RFE/RL Collection - Background Reports

  OSA / Digital archive / Background reports / Subjects / Browse / Search

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

TITLE:             The Conceptions' of Imre Nagy and the Ideological Preparation of the Betrayal
BY:                Densoe Nemes
DATE:              1957-11-30
COUNTRY:           Hungary
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary--1956-1965, Hungary--1956 Revolution, Communist Parties--Ideology

--- Begin ---



By Dezsoe Nemes, Tarsadalmi Szemle, issue number 7-8
November-December 1957, released to printer Nov. JO, 1957.

The masters of the West exerted great efforts for years to popularize the
policy and person of Imre Nagy. They were particularly widely acclaimed "by
the radio of the American capitalists called "Radio Free Europe," but other
Western radios as well, mainly in their Hungarian language broadcasts

It is an integral part of the undermining activities against the peoples
democracies to use people in the struggle against communism who were themselves
communists, but represent and proclaim a political line in the course of
socialist transformation, as a result of their old mistakes or for other reasons,
which promotes the rallying round of the counter-revolutionary forces and their
attack to overthrow the peoples power.

Imre Nagy is also such a person, who, following the line of an opportunist
policy, arrived at an open alliance with the counter-revolutionary bloc of a
capitalist restoration and went as far as the open betrayal of the proletarian
power and the open serving of the counter-revolution.

One of Imre Nagy's men who escaped to the West took with him an account
of the ideas of his "master" written between 1955-56. This was published there
in the summer of this year and subsequently was smuggled back into Hungary where
an attempt was made to disseminate them and to use them for renewed factional
activities. Imre Nagy was preparing to hand his writings, or perhaps part of
them, to the central leadership of the Hungarian Workers' Party, but first of
all, he gave them to his friends of the same principles to get their
preliminary opinions, or so it seems, judging by the short foreword of the "guardian"
of the manuscript in August 1956 asking for his urgent opinion.

It appears that these friends of the same principles did not rush the
matter, because Imre Nagy did not forward his exposition to the central
leadership of the Hungarian Workers1 Party at all. The presenting did take place,
but to a different forum, to organs of the masters of the West engaged in
directing further machinations against the peoples democracy.

The "guardian" of the manuscript fails to reveal his identity. The
chronological table which he added to the "work" sheds some light on the question as
to who is "protecting" him, or, to use a more common expression, whose agent
he is. We learn from this chronological table that Eisenhower proposes an
atomic agreement which extends over the whole world, slyly suppressing that
the aim of the proposal is not the prohibition of atomic weapons, but the
thwarting of a prohibition and the facilitation of unhindered preparations
for an atomic war.

Simultaneously, the table fails to carry any mention of leading steps by
the Soviet Union as a defender of international peace for the immediate pro-

[Page 2]

hibition of atomic weapons, the immediate discontinuation of nuclear test
explosions, for the cessation of the armaments race, collective guarantee of a
European peace, and so forth. Part of the table dealt with, under the following
vile expressing, "the execution of the American atom spies, Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg." It endeavors to white-wash with revolting cynicism the American
murderers responsible for the execution of these two American champions of
freedom, who were condemned on the basis of false accusations in support of
an anti-Soviet campaign.

I think this is enough to show us clearly that "the guardian of the
manuscript" is an agent of the Western imperialists and primarily an agent of the
American imperialists. In addition to this, he could have been one of the
advisors of Imre Nagy who gave his superiors the exposition of his "master"
for further exploitation.

The above mentioned expositions of Imre Nagy do not form a structurally
connected unit} it is a collection of well thought out texts of petitions
prepared from time to time, and some answers to articles scribbled down hastily
on the spur of the moment which nevertheless contain, in many respects somewhat
ramblingly, how this former opportunist prepared "ideologically" for open
betrayal during the struggle of principles and persons.

In the course of this he continuously endeavored to play the role of
someone "creatively further developing" Marxism-Leninism. To achieve this
he needed primarily a "justification" of his opportunist policy between
1953-1956. He then tried to step onto the "international arena" and picked up the
soiled banner of the struggle against the unity of the socialist camp.

The root of the opportunism of Imre Nagy. which developed as far as betrayal,
is the anti-Leninist attitude he adopted on the question of peasantry. Deviating
from the point of view of the proletariat, he assumed the point of vie?/ of the
producing peasantry and, starting from there, he built up his conceptions on the
subject of "growing" "peacefully" and "democratically" into socialism.

Setting out from there, he assessed the historic position of the country
in 1947-48, speaking openly in front of the central leadership, thus, that in
Hungary it was not socialist building that is on the program, but the
replacement of the Prussian way of agrarian development with the American way. He
worked out a conception according to which the nationalized industrial sector
in our country is not a socialist-type sector of our peoples' agriculture, but
a state-capitalist sector, which, as regards to its character is not at variance
with the sector of the peasantry producing on a small scale. (Notes in a
publication which came out in the spring of this year under the title "From
Opportunism to Betrayal" documents can be found on this subject.) He went so
far as to proclaim the "development" of the state-capitalist industrial sector
and the agricultural sector producing on a small scale into socialism by
"peaceful" and "democratic" means, without a socialist revolution, without the
dictatorship of the proletariat.

Assume the point of view of the small scale production os peasantry, Imre
Nagy betrayed not only the workers, but also the interests of the toiling
peasantry, owing to the fact that only and exclusively on the basis of the
proletarian point of view can also their interests be correctly defended, and the
progress and future of the toiling peasantry be insured.

Assuming the point of view of the small scale production of peasantry, Imre
Nagy came to the viewpoint of the middle class "national union" which "developed"
into a theory of a "national unity" with forces of a capitalist restoration, into

[Page 3]

the surrender of the proletarian power, and the betrayal of the peoples'
democratic system. Since he was incapable of turning back on the path leading to
treason, he arrived at the stage when he put himself entirely at the disposal
of the counter-revolution. His writings of 1955-56 show how he prepared
"ideologically" for the betrayal.

In these writings we can find new "theoretical" expositions which have
their origin in his original opportunist conceptions and which served as direct
"ideological preparations" for the denouncing of the proletarian dictatorship
and desertion from the socialist camp. These expositions also show that during
the days of the counter-revolution it was not the "current of the events" that
plunged Imre Nagy into the swamp of betrayal. We know very well that, according
to the testimony of his writings, he worked out even at the end of 1955 and the
beginning of 1956 the ideological motivation of betrayal. We can find these
expositions primarily in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the "work,"

The title of the first chapter of Imre Nagy's "work" is: "A Few Topical
Questions on the Application of Marxism-Leninism." This Imre Nagy-like
"application" is very characteristic.

In the course of the voluminous exposition of his ideas, Imre Nagy makes the
following statements:

"The stiff, scholastic interpretation of Marxism-Leninism divided the
world into two hostile parts opposing eachother to a pronounced degree,
namely into capitalism and socialism, between which the contradictions
are becoming greater and more acute as a result of a development in the
opposite directions of the two halves of the world. These incorrect,
anti-Marxist views on the development of society and the struggle
between the two systems deny the necessity and existence of a transitional
period between the two systems, which is, however, one of the
fundamental theses of the construction of a socialist society. They deny
the extraordinarily versatile forms of transition, a very wide scale
of which we know already, they deny the Leninist theory of
disproportionate development...(Tarsadalmi Szemle ellipsis -- ed.) Taken on
the whole, they deny that conditions of socialism ripen and to some
extent, come into being already under capitalism.. (Tarsadalmi Szemle
ellipsis -- ed.). As proof of this theorem, he refers to the fact
that "the people of India exert great efforts to create a society on
the socialist pattern in their country," he quotes from Molotov's
speech at the UF assembly on Sept, 23, 1955, saying that "as a result
of World War II and the important social and political progress
connected with it, in Europe and Asia several states of a socialist type
were created,"

Imre Nagy does not say whether Kolotov's statement refers, to other countries,
as well, in addition to the European and Asian peoples democracies. He merely
puts the reference to India before the quotation and after the quotation states:
"The economic, political and social changes in progress in former colonial and
dependent countries are also taking place in a peculiar manner and form, which
are dissimilar to capitalism, showing the great variety-'of transitional forms
between capitalism and socialism," (page 17-18.)

After this follows:

"Views which fail to pay attention to Lenin's teachings on the peaceful
development of the two systems side by side, which have in mind only the
application of force in the struggle between the two systems, and which consider the
peaceful coexistence only as a transition between two wars are incorrect. Such
views automatically reject one of the two possible ways to socialist victory,

[Page 4]

the peaceful co-existence, or consider it as only a short transition. Views
which regard the application of force not in the liberating revolutionary
movement of the people, but in a military clash between the two systems are faultier,
and more dangerous still... (Tarsadalmi Szemle ellipsis -- ed.).

"... (Tarsadalmi Szemle ellipsis -- ed.) a theory on the peaceful co-existence
of the two systems and on a socialist victory by peaceful means, which became
bogged down and left decades behind the development of conditions of society must
be worked out and further developed." (page 18).

