, Ozd and Diosgyor the masses had come onto the streets in protest against the conditions. Even within the Soviet Union there had been strikes and protests amongst the prisoners within the labour camps. In May 1956 vast numbers of Russian troops and amoured vehicles were sent into Tiblisi, capital of Georgia, to crush an uprising sparked off by austerity measures. In June 1956 the workers of Poznan, in Poland rose (see Militant 805 and 806). Inevitably this also had an effect on the young people inside the state forces. The Petofi circle even held one famous all night meeting of 6000 with people spilling out into the
demanding
around streets democratisation of the system and intellectual liberty. This movement of intellectuals was a reflection of the deep underlying discontent amongst the workers. In conditions such as this where all political freedom is barred, it is often the intellectuals who give the first overt expression of the move. ment swelling up beneath the surface of society.
23rd October 1986
Pravda angrily denounced this ferment. Yet even Szabad Nep, the Hungarian CP paper, under the pressure of the masses was grudging. ly forced into agreement, in words, with the more secondary demands. The bureaucracy in Budapest went into crisis over the question of whether to bring in more reforms in an attempt to restore the ailing credibility of the party, or to bring in more hard liners and clamp down on all the terment. Many bureaucrats dithered between the two positions lacking any confidence in either. In every subsequent political crisis in the Stalinist states the bureaucracy has divided to differing degrees along these lines. In fact in Hungary today the same split is opening up again.
A further symptom of this indecision was the removal again of Rakosi in July 1956, because he was obviously arousing the hatred of the masses. This time, however, he was not replaced by a reformer but another hardliner, Kadar. Kadar had been imprisoned and appallingly tortured by the Stalinists. This gave him a certain credibility in the eyes of the masses,
20
but it also made him of Moscow.
Nagy was further demoted, confirming the impression that the leading circles within the bureaucracy were absolutely determined not to tolerate any quarter for reforms. The so-called Communist Party was by this time a Communist Party in name only. It had been purged, terrorised, bribed and corrupted into nothing more than a freemasonary of cynical careerists, and an appendage of the totalitarian state. In the elections of 1945 the CP had got 17 per cent of the vote. Dora Scarlett reported an estimate made in 1956, which is only a very rough guide but nevertheless significant, that if an election was held with a guarantee of no interference, the CP would have been lucky to get 10 per cent.
During the revolution itself the CP of 900,000 vanished overnight. Today less than 1 per cent support the party. This applies to all the Eastern Block countries.
Over the summer of 1956 discussion and opposition became widespread in the colleges and in the factories. The revolution was already in motion. Hostility amongst the masses towards the regime reached such a pitch that any spark could set off an explosion. In October that spark came. Students in Budapest called a demonstration for the 23rd. It was unprecedented for a demonstration to be organised outside of CP control. The authorities banned it but the organisers announced they were going ahead anyway. Initially It was over the conditions of students but an atmosphere of excitement spread amongst all the youth and workers of the town. A series of wider political demands soon were included and eventually the youth were being called to demonstrate in support of the workers of Poland. What a marvellous testimony to the internationalism of the movement, that the spark which ignited the revention was actually a demonstration of international solidarity!
Tens of thousands flooded onto the streets. The secret police (AVO) understood that any reforms whatsoever would inevitably include a calling of them to account for their ten years of crime and organised terror. In panic they fired on the crowd. When police arrived to try and restore order the crowd explained to the police how
the AVO had fired on defenceless men,
women and children. The young policemen, who knew the cruelty of the
AVO, scarcely hesitated before handing over their guns to the crowd.
Anyone who says that the forces of the political revolution are powerless
against the arms of the state ap-
a compliant tool
paratus should look at the reports of Police Chief Kopasci (see insert) as he describes his conversations over the radio with the different police units in the capital.
These conversations clearly il lustrate how powerless and terrified the bureaucracy were in the face of an armed movement of the masses. They show that once the workers are on the move all the seeming strength of the state forces comes to nothing. Parallel with the rapid conquest of the streets went a very rapid development of political consciousness of the masses. One meeting held in the town centre began with a demand from the crowd that the government send a minister to address them about what reforms it proposed to make. The bureaucracy hesitated and vacillated for an hour and then decided to send the minister of agriculture. By the time he arrived the mood of the crowd had changed to hosility towards anything the government may have offered and they booed him off the platform. One of the features of all revolutions is this very quick development of the political consciousness of the masses.
The first invasion
The Russian bureaucracy responded to these events with panic measures. On the night of 23-24 October they sent in the tanks. Everyone fought them in the streets. People brought small arms out of their homes with which to attack them. Children as young as fourteen or thirteen set to them with Molotov cocktails. Such ferocious resistance on the part of the Hungarian workers and youth inevitably made a big impression on the Russian soldiers. They began to question why they had been sent. Some had been told by their officers that it was a fascist rebellion that needed crushing. This did not square with such widespread and popular resistance. By dawn some of the Soviet soldiers were leaving their vehicles and joining the mass demonstrations. Some of the tank crews decorated their tanks with the flag of the revolution (The Hungarian flag with the coat of arms removed). Russian troops asked for political asylum. They saw in the determination of the Hungarian workers the capacity to set up a new type of regime that would not hand them back to the Russian commanders.
A vast crowd assembled in front of the parliament building. The AVO fired on the crowd. Russian troops moved in and defended the crowd from the AVO. All public buildings were taken over by the workers. The radio
[page 20]
was requisitioned for the revolution and the demands of the workers broadcast to the rest of the nation and beyond. Russian troops used their tanks to give backing to the assault of the workers on the police headquarters.
The prisons were open. Whole labyrinths of underground passages, cells and torture chambers were unlocked. Prisoners walked out like ghosts, men and women who had been assumed dead for years. In fact the network of secret police passageways under Budapest was so vast that throughout the weeks of the revolution relatives and friends searched for prisoners. Tappings could be heard in the further recesses. Some were so hidden that the revolution never reached them, before they could be found the counter revolution had struck.
Newspapers sprung up everywhere One CP eyewitness said "people hungered and thirsted for the printed word as though they had crossed a desert." From six dreary official papers twenty five lively dailies with circulations going into millions sprang up within a few days. The revolutionary youth, the different sections of workers, peasants, police and army all had their papers. All rejected antisemitism and fascism.
Arising out of the spontaneous political interests of the masses a number of new political parties sprang into life, including a Social Democratic Party and a Peasants Party. The right for a multiplicity of political parties to exist was enshrined in the programme of the political revolution. Without a doubt the experience of the Hungarian revolution shows that the workers had the capacity to take over and run society. And they had the strength and determination to win against all odds.
Such was the effect on the consciousness of the masses that moral attitudes changed overnight with the enthusiasm of the fight for a new society. Open suitcases taking collections for the families of those killed in the fighting were left unguarded on the street corners. Peasants showed their support for the revolution by bringing cartloads of food into Budapest and distributing it free. This in a country where people were still living in poverty! Let no-one in the face of these facts say that human nature is unchangable, that people will always want to accumulate for themselves and that there will always be crime, even under socialism.
In desperation at their troops defecting to the revolution the Soviet authorities withdrew them from Budapest. In his memoirs Khrushchov recalls the vacillations within the top
circles between 'crushing the mutiny' or pulling 'out of Hungary': "I don't know how many times we changed our minds back and forth." Desperately seeking a means to contain the situation, in consultation with Moscow through Andropov, then the ambassador in Hungary, the leaders switched once again to concessions. On October 25th the premier, Gero, who had provoked the masses further by a ranting speech on the radio about fascist agents, was removed at Moscows' bidding. Several of the worst Stalinist diehards were removed from the politbureau and Nagy was suddenly rehabilitated and made premier.