So much for the first part of the concentrated revisionism posing in the
mask of communism. It is already obvious in this how Imre Nagy, in his writings,
which "took final shape" in the summer of 1956, endeavors to distort for
revisionist aims new statements of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, and how he
"supplements" them in his own revelations. However, he is incapable of substantiating
by anything his thundering accusations (they are "denying" this and "denying"
that), ho does not even dare to try any substantiation. He only declares,
distorts and falsifies to render theses of a revisionist betrayal "more magnificent"
and "more creditable."

Let us begin on the statement that "the theory on the victory of socialism
by peaceful means" "came to a standstill tens of years ago." It is public
knowledge that Bernstein and his associates worked out this "theory." It was after
the death of Engels that they launched their attack in the sign of this theory
against revolutionary Marxism. They succeeded in attaining a leading role in
the great majority of the parties of the 2nd international, succeeded in leading
these parties into the swamp of opportunism and the international into the
disgraceful and tragic bankruptcy of 1914. Imre Nagy, however, does not. write how,
that it is this revisionist surrender of the revolutionary defeat of capitalism,
which, as an ideological tendency, "came to a standstill tens of years ago,"
which he now wanted to pull out of the tangle, namely under the guise of a
"communist." This mask is, however, extraordinarily pitiful.

Whom does Imre Nagy accuse by saying that "they have in mind only the
application of force in the struggle between the two systems and consider peaceful
co-existence only as a transitional period between two wars?". He accuses the
"Stalinists," the CPSU and the Soviet Union, as well as other communist parties
for their views which are identical with that of the CPSU. And what is the
reality? It is that the Soviet Union carried out a consistent peace policy
even after the death of Lenin for collective security, for the discontinuation
of the armament race, for disarmament, struggled for peaceful co-existence,
and that it is particularly as a result of this struggle that they obtained two
decades of peaceful creative work before World War II.

The struggle against an imperialist war was one of the central questions
in the struggle of all parties of the communist international. Those who
supress this are spitting truth in the eye. After World War II, at the initiation of
and under the leadership of the communist parties, a gigantic international
peace movement developed, the like of which the world has never known. The
recognition of this fact cannot be erased from peoples' minds by any effort of
Imre Nagy and his friends. This "Stalinist" theorem of Stalin is well known:
"Peace will be maintained and it will be lasting, if people take in hand the
cause of safeguarding peace and if they stand by it to the last." It is true
that Stalin did not yet derive the theorem that in present changed conditions
war ceased to be unavoidable.

The development of the socialist world system, the cessation of the American
atomic monopoly, and the gaining of strength to a special degree of the inter-

[Page 5]

national peace movement brought about the possibility of the final suppression
of imperialist war efforts. All these took place already in Stalin's life,
yet he did not devise a theory on the general inevitability of war but merely
stated the realistic possibility of a lasting peace.

Can we, however, blame Stalin -- since he really did commit some serious
mistakes in the concrete adjudgement of the international conditions and also in
his practical policy -- or anybody else, for not coming forward with a theory on
the ability to avoid war at the time of the Korean aggression of the American
imperialists, when towns and villages of Korea lived through a period of some
terrible war damages?! At that time the dirty Vietnam war also continued for
long years. The reality is that the repulsion of United States aggression in
Korea and the forced retreat of the American and French imperialists in Vietnam
was the factor which brought to the surface realistic possibilities of the
suppression of imperialist war policy and at the same time, that of the ability to
avoid war.

During the years of the Korean and Vietnam war even Imre Nagy did not come
forward with such ideas. In 1956, however, in the course of the revisionist
attack, he stood forth asking reproachfully why, together with the principle
he peaceful co-existence of the two systems, did they not declare also a
thesis is on the ability to avoid war years previously. Why was it not declared
at a time, when the Soviet Union was still the only socialist country, the
country which, encircled by the capitalist states, endangered from East and West
alike by the attack of anti-Soviet blocs organized again and again, and looking
defiantly in the eye of the entire imperialist world created a socialist society
and took care of its national defense as well as insured its peaceful building
work, and which, making use of the increasing differences between the imperialists
through its consistent peace policy, secured for itself two decades of peaceful
co-existence. Perhaps it's the Soviet Union's fault that Hitlerite aggression
interrupted the peaceful co-existence? Of what does Imre Hagy protest? Perhaps
about the fact that the Soviet Union also prepared to repel a danger by war?
Simultaneously with socialist construction, perhaps, instead of defensive
preparations, "the theory of peaceful co-existence of two systems" should have
been better worked out? Perhaps this would have helped the Soviet Union more
adequately in their fight in the great patriotic war, in the driving out of the
Fascist invader, and in the liberation of several countries, among them our own?
Or perhaps "a better worked out theory" of the co-existence of two systems would
have caused Fascist Germany to be more lenient (like, let us say, Adenauer's
We Germany and Mr. Dulles and similar gentlemen in the United States?) and give
up the plan of attacking the Soviet Union?

We think that we are looking at the drivel of an unbelievably confused person
when we read Imre Nagy's reproaches in connection with not having worked out
better "an acute theory of peaceful co-existence" after the death of Lenin. Let
us remember, however, the conception Imre Hagy advocated in 1947-43 on the
development in Hungary, according to which the nationalized industrial sector would
not have become a socialist, but a state-capitalist industrial sector and the
small-scale production of peasantry would have "peacefully" and "democratically"
"grown into it."

If we know this conception of "socialist" development already represented
by Imre Nagy and which the capitalist world can accept with peaceful resolve,
we will be convinced that it is not the nonsense of a maniac. We deal with the
"historic" extension of the revisionist conception still openly proclaimed by
Imre Nagy in 1947-48,and hidden with painful care after it had been rejected.
The essence of all this can be only one thing: why did the Soviet Union not
choose a way to socialist development to which the capitalist World could have

[page 6]

reconciled itself peacefully? Why did it go along on a path which induced the
capitalist world to form permanent anti-Soviet military alignments, and in the
end, led Hitler's Germany to anti-Soviet war? Imre Nagy did not go as far, at
least he did not go as far in those days, as to explain what that road of socialist
construction should have "been like, to which the capitalist world could have
reconciled itself. Knowing, however, what he kept offering the Hungarian people
with periodic backtracking, it is not difficult to guess where his argumentation

But let us leave this now. Let us merely establish that the setting up of
a theorem on the ability to avoid war does not affect the imperialists, on the
contrary, it enrages them, because a gigantic social force backs this theorem,
which is also able to enforce it. Furthermore, it is not only the terrible
Korean aggression of the Americans that indicates that the imperialists cannot
refrain from their military adventures, but the French-British-Israel attack
against Egypt, the British attack against Oman and Yemen, the French
aggression against Algeria, the American conspiracy against Egypt and Syria, the
resurrection of German militarism and its supply with atomic weapons, their consistent
opposition to the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and so forth, to quote only
their most recent activities,

Imre Nagy, however, keeps quiet about the militarist adventurer-policy of
the aggressive imperialist circles. But how he can talk about them, when he is
the only one who weaves threads of an alliance with forces of a capitalist
restoration and builds his policy on the support of Western imperialist powers?

That is why he proceeded to lay down a smoke-screen on imperialist military
preparations and began to idealize the capitalist world. If this capitalist world
is not, perhaps quite as ideal as those who idealize it imagine, it is easy to
attribute this to the fact that the "Stalinists" failed years ago "to work out a
clear-cut theory of peaceful co-existence." Thank God there comes an Imre Nagy,
however, and makes up the deficiency...(Tarsadalmi Szemle ellipsis -- ed.) and
the entire imperialist camp supports his adoringly! They awaited this person
who remedies "the deficiency" as sons thirsting for pure truth await a sainted

Let us proceed further, however. Whom did Imre Nagy accuse by saying that
"they look upon the application of force not in the liberating revolutionary
movement of people, but in the military clash between the two systems?" Again,
primarily the CPSU and the Soviet Union, which, before socialism became a world
system, was the only one representing one of the systems, the socialist system,
and he accuses the communist parties which are in agreement with the CPSU, one
of which parties, our party, he has also been a member.

On what does he build and with what can he prove his theorem? On nothing and
with nothing. This is a mendacious, slanderous declaration, which reiterates
anti-Soviet and anti-communist slanders proclaimed by international reaction for
decades. The guiding principle of the anti-war struggle of the entire
international communist movement was and remained the principle that war -- even though
it speeds up the development of a social revolution in the capitalist countries
at war -- brings such grave sufferings and losses to the people and the countries,
that to avoid a war represents the findamental interest of the people,

A war between countries of the two world systems would mean extremely grave
losses also for the socialist country or countries and it is in the combined
interest of the international revolutionary movement as well as the socialist
countries to insure the peaceful development of the socialist countries and to prevent a conflagration of war from interrupting it. Imre Nagy knew this very

[page 7]

well but concealed it in a sly manner because this fact was not compatible with
his mendacious revelations.