Nagy returns
But despite his reputation as 'reformer', on the crucial questions confronting the Hungarian workers Nagy was no different from the hardline Stalinists. Moscow persuaded him to declare martial law. He dumbly acquiesced with the Soviet decision to send troops to crush the movement. On the first day of his new premiership 300 workers were killed outside the parliament building by the state forces. His hands were drenched in blood from the outset. But given the tremendous power and sweep of the revolution he was a last line of defence for the bureaucracy because of his reputation.
Nagy offered an amnesty for all those who handed in their weapons. The Soviet authorities started a display of 'negotiations' with his new administration, offering the masses the hope of a peaceful withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country. In reality this was a smokescreen behind which they were preparing for more effective military action. The truth was that the irresistable sweep of the mass movement rendered the Nagy government completely impotent. Without army, police or mass backing, it was a government in name only, an ad ministration suspended in mid-air.
Rumours flew around as to the actions of the Russian columns. There was much confusion. Some sections of the masses did that a new invasion was in the offing. If they were coming why were they going? Yet to anyone prepared to think things through carefully, it was clear their job had not finished. They were not far outside Budapest and their ranks were being swelled by reinforcements. Soviet troops took over all the airports.
Here we get a glimpse of the role that an organised revolutionary party would play in a political revolution. To equip the advanced workers with a clear analysis, strategy and tactics for the spread of the revolution into the
Stalinist states, and thus to prepare for the next battle of the
21
[page 21]
revolution it was necessary for their experiences to be brought together within one party. Such a party would have directed agitation and propaganda to the wide layers of the masses who were hoping against hope that things would not come to a second clash. It would have based itself on the workers who were warning: 'Don't lay down your arms,' 'No trust in the Nagy government to implement the demands of the revolution'. A revolutionary party would have prepared politically clear slogans with which to meet the next wave of Soviet troops. Most important of all it would have formed a government based on the newly created workers' organisations and have immediately arrested Kadar and all the other representatives of Stalinism who still clung onto the shadow of power. Above all it would have undertaken from the outset of the revolution the task of directing propaganda to the workers of all the Eastern Block countries, especially Russia.
Power in
the
the hands
workers
All these tasks the advanced workers moved towards, through their own experience, in the two weeks of the revolution. The programme of the revolution had gone through different stages as the workers consciousness leaped forward. In reality it was an elaboration of the programme of Lenin, put forward in April 1917, to defend the revolution against bureaucracy. The workers demanded: 1) Workers' councils in all factories to
establish workers' management and
a radical transformation of the
system of state central planning and
directing.
Wage rises of 15 per cent for the
lowest paid, 10 per cent for other
workers and an upper limit of £106
on salaries, which in the money of
those days would have done away
with the privileged position of the
bureaucracy.
Abolition of production norms ex-
cept in factories where the workers'
council decided to keep them.
Increases in the lowest pensions.
Increase in family allowances.
A fairer system of taxation.
A more rapid programme of house
building by the state.
These demands, which contain not a hint of nationalism, religion, or reaction are the answer to all those who say that the revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy is anti-socialist. They are a brilliant confirmation of the prognosis Trotsky had put forward in relation to the character of the political
22
Hungarian workers with a captured Russian revolution. This was a programme with a wide appeal to the masses. Yet although of crucial importance, a programme on its own does not guarantee the outcome of a revolution. This is especially so when this programme is arrived through a series of successive approximations based on the conclusions the workers draw from their experience of each phase of the struggle.
The prior existence of a cadre organisation within the ranks of the most conscious workers, armed in advance with perspectives and at least a general understanding of what was necessary, would have made an enormous, and probably a decisive difference to the outcome of the revolution.
The revolution had transformed Budapest over the short space of a week. Kopasci paints a vivid picture
of the pawakest builein This ise
mense 'Westminister on the Danube' was more like the Smolny Palace in Petrograd, Bolshevik headquarters in 1917.. than the old parliament chamber in London. The corridors and rooms were packed with delegations of workers, peasants, soldiers, artists, writers and politicians of different parties which had not been seen at all since 1947." Effectively the workers had taken power. In the provinces the workers had joined the movement and come out on strike. In the mining towns there was a very solid strike. All the workers were on the streets. There was an atmosphere of insurection.