The international communist movement integrated and integrates the solution
of the revolution in capitalist countries with a deepening of the economic
crisis which unavoidably occurs, with a political criris which accompanies it, and
with the development of the revolutionary forces. Imre Nagy certainly knew this
It is true that the usual economic cycle became somewhat distorted in the period
laden with partial v/ars that followed World War II, that the smaller crises did
not deepen and did not take on a more general aspect.

The armament race, a series of partial wars, and a combination of other factors,
facilitated a certain extension of capitalist markets. Many people came to the
conclusion from this that capitalism would avoid a crisis similar to that of
1929-1933. It also follows from this surmise of theirs that they deny the fact
that resulting from the aggravation of the inner contradictions in capitalist
countries, a solution of the revolution is possible, necessary and unavoidable.
He has not enough courage, however, to say this openly and directly. Instead,
hedges and talks of the fact that socialist progress can be enacted "with a
revolution or without one," The fact that it can be carried into effect by a
revolution was proved not only in theory but also in reality. The fact that it
can be carried into effect without a revolution has been stated for a lone time
by revisionism and Imre Nagy raked this up now,

The question was brought up before the international communist movement in
the following form: from the inevitable crisis of the capitalist world it is a
necessity that a socialist revolution unfolds. The occurrence of this is a
historic necessity which does not presuppose a clash in war between the two
systems. It is in the interest of the people that we prevent this clash in war
and spare the population of both the socialist and capitalist countries from the
horrors of war.

If we were not successful in preventing the imperialists from unleashing a
war, then a devastating war, bringing much suffering, will break out, which
would by necessity lead to a revolution annihilating the capitalist system.
It is quite natural that the international communist movement struggled, and will
struggle also in the future, to avoid an imperialist war, and for the victory
of the revolution without a war. The socialist countries join the well-known
peace policy of the Soviet Union which, on the basis of the peaceful co-existence
and cooperation of the two systems, challenges the capitalist countries to an
economic competition. This peaceful co-existence, peaceful cooperation and
competition, cannot eliminate those clashes within society which inevitably occurred
in the past and will occur in the future as well as in capitalist countries as
a result of their inner, irreconcilable contradictions.

It is in the above manner that Marxism-Lenism and the reality raise the
question of the revolution. Imre Nagy does not acknowledge the necessary nature
of the fact which is fundamental for the international communist movement: a
socialist revolution which originates in the inner contradictions of the capitalist
system. For him this is merely a possibility, and a possibility to be voided
at that. He designs the following alternative: the peaceful co-existence of the
two systems or a clash in war. And from peaceful co-existence he deducts the
possibility of attaining socialism "with a revolution or without one,"

A string of countries which set forth on the path of the revolution have
already created a proletarian dictatorship, even though Imre Nagy and people
similar to him regret this. Why could other countries not achieve socialism,
however, not through a revolution but without one? Perhaps they could even

[page 8 ]

create a "proletarian dictatorship" along some lines like the Imre Nagy "version,"
without a revolution!

Or perhaps we are dealing with the achievement of socialism, without a
proletarian dictatorship? Really, how else can Imre Nagy's reference "be
interpreted when he says that India "also creates a society on the socialist pattern,"
behold, without the dictatorship of the proletariat. Why, nobody would presume
of Nehru and the Indian nationalist bourgeoisie that they have created or will
create a proletarian dictatorship.

As we know Lenin established that the transition from capitalism to socialism
will be attended by different peculiar features in various countries, and will
take on pronouncedly varied forms. A common feature of all of them will be,
without a doubt, however, that they will be dictatorships of the proletariat]

Imre Nagy made use of Lenin's thesis on the variety of transitional forms to
introduce in its guise the old revisionist "transitional form" without a socialist
revolution and a proletarian dictatorship. He carried out this revisionist
ideological smuggling in a Subtle and cowardly manner. Bernstein stated openly that
he was revising Marx. Imre Nagy was swindling with references to Lenin to
conceal the deeply revisionist essence of his ideas.

The 20th Congress of the CPSU, as it is well know, established also the
fact that in changed world conditions socialist transformation can take place
also in a parliamentary manner in certain countries and in certain circumstances.
Imre Nagy corrects this thus: socialism can be victorious "without a revolution,
perhaps in a parliamentary manner,"

The 20th Congress of the CPSU devised its well-known thesis on the
achievement by parliamentary means of the power of the workers' class and the establish-
ment of the proletarian dictatorship, that is, the victory of the socialist
revolution, or rather on its possibility. Imre Nagy "modified," however, the
possibility of a victory byarevolution using comparatively peaceful and
parliamentary means to a rejection of a revolution. He does not say, however, directly
and without beating about the bush that he modifies the thesis of principle of
the CPSU; he is too cowardly to proclaim his anti-Leninist views without

Part of Imre Nagy's method of hedging is that he acknowledges also a
revolutionary transition and also a proletarian dictatorship since this is a hist?ic
reality in the SU by now, and at the most, he can only express regrets afterwards
over the "dogmatic" manner in which the development of the first socialist world
power has taken place. In connection with the peoples democratic countries, he
is very hopeful, however, that they can still be reconverted from a similarly
"dogmatic" path.

As it is known, the major part of the peoples democratic countries have
committed the mistake of mechanically adopting Soviet experiences in the course of
their development and these mistakes disturbed their development. Imre Nagy
utilizes these mistakes to state his accusation, namely that our parties
prescribed an "identical form and time" in the development of peoples democracies.
Peoples democracies learned and will learn from Soviet experiences, more
adequately and prudently than before. They will study and utilize, better than
before, also the experiences of eachother. The statement which accuses as of
regarding the socialist construction of the SU, China and Hungary as of the same
pattern must be branded simply as slander.

It is a fact, of course, that the fundamental characteristics are identical
in the development of our countries, because it is socialism that every peoples

[page 9]

democracy builds, The differences are essential, but not fundamental. We can
and must talk of the fact that we did not make sufficient allowances for the
diversity of conditions, and that we must make better allowances for them in
our future work.

We will take good care also in the future, however, that by references to
"peculiar conditions," nobody dares to lead the country away from the Leninist
path of building socialism, which path can necessarily be diversified in its
forms, but can only be Leninist. This is not "the elimination of the antagonistic
interests and contradictions...(Tarsadalmi Szemle ellipsis -- ed.) in the
interests of close cooperation with the broadest masses of the people," (page 19) as
Imre Nagy proclaims it, "but isolation of the enemies of socialism and the
annihilation of their resisting forces in the interest of a cooperation with the
broadest masses of the working people. We do eliminate the non-antagonistic
contradictions within the people, but do not apply the method of settling such
contradictions within the people to the field of antagonistic contradictions
between the people and the enemies of the people. Also last year's
counterrevolution, which Imre Ifagy and his associates helped to prepare and unleash
in the sign of the "elimination of antagonistic contradictions," thereby helping
so in bringing to extreme peril the power of the proletariat.

Imre Nagy does not openly confess that he does not find a peoples democracy,
as one species of proletarian doctatorship, to his liking. While he beats about
the bush in his analysis, he does occasionally reveal his true feelings, however.
He says: "A peoples democracy is the only characteristic form so far recognized
by the dogmatic interpretation of Marxism-Leninism as a characteristic way of
socialism in the transitional phase between capitalism and socialism," (page 18) It
is true that Marxism-Leninism only recognizes those forms as existing, which
forms do in actual fact exist. In addition to that, it presumes that other
forms can also come into being in other countries. We must also point out that
a peoples democratic form is not as stereotyped as Imre Nagy, who is "looking
for crimes," tries to make out in a distorting manner. The question is whether.
there really is another transitional form at present, which the "dogmatists"
fail to "recognize?" There is, according to Imre Nagy.

He definitely names India as such and refers to others, but not definitely
named semi-colonies and colonial countries, in which the power is still in the
hands of the bourgeoisie and in which, according to Imre Nagy, "a transition
?m capitalism to socialism" is in progress. A transition of a kind which Imre
Nagy kept offering to the Hungarian people in 1947-48.

A significant characteristic of the Indian government's economic policy is
the increasing of state capitalism to a certain extent, particularly mainly in
certain fields of heavy industry, as in the field of metallurgy, for instance,
which plays such a major part in insuring the basic material supply of the entire
industry, and also in other important fields.

When the workers class, which attained power, nationalized the banks and all
their enterprises in Hungary, Imre Nagy stated that the nationalized industrial
sector is not of a socialist character but it is a state capitalist economic
sector. On the other hand, he declared the state capitalism of the middle class
power of middle class India to be "a development of society on the socialist

When the Hungarian Peoples' Democracy began its socialist-planned economy,
he stated that a state capitalist development and a development of a small-scale
production of peasantry is on the agenda in Hungary. When middle class India

[page 10]

works out and accomplishes economic plans in the interest of state capitalist
development, which consist of only a few percent of the entire peoples' economy
of India, he rates this as "a transitional phase between capitalism and socialism."