Amongst the peasantry too there was a big movement. The old Stalinist collective farm managers were driven off with knives and pitchforks. The peasants elected revolutionary committees. It is true that in some areas
tank.
they broke up the land from the collectives into private plots. But this was linked with a warning that if any of the landlords tried to come back the peasants would organise a second revolution. Undoubtedly even these peasants would have, through experience, if the Hungarian workers had held onto power and established a regime of workers' democracy, come to the conclusion voluntarily that they were better off in collectives. This is how Peter Fryer, a reporter for the British Communist Party paper, the Daily Worker described the workers' councils:
The second invasion
"In their spontaneous origin, in their composition, in their sense of responsibility, in their efficient organisation of food supplies and of civil order, in the restraint they exercised over the wilder elements of the youth, in the wisdom with which so many of them handled the problem of Soviet troops, and, not least, in their striking resemblance to the soviets or councils of workers, peasants and soldiers deputies which sprang up in Russia in 1905 and again in February 1917, these committees, a network of which now extended over the whole of Hungary were remarkably uniform. They were at once organs of insurrection-the coming together of delegates elected by factories and universities, mines and army units, and organs of popular self government which the armed people trusted. As such they enjoyed tremendous authority, and it is no exaggeration to say that until the Soviet attack of November 4 the real power in the country lay in their hands."
[page 22]
The head of the Stalin statue dragged through the streets of Budapest.
The Nagy government, the last fig leaf of the authorities, effectively had no control. Power was in the hands of the revolutionary committees. The advanced sections of the workers, big sections of the youth and the industrial workers sensed that things could rapidly come to a head. They prepared to once more defend the revolution. A new wave of strikes began which rapidly reached the proportions of another general strike.
At this juncture the Russian bureaucracy began their second assault on the revolution. At 4 in the morning of Sunday 4 November Russian tanks, having encircled Budapest, began to bombard it with shells from the hills outside. By dawn they had entered the city and occupied key buildings including the parliament. The attack came across the nation all at once. Every city was pounded by artillery and then occupied.
Yet far from being crushed in one simple and massive assault as the Russian bureaucrats had hoped, the second invasion in fact spured on the workers to even greater struggle making them more determined than ever to fight for the revolution to the finish. The consciousness of even the widest sections of the masses exploded into new life. Those who had not participated previously in the street fighting came pouring out to join the 'veterans' of the previous week. The
workers fought, along with children, students, the old and the soldiers and police who had come over. They built or rebuilt barricades. They occupied positions before the Russian columns entered the towns. The fighting was ferocious. The tanks were attacked by the masses from all sides. Russian soldiers later reported that they had never seen such determined resistance.
Resistance continues
But this second wave of Soviet troops had very little understanding of what they were crushing. Many of them had been hastily transported from the far eastern provinces of the Soviet Union and could speak no European languages. Peter Fryer, in a final dispatch to the Daily Worker, which the editor hid from his staff, said "Some of the rank and file Soviet troops have been telling people that they had no idea they had come to Hungary. They thought at first they were in Berlin, fighting German fascists." Some had even been told they were on the Suez Canal. The Hungarian workers attempted to hand them leaflets, but there was very little infantry action because the top officers feared the fraternisation that had occured before. The Russian tanks came in and pumped shells into the buildings where they thought the resistance was.
The top Soviet officers desperately manoeuvred to 'maintain the moral' of their troops by shooting those of their men who displayed any sympathy for the Hungarian workers! For example, one Soviet tank officer was executed because his column had found its road bocked by a line of women and children sitting in their path. Instead of christening the street with their blood he drove his contingent round another way. Several of the soldiers who complied with this were also executed. In the prison yards of Budapest such executions continued all day and all night. This grisly fact illustrates that despite all the measures taken by the Russian bureaucracy the Hungarian workers made an impact on the minds of quite wide layers of even this second wave of troops.