Imre Nagy propagates the avoidance of a socialist revolution and a
prole-tarian dictatorship in both cases, but in changed circulstances. In 1947-48.
when the workers were in power in Hungary, it was in the first case that he acted
against the proletarian dictatorship. In 1955-56, in the case of India, it was
in the second case that he "justifies" the superfluousness of liquidating the
capitalist system, which is to be avoided. The "justification" in the case of
India is in actual fact addressed to the Hungary of 1955-56, indeed, to all
democratic countries in general, and its essence is the following: you see,
they do eliminate the antagonistic contradictions in India and a proletarian
dictatorship is not necessary to do it. We can relinquish this "dogmatic" way also
in this country and then the "peaceful co-existence of the two systems" and the
"peaceful replacement of one system by another" can be accomplished, the
"replacement" of socialism by the entire capitalist system.

We must also see that, however, in which the positive significance of Nehru's
state capitalist development lies, which Imre Nagy so perfidiously abuses, and
which must not be underestimated. We must refer to two circumstances. The
state capitalist development of India strengthens India in its struggle to
decrease and put an end to its economic dependence on the imperialist powers.
Every success in this struggle serves to strengthen India, which it can use,
and already used to no small degree, against imperialist military efforts, and
against imperialist economic and political subjugation.

This is of great benefit to India and also of the entire international
democratic peace movement. This is one of some very important circulstances. The
other is that a substantial change occurs in the character and significance of
state capitalist development if the possibility for the workers' bid for power
becomes realistic in a peaceful, parliamentary manner.

In certain circumstances state capitalist development can promote the workers'
bid for power, and the comparatively peaceful accomplishment of a socialist
revolution by parliamentary means. In the political development of India the
possibility is at hand that conditions for this will come into being.

The above two conditions, or one of them, exists, or rather is in the
course of development in other countries as well. It follows from that that the
communist parties of many capitalist countries modified their attitude as regard
the question of the establishment of state-capitalist peoples economic sectors
and the strengthening of such sectors respectively, and are raising concrete
demands in connection with the development of a state economic sector.

When Marxism-Leninism states that the world is made up of two world systems,
the capitalist and the socialist world system, it denies, in fact, that there
could be some sort of a transitional world system in between the two. There
could be countries in which the workers accomplish comparatively peacefully a
socialist revolution, by leading the country from a capitalist into a socialist
world system.

Marxism-Leninism recognizes the significance of state-capitalist development
in non-socialist countries struggling against imperialism and supports this
development, but it does not consider these countries, which aro capitalist countries,
as socialist-type countries! Marxism-Leninism recognizes that in certain
circumstances a state-capitalist development can promote the acquisition of political
power by parliamentary means and draws from this fact the necessary conclusions.
This is, however, not a renunciation of a revolution and a dictatorship of the
proletariat. For Imre Nagy, however, the establishment of a state industrial
sector serves the purpose of reviving the old thesis of revisionists on
"peaceful replacement" of socialism by capitalism by "democratic means," without a
revolution and a proletarian dictatorship.

[page 11]

In theoretical analyses of Imre Nagy, an important place is occupied by a
"creative" development further of the five "basic principles of peaceful
coexistence, The third chapter of his "work" deals with this, in which he states
that the five basic principles of peaceful co-existence cannot be restricted
to the capitalist system, or to the struggle "between the two systems, but must
include the relationship between each of the countries within the socialist camp.
(pag 30.)

Imre Nagy describes, not by a homogeneous wording, as homogeneity and
ex-plicitness do not characterize the exposition of ideas of a person who indulges
habitually in prevarication, three camps: the capitalist system, the democratic
camp, and the socialist camp. For what reason are there no democratic countries
within the capitalist system? Of course there are. What is a person to do who
advocates that on the basis of "peaceful co-existence" democratic countries are
even now "being replaced" "democratically" by socialism. What Imre Nagy does is
to separate democratic but still not socialist countries from the capitalist
system and as countries proceeding on a new, "peculiar" path of socialist
development, which he declared, he places them in a separate democratic camp, between
capitalist and socialist countries.

What is the reality, however? It is that there is a capitalist world system
and a socialist world system. At the same time, there is: 1) an imperialist
war camp, 2) a socialist peace camp, and 3) there are non-socialist but anti-
imperialist neutral countries, which want peace. The socialist peace camp and.
non-socialist neutral countries combined compose the peace sphere of the world,
which does exist, although this concept is absent from the exposition of ideas
of Imre Nagy. It is true that not one of these neutral countries did become
countries of war because the imperialists attacked them, as for instance, Egypt
and Oman. They also threaten other neutral countries, like Syria, with an attack,

Imre Nagy states; "the five basic principles stem not from contradictions
between the two systems, capitalism and socialism, it is not only those that
they express, but they are factors independent of social and political systems
in the sphere of relations between nations." (page 30.)

First of all, let us ask the question, if the five basic principles are quite
so independent of social and political system, why is ii that it was capitalism
that produced wars, among them two world wars, instead of making the five basic
principles the basic principles of the relationship between nations? Could there
have ever been any talk under capitalism of equality of rights between small and
big nations, between strong and weak nations, which is one of the conditions of
the five basic principles?

Why is it that it was a system of imperialism that developed under capitalist
and why not a system of equal rights between nations? Is the thesis of Imre Nagy
not drivel? No, it is not drivel, but a guise under which Imre Hagy introduces
his "ideas" serving the betrayal of the socialist camp. We will see this further

The five basic principles put into words by the well-known statement of
Chou-en-lai and Nehru stem from the fundamental interests of people demanding
the prevention of military clashes and the peaceful co-existence of the two
systems, as well as from the peace policy of socialist and non-socialist, but
anti-imperialist states. It was through the birth of the socialist world system
and the large-scale breaking up of the imperialist world system that the five
basic principles became quite as significant in international politics as they
did! Why does Imre Hagy want to obscure this fact? Why does he suppress that
it is only in a struggle against the war policy of the Western imperialist
powers that the five basic principles must and can be led to victory? Because,
while preparing for a betrayal, he spreads illusions toward the Western powers,

[page 12]

and makes use of the "five basic principles" to propagate a breaking away from
the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, and to prepare this action

Imre Nagy dresses up in the robe of a "national politician." How many dirty,
anti-popular things were disguised by the robe of a "national" policy. Imre Nagy
also goes along on this path, but in such a manner tha,t at the same time he also
professes to be a loyal adherent of proletarian internationalism. During this
he states: "national independence, which is the sum total of the five basic
principles, is the decisive and primary factor of international politics, a
condition of which is the establishment of national solidarity and unity."
(page 31.)

We are in a position today thai we have already seen in practice an Imre
Nagy-like "national solidarity," and a counter-revolutionary "national" unity
with forces of a capitalist restoration, which, under the piratical banner of
"national independence," almost dug the grave of the cause of the proletarian
power and national independence alike.

But let us now examine the previous "theorem" as well, which shows us
precisely the manner in which Imre Nagy, as a result of a well thought out
political conception, arrived at a shameful path leading to the surrendering of the
proletarian power, to the breaking away from the socialist camp, and to placing
the country under the guardianship of Western powers.

When Imre Nagy proclaims that tho five basic principles of peaceful
coexistence are equally valid in connection with the relationship with capitalist
states and in the relationship of socialist countries with eachother, he
pronounces the fundamental principles of the relationship between capitalist countries
and socialist countries to be entirely identical, and denies the fundamental
difference in the relationship between capitalist and socialist countries.

The logical conclusion of this is, or springs precisely from the fact, that
Imre Nagy intended to change the five principles of the peaceful co-existence
of the two systems into the "fundamental principles" of a breaking away from the
Soviet Union, and of a disintegration of the socialist camp. That is why he
declares the five basic principles to be a factor "independent from social and
political systems." That is why he declares that national independence is the
"sum total of the five basic principles," with which slogan he endeavors to
continuously whitewash the piratical banner of the disintegration of the
socialist camp.

In the course of this, Imre Nagy does not say openly that the socialist camp
must be broken up; no, he speaks of the "healthy development" of the socialist
camp, of proletarian internationalism, of the socialist camp as "a grouping of
independent, sovereign countries of equal rights," as of something non-existent,
which will have to be established in accordance with his conceptions, and as an
example of which he uses in every manner the absence of Yugoslavia from the
socialist camp. His theses at the outset are the following:

A) The workers1 class "cannot subordinate the universal interests of the
nation to its own class interests, because it is only together with other working
classes that it can liberate itself and did liberate itself, and because it is
only in an alliance 'with them that it can consolidate its state power,"
(page 32.)