Despite this show of strength the bureaucracy almost failed to regain control. It took fifteen divisions, with six thousand tanks, backed up by MIG fighter planes to quell the movement. Buildings were pumped with phosphorus to set them on fire. One commentator, Andy Anderson described it thus: "Smoke from burning buildings, exploding shells and Molotov cocktails mixed with the dust from crashing masonary to create a choking fog. The sight of the mounting wounded created a fog to choke the mind."
Yet even with such brutality on
the 23
[page 23]
part of the Russian bureaucracy it took weeks to finish the job. On 4 November the still-born Nagy government, which represented nobody and no-one, was replaced by one under the hardliner Kadar. He appealed for the workers to go back to work but the strike intensified. On 5 November he 'warned,' he 'hoped for' and he 'requested' a return to work. On the 6th and 7th he 'threatened.' On the 8th his henchman Marosan declared "it is the duty of every decent worker to go back to work." But throughout the workers remained on strike and more and more Russian tanks fell victim to the heroic armed resistance of the masses.
Hungary '56: Portent
future struggles
The most forceful and long lasting resistance to the invasion came precisely trom the big working class areas of Budapest. Hospital figures show that the injured consisted of 70-80 per cent young workers. These figures are incompatible with the Stalinist slur that the insurgents were hotheaded lumpen proletarians egged on by fascist provocateurs. 'Red' Cespel, so called because it had been in pre-war days a bastion of the CP, was one of the last districts to hold out. Open resistance continued in isolated pockets well into 1957 and even in 1958 and 1959 there were strikes and demonstrations as the workers attempted to resist the remorselessly tightening grip of bureaucratic control.
The victory of the bureaucracy did not come easily. 1956 opened up a new period of economic development for the Hungarian economy. The Russian bureaucracy deliberately decided to pump resources into the country. They had been so frightened by the revolution that they wanted to ensure the masses were kept more content to avoid a repetition. Living standards rose significantly for the Hungarian masses for the rest of the 1950s and the 1960s. To put it in the words of Khrushchov "We shall shut their mouths with goulash." Even in the seventies there was still substantial progress. This was the basis for the relative stability of the Kadar regime.
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a glorious page in working class history. It added to the heritage of
mankind a priceless experience. It
showed, not just in books but in living historical experience, that there
was an alternative to the brutality of
Stalinism that did not consist of a
return to capitalism. It was in this
sense a pointer to the future of mankind. Victory was possible. In
24
Even after the second invasion resistance continued in isolated pockets well into 1957.
reality victory was won, but it was snatched away again by the second Soviet invasion. Victory could have been consolidated only by spreading the revolution to the Soviet troops, including the Far Eastern contingents, and that would have entailed spreading the revolution into the USSR itself. The material basis for the victory of the bureaucracy lay in the relatively progressive role that the Stalinist system was playing at that time. Even then a successful revolution in Hungary, headed by a revolutionary party that knew what it was doing and where it was going, could have been the trigger to set off the revolution within the USSR.
Today however conditions are infinitely more favourable. The bureaucracy no longer plays any sort of progressive role in the USSR or Hungary. The economic outlook is gloomy for Hungary. The rate of growth has been less than 1 per cent for the last five years. The Hungarian economy ran a trade deficit of £308m in the first seven months of this year, almost three times higher than the same period last year, partly due to the fall in prices of its oil product exports. Living standards are no longer rising as they were in the decades following 1956. Once again the whole of the Eastern block is wracked by ferment and discontent. The events in Poland in 1980 and 1981 are only the tip of the iceberg. The heritage and experience
of 1956 will be invaluable to the new generation of Hungarian workers and the workers of Eastern Europe as they move into battle to reopen the unfinished war against the bureaucracy.
Eyewitness in Hungary, the Soviet invasion of 1956. Edited by Bill Lomax, normally £2.95, our price £2.20 including postage.
Towards the Political Revolution, Perspectives for Poland, 60p including postage. Available from World Socialist Books, 3/13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB.
[page 24]
Science Report