[page 13]

B) Instead of "Stalinist dognas" "we introduce the Narxist-Leninist
thesis on individual roads of socialism, the five basic principles- of national
existence, and the principle of ideological non-interference." (page 33.)

c) The policy of power alignments is at variance with the principle of
national independence and sovereigncy based on the five basic principles, as
? as with the principle of peaceful co-existence of nations," (page 38.)
"It is a question of existence for small countries like Hungary" not to become
"an active participant in the clash between power alignments," (page 38.)
Countries of the socialist camp "must strive for the liquidation of alignment
policy," "The rivalry between power alignments and their struggle against
eachother will hardly lead to the discontinuation of the alignments and of the
alignment policy," (page 39.) Hungary "is convinced by the terrible
experiences of two world wars that it cannot and must not become a participant in
the rivalry of power alignments," (page 39-40) Lajos Kossuth "formed a mental
picture for the assurance of an independent, sovereign, self-reliant and free
national existence of the Hungarians, not by joining some great power or power
group, but by a close alliance with the surrounding people in the form of an
alliance (federation) with free people of equal rights," (page 40.)

Imre Nagy set forth from the fact that the workers' class must subordinate
"its own class interests" to "the universal interests of the nation" and through
underhand disparagement of the Warsaw defense pact of socialist countries, he
came to proclaiming a break from the Soviet Union, and to proclaiming a new
alignment of countries breaking away from the Soviet Union. Imre Nagy refers
to the policy of alliance which was a mental picture of Kossuth,

We have been able to witness, however, the policy of alignment which was
a "mental picture" of Imre Nagy as far back as January 1956, which he, under
the guise of being against power alignments, explained in writing well in
advance in the course of the ideological preparation of the counter-revolution,
and the accomplishment of which he also intended to carry out as a Prime Minister
opening the door for and attending in every sense on the counter-refolution.

He subordinated "the class interests of the workers" and the existence of
the proletarian power, to the "universal interests of the nation" as all kinds
of forces of capitalist resteration together with Imre Nagy, demanded and
proclaimed it,

We must digress on these theses of Imre Nagy in order to show their essence
appropriately. Before we do that, however, let us see where the establishment
of a new alignment, disguised by "being against alignments," would have led to
in connection with the aim of separating peoples' democratic countries from
the Soviet Union, as followers of Imre Nagy actually proclaimed in the summer
of last year under the slogan of "anti-Stalinism?" because it is a fact that
they did proclaim it and hoped that Hungary, as well as Czechoslovakia and
Poland, would break away from the Soviet Union and would bury the Warsaw
defense pact of socialist countries.

What would have been the consequence if this dangerous game had succeeded
and the Warsaw pact had ceased to exist? It would have meant that the
separation of Poland and CSR would have isolated the CDR from the SU, and a German
American army would have launched an attack against the GDR, It must be kept
in mind that the imperialists are not middle class dreamers, but war politicians
who make quick use of possibilities open to them, and who make wonderful use,
for their own purpose, of people who become traitors from middle class dreamers.

[page 14]

If they had destroyed the GDR isolated from the SU, through the deployment
of a gigantic numerical superiority, and united all Germany in the sign of
German militarism, the next step would have been the crossing of the Oder-Neisse
border, the seizure of Western territories of Poland, and the complete
liquidation of the socialist order in Poland,if Polish reactionary forces had not
liquidated it themselves by that time, or if the Polish workers class had not
accomplished a quick restoration of the alliance with the Soviet Union and
insured the armed support of the Soviet Union. Events would have takon as similar
turn in Czechoslovakia as well.

And in Hungary? Here, nationalist-chauvinist reaction took a stand openly
at the time of the counter-revolution. The counter-revolution of Hungary alone
would have changed our country into a hotbed of war. Emphasizing greatly the
slogan of "neutrality," it was preparing a war against Czechoslovakia, Bumania,
as well as Yugoslavia, The war plans of the Hungarian reaction were only a
link in the plans on a much wider scale of the Western imperialists, for the
"liberation" of democratic countries, and for their plans for a new world war
aimed at attacking the Soviet Union and China,

It is not the nice eyss of Imre Nagy that Dulles, Adenauer and his
associates, the Radio Free Europe of the American capitalists and their fellow
propagandists enthused and enthuse about, but his political conception and
policy of "neutrality," because in the given circumstances it was this policy
of the revisionist traitors that could help their anti-people war aims most

A break from the Soviet Union, liberator of our country, its chief
supporter, and defense ally would have not only plunged the existence of the
proletarian power into an eztreme danger, but would have involved our peoples in
a new catastrophy of war as well.

Let us return now to the theses of Imre Nagy, however. Imre Nagy does
perhaps admit of the alliance with the socialist world poer, the Soviet Union,
that it is in agreement with the class interests of the workers, but he does
not consider it to be in agreement with interests of "other classes" and. thus
with "the universal interests of the nation," Why? An alliance with the
socialist world power, which liberated us, safeguards us continuously against
imperialist interference, supports far-reacchingy our constructive work, and
corrects the mistakes we make, is the main assurance of the peace of our 
fatherland. Not only the class interests of the workers, "but the most
universal, most elementary interest of our nation demands tills alliance.

If we had broken off the defensive alliance made with the Soviet Union,
if we had allowed our country to be torn out of the Warsaw pact, if we had
tolerated Hungary's becoming the country to disintegrate Warsaw pact. as
Imre Nagy and his followers wanted to act in an alliance with the entire
counterrevolutionary camp, our fatherland Y/ould have become the prey of a white terror,
of a fascist barbarianism, and of war.

This would have suited the plans of the Hungarian forces of a capitalist
restoration and their Western supporters, that which Imre Nagy disguised by
the slogan of "the universal interests of the nation,"

In the sequence of ideas of Imre Nagy, an important place is occupied by
"ideological non-interference," the thesis on the refusal of mutual criticism
and debates, the demand that nobody should want to intervene in things we do
in Hungary under the guise of "anti-dogmatism" in the creative development

[page 15]

further of Marxim-Leninism, We have seen so far what Imre Nagy did. It is
understandable that he become the champion of the "invulnerability" of the 
ideology of a revisionist betrayal,

The refusal of mutual political or economic advice, which is in itself
normal and unmaintainable, is not enough for him. The giving of mutual
advice is customary between all those countries which maintain with eachother
a relationship of friendship and alliance, and is more important still for the
further development of the socialist countries and of the entire socialist
world system. Let us come to the subject of "ideological non-interference,"

One of the chief prerequisites for the development of revolutionary workers
parties has always been to exchange eachother's experiences, to debate various
questions of principle and policy, and to coordinate their attitude regarding
ideological and other questions. Without this cooperation of principles and
policy, exchange of advice and debates, the international revolutionary workers
movement could not have developed, the socialist world system could not have
been born, and it could not develop further, but would decline. Without an
theological-political cooperation, the international peace movement could not
have come into being either and could not develop further, but would also
decline. Forms of ideological-political cooperation do change and it is
necessary that they change; this cooperation, which is one of the indispensable
conditions of our progress, develops further by the elimination of the occurring
mistakes or methods that became outdated.

For what purpose does Imre Nagy, the mouthpiece of a capitalist restoration,
need an "ideological" cooperation, however? How can a "national communist"
endure the criticism of fraternal parties, with other words, an "ideological
interference?" He cannot at all, therefore he declares it to be a "national

It is the elementary duty of every communist party to listen to the opinion
of the fraternal parties on its own work, attitude and policy, and to take the
fraternal advice to heart. This taking to heart does not mean the unconditional
acceptance of any advice by any of the parties, including also the CPSU. No
party can expect this and the CPSU also specifically warns of this. We have
to decide ourselves as to whether we consider this or that advice correct,
whether we are going to dispute it or accept it, and in what form we will adopt

Nevertheless, an ideological-political cooperation, disparagingly called
"ideological interference" by Imre Nagy, is a binding order of Marxist-Leninist
parties, and only revisionist parties rejected it. The class basis of this
rejection was always the joining of forces with one's "own" bourgeoisie. As
for Imre Nagy, he became envious of the glory of these revisionist parties and
followed in their footsteps.

After he rejected "ideological interference" and assumed the role of a 
nationalist politician, he thunders against the policy of "power alignments"
suppressing the fact that there is an imperialist power alignment and a
socialist power alignment and while one is an alignment of aggressive war, the
other forges the principle forces of peace, forces of the socialist countries
into a close unity against the imperialists.
[page 16]

He does admit in one of his statements, under duress and for aims of
prevarication, but he admits that "in the struggle against the aggressive policy
of alignments, the greatest and most stable force is the strength of the
socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union." (page 39.) This admission makes
it the more impudent still, that under the general slogan of "being against
alignments" he proclaims the division of particularly these "greatest and most
stable forces" of peace, and that he advocates a "neutral" standing apart from
particularly the force, the Soviet Union, and the forming of a new alignment
against it masked under the slogan of "neutrality.1"

Imre Nagy knows very well that the defensive alliance formed under the
Warsaw pact was of a provisional nature, and that we would disband it if we
could come to an agreement regarding the establishment of an all-European
collective defensesystem. He still talks of the "power alignments" as though
they would be dangerous to peace regardless of their character. Thus, the
Warsaw pact also endangers peace, it must be disbanded, it must be
discontinued, regardless of the fact as to whether a mutual all-European defense
system can be created.

By this, the aggressive alignments of the imperialists will not cease to
exist. Imre Nagy is "innocent" in that matter, however. He cannot break
NSTO, but he can break up the Warsaw pact the defensive alliance _of the
socialist powersJ By doing that he has done "all he could." Being a communist,
 he cannot openly say that he joined. the imperialists' "Western
democracy." He can only say that we must break away from the mosrt important
defensive alliance of the socialist camp, because one must not participate in
the rivalry of power alignments" because "it was not a joining of forces with
a great power or power group" that hovered as a mental picture in front of
Kossuth. He painfully avoids calling the Warsawj pact the breakiag up of which
he advocates, by its name._ He painfully avoids calling by name the "some great
power" or "some group of great powers" In connection with this question, he keeps
socialist countries must stay away. In connection with this question, he keeps
his prevaricating row of conceptions within the frame of "an analysis on
principle." Every schoolboy knows, however, that socialist Hungary is not allied
with a Western imperialist great power, but with a socialist great power, the
Soviet Union.

They know equally well that the "some group of great powers" with which
Hungary is in the same camp and from which Imre Nagy wanted to wrest it, are
the two socialist world powers, the Soviet Union and China Imre Nagy did
dare to say this openly and directly. He did, however, when the counter-revo-
lution enabled him to do so.

It was many months before, however, that he prepared "ideologically" the
treacherous policy of disruption against the socialist camp and the massing
against the Soviet Union, in support of a developing anti-party faction and a
conspiracy that was being organized to overthrow the peoples democratic order.

This is then the former opportunist who "developed" as far as betrayal.
He did not dare to openly take, over the heritage of Bernstein's revisionism,
which was unmasked a long time ago and was combined with a lot of we11-known.
betrayals, because he is too cowardly and cunning to do such a thing,
put on the mask of a "Leninist" and disguised new editions of perisionisism by
Marxist phraseology, the essence of which is the surrender of the basic
principle of the proletarian dictatorship, an "ideological" preparation for
attacking the dictatorship of the proletariat from behind and its betrayal, in aid of
a break with the socialist camp and the serving of the counter-revolution. In
this respect, he did indeed try to create "a unity" of his words and deeds.

It did not rest on him that his endeavor became frustrated, in spite of
the enthusiasm and support of the whole imperialist world.

[page 17]


by V. D. Israelyan and
N. K. Nikolayev
Problems of History
No. 12, 1957 (Passed for publication, 12 Dec. 1957)

One of the main reasons why the counterrevolutionary rising took place
in Hungary is the fact that within the Hungarian working class party itself
there was an organized opportunist group which took upon itself the shameful
role of a pioneer of capitalist restoration. A resolution of the plenum of
the CC of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party observed that "a large part in
the development of the events of October and the tragic coup was played by the
party opposition group which was formed in recent years and had grown constantly
stronger, choosing Imre Nagy and Ga Losonczy as their banner."[30] The destructive
ideological work of the opportunist Nagy-Losonezy group led to serious
ideological confusion among the Hungarian people and in the last analysis served the
interests of counter-revolution.

Describing the work of Nagy, Losonczy and their supporters in the October
period in Hungary, Janos Kadar observed: uBy resorting to nationalist instigation, by
the revisionist denial of the leading role of the party contrary to socialist
democracy, and by distorting the conceptions of freedom and democracy in a reactionary
manner they provided the ideological weapons for the counter revolution. They
carried out inflammatory propaganda amongst those strata of the population which
had become ideologically confused, for example, amongst university students, and
as a result of their treacherous work they paralyzed the party, the state and the
effectiveness of all the masses true to socialism at the decisive moment."[31]

Nagy and his group prepared the soil for the anti-party and anti-popular
action in Hungary over a long period. The work of this group mainly reflected
the interests of the Hungarian kulaks. The reactionary ideology of the Nagy-
Losonczy group is one of the forms of petty bourgeois opportunism.

The revisionism of Nagy, which was so clearly manifest last year in Hungary,
is not a fortuitous phenomenon. The root of his opportunist views lie in the past.
This is shewn in particular by material in the two volumes of his work published
in 1954.[32]

It is well known that a most important condition for the existence of
peoples democracy, as one of the forms of dictatorship of the proletariat, is a
guarantee of the leading and directing role of the revolutionary party of the
working class. The leading role of the Hungarian communists came about
historically in the course of a long and tense struggle for national freedom and
democracy, in the fighting against the German invaders, Horthyites and Szahites,
against the land owners and bourgeoisie, against the leaders of the right-wing
socialists and bourgeois nationalists. The agrarian reform and nationalization of
industry, the banks and transport, were carried out on the initiative of the
Hungarian communists. Thanks to the leadership of the communists the Hungarian
people achieved broad democratic freedoms and formed a people's democracy. The
group of Nagy, which strove in every way to diminish the role of the party in all
spheres of the economic, ideological and national life of Hungary, opposed this
leading role of the CP. A member of the CC of the HSWP, Bela Biszku, in his
lecture on "The contemporary problems of the dictatorship of the proletariat in
Hungary" observed: "The revisionist and treacherous Nagy group, although it
verbally advocated socialism, had for a long time waged an ideological and
political offensive against the dictatorship of the proletariat. "33 Nagy and his

[*]The introductory part of the article, a long but routine attack on RFE-FEC
has not been translated.

[page 18]

supporters attempted to emasculate the revolutionary content of the dictatorship
of the proletariat and to diminish the role of the Party, they slighted the
(local) Councils and at the same time flirted with the petty bourgeois strata
of the population*

In his book, Nagy gives the following definition of the dictatorship of
the proletariats "The dictatorship of the proletariat is a broader class alliance
which rests on the alliance of workers and peasants, a component part of which is
the intelligentsia, the petty bourgeois and non-proletarian elements who take
part in the building of socialism. Without their active participation it is
impossible to build socialism"34 Moreover, Nagy attempted to base his
revisionist views on quotations from Lenin, deliberately distorting the meaning of the
latter's speech "0n the Deception of the People by Means of Slogans of Freedom
and Equality", made in May 1919. In the foreword to the text of this speech,
Lenin, disclosing the revolutionary essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
described it as a specdal form of class alliance between the proletarian, the
vnaguard of the working people, and numerous non-proletarian strata of the working
people, with the working class taking a leading part in the alliance. "It is an
alliance", Lenin wrote, of firm supporters of socialism with wavering allies and
sometimes with 'neutrals' (they form an agreement on the struggle, the alliance
becomes an agreement on neutrality), an alliance between classes which are
economically, politically, socially and spiritually unequal."[35] Nagy deliberately ignored
two important features of the dictatorship of the proletariat which were stressed
by Lenin--the leading and directing role of the working class and the hesitations
and instability of its non-proletarian allies. Ignoring these principles of Lenin,
Nagy gave a false, anti-Marxist evaluation of the role of the party of the working
class in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.[36]

Nagy openly denied the ability of the rerolutionary party of the working
class to rally the workers of the country and to lead them along the read to the
building of a socialist society. He asserted that: Tee party has had to take upon
itself the task of rallying and educating the boradest patriotic and democratic
masses of the people, mobilising them to carry out great national tasks, due to
the lack of any other all-embracing organization. These tasks have exceeded the
strength, organization and influence of the Party."[37]

Belittling the role of the party and the working class in this "national
unity", Nagy simultaneously strove for the transformation of the non-party
Fatherland People's Front into a detached political organisation, violating the
resolution of the.III Congress of the Party. He proposed the introduction of
individual membership in the Fatherland Front, and that it should be given tasks
which would set it above the local councils, the youth organizations, the trade
unions and the party of the working class itself. In preaching such views, Nagy
and the opportunist group which hs headed, aimed to disrupt the rallying of the
main masses of the workers, peasants, axad working class intellectuals, as well
as all progressive elements in the urban petty bourgeoisie belonging to the Fatherlanc
Front headed by the revolutionary party of the proletariat.[38]

Thus, Nagy and his supporters insistently strove for the revision of the
Marxist. Leninist teaching on the dictatorship of the proletariate The right-wing
opportunist group in Hungary attempted to revise the most important Leninist
principle of party construction--the principle of democratic centralism. The members
of the group wished to create a situation in the party in which the resolutions of
the party leadership would not be obligatory for all party organizations. Such a
revisionist viewpoint threatened a schism in the ranks of the party of the working
class. Nagy himself repeatedly opposed the decisions of higher party organs. As
an example one could cite his article in Szabadlfey, the main thought of which ran
counter to the resolution of the III Party Congress and the third plenum of the CC
in 1954.[39] Right wing elements took this article as a signal for new attacks on

[page 19]

the unity of the party. Nagy also held anti-Marxist view on the main problems
of the development of the economy of the Hungarian people's republic, and in
particular, on agriculture. Thus for example he asserted that expanded
reproduction is racteristic of individual peasant farms in the conditions of people's
democracy. Contrary to Lenin's teaching on small peasant farming which gives rise
to capitalism, Nagy and his supporters defended the idea that the individual
peasant farm develops together with the production cooperative in the direction
of socialism and that in its way, it is also building socialism. Nagy saw the
future of Hungarian agriculture in the development of individual medium farms
and of consumer sales cooperatives. At the same time he attempted to prove by
every means the inexpediency of collectivizing the peasants with the purpose of
combined conduct of the whole process of agricultural production. His article
"The Attitude to the Medium Peasant" which summed up his speeches in the discussion
of the CC of the HWP in 1948-49 concerning the policy of the party in the
countryside, is characteristic in this respect.[40] In essence Nagy advocated the
postponement for an indefinite period of the collectivization of the peasantry in
production cooperatives and repudiated the consistent implementation of a policy
of restricting the kulaks.

Repeatedly stressing that the "medium peasant is a central feature in
agriculture during the building of socialism," Nagy completely ignored the leading
role of the working class in the socialist reconstruction of agriculture, and
moreover he asserted that the peasantry should adhere to its own Weltanschauung
and should not show solidarity with the proletariat "The working class," he
wrote, "should not repudiate the idea of socialism and should not absorb the
Weltanschauung of the peasantry, and vice versa 3e peasantry should not do so
either, in order that the alliance should be firm and stable."[41]

Such a "theory" had a very pernicious influence on the development of
socialist agriculture in Hungary. The dissemination of such views led not only
to the standstill in the expansion of agricultural cooperation in 1954, but also
to some retrogression. At the same time the kulake, who had again begun to grow
rich at the expense of the small and medium peasant, raised their heads. The
practical work of Nagy followed entirely from this "thedry". In describing this
work, Szabad Nep wrote that Nagy, "beginning from hia government statement in
July 1953, launched a real struggle against the socialist reconstruction of
agriculture, supporting the departure of peasants from the production cooperatives."[42]

Criticizing Nagy's opportunist views on agriculture, Lajos Feher, a member
 of the Politburo of the CC of the HSWP, in his work "The Paths for the Development
of Hungarian Agriculture" wrote One of the greatest anti-Marxist errors made by
Nagy in the 1949 discussion was his statement that with the expropriation of the
capitalist and land-owning classes we have already blocked the road to capitalist
development in the countryside' and that the peasant farms cannot develop in a
capitalist direction.'"[43]

The opportunist and anti-Marxist views of the Nagy group were particularly
clearly manifest in 1953-55, on the eve of the counter revolutionary rising, when
Nagy was Chairman of the Council of Minsters of Hungary. His theoretical and
practical work and that of his supporters was directed against the interests of
the Hungarian working class and slowed down the development of Hungary along
socialist lines.

As regards the problem of raising the standard of living of the population,
the Nagy group one-sidedly reduced the whole of this task to increasing agricultural
output, completely ignoring the necessity for the development of industry as a
basis for an increase in agricultural production. "The decisive factor for in-

[page 20]

creasing the standard of living is agriculture," Nagy said, while Chairman of
the Council of Ministers, "This is a necessary condition for carrying out the
governments program. The whole program is built upon this, this is its 
corner-stone, the main problem for our further advance. Therefore agricultural production
is being put in the foreground of our economic policy and of our whole national

As is well known in June 1953 the plenum of the CC of the HWP adopted
important resolutions, the main task of which was to correct the mistake-; formerly
committed in the socialist construction of the country. However, the
implementation of these decisions ran up against direct resistance from the Nagy opportunist
group. Becoming head of the government in June 1953, Nagy attempted to shake
confidence in the party and the people's democratic system in his first speech. His
supporters, like himself, strove in every way to defame the great gains of the
Hungarian people under the People's democratic regime. Extremely characteristic
in this respect was the notorious article by one of Nagy's closest colleagues,
G. Losonczy, in the weekly "Muvelt Nep" published in autumn 1956. The auther
dealt only with the error and defects of the past, with the need "fundamentally
to transform our policy", with the "decisive sins of the whole of our policy,
which affected the whole of our people", with the "general settlement" of the
position of the intelligentsia, etc.46 Thus Losonczy did not even mention the
socialist gains of the Hungarian people, which naturally created the impression
of a need for fundamental reconstruction of the whole social and political
system Moreover, the article put forward the conditions for the implementation
of the party's decree.....on the intelligentisia, displaying an obvious lack of
confidence in the resolution of the CO and in the authority of the whole party,
Dealing with the prospects for carrying out the resolution on the intellectuals,
Losonczy adopted the position of an observer outside the party for whom the
resolution of the CC was not compulsory and who needed further proof of the
possibility of carrying it out. As was noted by the resolutions of the December
Plenum of the CC of the HSWP (1956), the Nagy-Losonczy group openly, criticized
individual errors in the former leadership of the party, thereby enabling
reactionary elements to take part in this criticism. The content of the criticism
was distorted and constituted a great threat to the whole of the party. to the
positions of the working people and to the whole people's democratic system.
"This group of the Party opposition", the resolution said, "without putting
forward a positive program for the correction of errors, has one-sidedly attacked
the party alone, without distancing itself from reaction. It has encouraged
reactionary forces and to a considerable extent contributed to an outbreak of
counter-revolution,, "[47]

One of the Hungarian communists, describing the impression made by the
Nagy program of the summer of 1953, wrote "There will scarcely be a single
communist who is not dazed by this program. It does not seven mention socialism,
the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the results of the 10 years truggle of
the working class. But it deals more with the crimes which bare been committed,
with the so-called new course and the new policy. We all still recall haw on the
day after the publication of the government program the kulake came to life in
the villages and. various bourgeois hostile elements became impudent in the towns."[48]

For a number of years a right-wing opportunist group preaching petty bourgeois
ideology had been forming around Nagy. This group did not represent and still less
defended the class interests of the proletariat. It set out to weaken the
dictatorship of the proletariat, to retreat from the socialist development of the country.
It is therefore not fortuitous that the kulaks and the petty bourgeois elements in
the town called Nagy "their man".

I. Nagy and his supporters, like, the other revisionistsm have striven to
conceal their retreat from the principles of Marxism-Leninism by referring to

[page 21]

to the "special features" of the development of Hungary toward socialism. As
D.Kallai pointed out in his work "The Hungarian Counter-revolution in the light
of Marxism-Leninism", Nagy saw a "specified feature of the Hungarian
dictator-chip of the proletariat in the fact that the comparatively peaceful construction
of socialism does not accord with the punitive functions of the state and that
therefore they should be discarded. "Nagy," Kallai states, U under-estimated the
strength of the class enemy and moreover he denied that such forces existed in
the country. Hence his theory about '9 l/2 million Hungarian hearts which beat
as one' and 'the unity of Hungarian national culture."[49]

Nagy approached the problems of the history of the Hungarian state and the
evaluation of the 1848 revolution from bourgeois nationalist positions. Thus
for example, in his speech on the 100th anniversary of the revolution he stated
that the building of the people's democratic system in Hungary should follow the
road of the ideas of the revolution of 1848. "we, the descendants of the March
generation," he said, "will be able to be worthy of them only if with unshakable
faith and firm resolution we follow the road to the formation of a people's
democracy; which has been charted by them and illumined by their bright genius."[50]

Nevertheless, it is well known that the 1848 revolution in Hungary was a
bourgeois revolution which in the event of victory would have led to capitalist
development. It is obvious that an appeal to follow this road of development
(which was progressive in the middle of the 19th century) was clearly reactionary
in socialist Hungary. It is also well known that one of the main reasons for the
defeat of the revolution and the liberation war in 1848-49 was the faulty policy
of its leaders as regards the national problem. Therefore, by equating the tasks
of the socialist and bourgeois revolutions, Nagy could not fail to stir up
nationalist chauvinism moods among the petty bourgeois. Individual Hungarian cultural
leaders began to portray the past of the Hungarian state in a distorted manner,
to hush up the national liberation struggle of the national minorities against
the past Hungarian aristocracy to idealize certain Hungarian political leaders
who expressed the sentiments of Hungarian great-nation chauvinism.

In putting forward the slogan of "national communism" the Nagy-Losonczy
group essentially opposed the unity of the countries of the socialist camp and
prepared the soil for the eounter-revolutionarg rising in favor of international
imperialism. Imperialist propaganda and the work of the Nagy-Loeonezy group were
united in that by demagogic demands for "de-stalinzation" they attapted to
undermine that influence of the communist Party among the Hungarian people Insisting
on the necessity for "rebuilding the workers regime"; Nagy and his supporters
essentially began the liquidation of the peoples democratic system in Hungary.
Under the guise of "nationalcommunism", kindling nationalism in the country, the
Hungarian opportunists attempted to create an atmosphere of tension and conflict
favorable to imperialism in the heart of Europe.

Describing the nationalist and revisionist views of the Nagy group, K. Kiss,
a member of the politbureau of the CC of the HSWP in his article "The HSWP" observed
"Under the pretext of searching for the Hungarian road to socialism, this group
arrived at the anti-Marxist conclusions of national communism1 and proclaiming
nationalist views, adopted an anti-Soviet standpoint. They pretended that their
revisionist nonsense was 'the creative development of Marxism-Leninism' and
'application of it to Hungarian conditions."[51]

Although the right-wing opportunist work of Nagy and his supporters was
condemned by the plenum of the GC of the HSVJP in the Spring 1955, it should be
noted that the Hungarian workers party had conducted a most feeble open ideological
struggle against opportunist, revisionist and anti-party views. As a result of
this, the subversive counter-revolutionary work of the Nagy-Losonczy group which
began to be gradually particularly intensive as fron the spring of 1956, paralyzed
the party, and a tendency towards liberal appeasement of this group spread through-

[page 22]

out the country. As the Chinese press correctly noted, the Hungarian People's
Democracy, prior to October 1956 was not sufficients harsh and consistent in
its attitude to the enemies of socialism," in Hungary recently there has not
been a real dictatorship of the proletariat,"52 i.e., the enemies of the
dictatorship of the proletariat who had combined more and more with internal and
international reaction had not been ideologically routed within the Party.

Describing the organization of the Magy-Losonczy group D. Kallai wrote
that "Nagy and his group of opportunist became revisionists. traitors and
counter-revoltuionaries. Over a long period they consciously aad deliberately
destroyed the party, the organs aad institutions of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and undermined confidence in socialist ideology. In 1956 they
deliberately and according to plan prepared for the overthrew of the dictatorahip
of the proletariate. They organized a political, argy and if complete agreement
with the Western imperialists and internal counter-revolutionry force, they
drew up the strategy and tactics for the overthrow of the system organising one
campaihn after another against the party and the people's democratci system.
In the summer of 1956 then began to organize political discussions and on October 23
they began the offensive for the overthrow of the regime."[53]

The defects of ideological work is the Hungarian workers' Party had as one
of their consequences the dissesination of the views of the opportunist
Nagy-Losonczy group amongst a proportion of writers, philosophers, historians and
other cultural workers. Their ideas of revolution and liquidation received
widespread currency among that section of the intelligentsia in Hungary whieh was
still captivated by petty bourgeois Weltanschamung. In its turn reactionary
group of writers and authors played a large part in the ideological preparation
for the counter-revolutionary rising ia Hungary. It is possible fully to agree
with the opinion of Marton Lovas, who wrot in an article entitled "Why the Work
of the Union of Writers was Stopped" that "the destructive ideological work of
a section of the writers was an organic element in the preparation for
counter-revolution, regardless of whether -hypecoritical sad conscious exponents of
communism took part in it or whether they were honest people of good will."[54]

At that time a section of the Hungarian writer's incorrectly interpreted
the above mentioned resolutions of the June (1953) plenum. Among some writers
"opportunism" and "the critical spirit" became fashionable, and the false theory?
according to which the tasks of litarature and art were confined exclusively to
disclosure and exposure of mistakes, gained currency. Under the influence of the
opportunist views of Imre Nagy and particular of his speech in the summer of 1953
bourgeois-nationalist views, the glorification of small peases farming, the
underestimation and negation of the leading role of the proletariat and its
vnaguard -- the Party - In the social life of the country, etc., were more and
more widely disseminated in literature. Some on the works of ? writers
obviously belittled the achivements of the people's democratic systme, the great
gains of the working class peasantry and intellectual of People's Hungary.
More and more books began to appear which were filled with pessinism aad depression,
portraying Hungarian reality in a distorted light.

Gradually, under the influence and with the support of the Nagy-Losonezy
opposition group, an anti-party factional headed by Dery, Zelk, Ackzel, Hay and
others, many of whom were members of the HWP, began to form among thwriters.
At the end of 1955, 6 members and 2 secretaries of the Presidium of the Union
of Hungarian writers demonstratively resigned their membership in the Presidium.
After their resignation, this group continued its anti-party work by sending a
memorandum to the CC of the HWP. The collection of signatures to the memorandum
and the wide-spread discussion of this document outside the framework of the
Party constituted a gross violation of party discipline and of the principle of
democratic centralism. Not merely the form of the appeal to the leadership of

[page 23]

the party but primarily the content of the memorandum gives evidence of the
existence of the factional anti-Party group.

The main fire of the Dery-Zelk-Ackzel group was directed against the
party leadership of literature. The ideas of Nagy were embodied in the work
of a section of the writers. Their demands ran in the same direction--against
the leading role of the party. Thus one of the leaders of the anti-Part; group,
Dery, admitted that he and his supporters were fighting for the liquidation of
the party and state guidance of literaturet.55 A similar point of view was
expressed by Hay. "We and our every-growing group are the party."56 vid Tibor
Tardosz in the summer of 1956 at a discussion of problems of the press, thereby
setting the group of the writers opposition off against the party and the working

This point of view of the Hungarian writers group was not original. The
negation of the class and ideological content of literature has always been
characteristic of the majority of revisionists of Marxism-Leninism. The idea
of a literature without "partiinost" is an idea of the bourgeoisie, because the
bourgeoisie is not interested in the correct portrayal of life, in laying bare
the social contradictions of society. Bourgeois partiinost, the ideology of the
bourgeoisie is concealed behind this so-called Absence of partiinost".

Fifty years ago Lenin in his article "The Party Organization and Party
Literature" stressed that literature should show partiinost, and should be a
component part of organized, planned and integrated Party work. Some Hungarian
writers thought themselves "supermen". These writers demanded a special attitude
toward themselves and a special place in the party. "The representatives of
writers should meet political representatives and draw up a platform" said
Dery.[58] The impression was formed that this referred to two organs which are
in some way opposed, to some kind of "autonomy" for writers within the party and
within the state. Lenin, as is well known, fought resolutely against such
"autonomy". When in 1920 some Soviet writers began to show a tendency to break
away from state leadership, Lenin sharply condemned the point of view the Proletkult,
which considered itself a state within a state. Lenin thought that contrasting the
Proletkult with the Narkompros which control led literary problems was absolutely
inadmissible. In his draft resolution at the Congress of the Proletkult, Lenin
described as theoretically wrong and practically harmful "all attempts to develop
a special culture, to cinfine oneself to specialised organisations, to define the
spheres of operation of the Narkompros and Proletkult and to establiish 'autonomy'
for the Proletkult within the institutions of the Narkompros."[59]

The anti-party trend for "autonomy" of the writers: organization in Hungary
became more and more obvious on the eve of the rising. The Union of Hungarian
writers occupied itself to a very small extent with literary problems: gradually
it became an anti-popular organization. One of the active participators in the
anti-party group among the writers"; Fejto, who fled abroad during the suppression
of the counter revolution (sic), was compelled to admit in his book that "the
Union of Hungarian writers was a state within a state".[60]

The factional group of Hungarian writers attempted to revise one of the
important theses of Marxist-Leninist theory--the idea of the partiinost of
literature. Denying that the idea of partiinost is a proletarian idea, i.e.,
that the proletariat and its party are interested in the correct portrayal of
life, these Hungarian writers preached an essentially bourgeois ideology. Many
writers portrayed Hungarian reality in a completely distorted light and slandered
the Hungarian people. Characteristic of such slanderous articles was the kowtowing
before reactionary Western culture and civilization, which in some cases was more

[page 24]

and in some cases was less obvious

The falsification of Hungarian reality was essential to the members of
the Nagy-Losonczy group and their supporters among the Hungarian writers, in
order to raise the problem of the need for fundamental change in the political
and economic system in Hungary.

Denying the leading role of the party in literature and calling for the
"fundamental democratication" of social life, members of the anti-party group
preached counter-revolutionary views. While the Hungarian people, led by the
communists, was building a socialist society and fighting for the formation of
its ideology, Hay and his supporters were advocating; freedom for anti-Marxist
propaganda Thus, the Hungarian writer--factionalists, in advocating the "free"
and isolated existence of literature, and disguising themselves behind the ideas
of "non-interference" strove ideologically to disarm Hungarian workers, to
undermine their political activity. It is clear that the preaching of such views was
grist to the mill of the restorers of the capitalist order. Ignoring the real
laws of life, repudiating them and considering their subjective world to be the
only reality, the Hungarian schismatic writers adopted the positions of decadence

As a result of the work of the anti-Party group of writers in 1954-56,
exactingness as regards the content of works of art and literature was reduced
in Hungary. This contributed to the fact that some leaders of the ideological
institutes of Hungary understood the democratization of culture to grant freedom
even for counter-revolutionary opinions. As a result, works which preached
reactionary bourgeois culture appeared in the book stores, cinemas and theaters.

The champions of various petty bourgeois opportunist views, realizing that
open anti-socialist slogans would be rebuffed by the Hungarian working people,
attempted to mislead the masses by referring to the 20th Party Congress, to the
"interests of socialism", to "democratization", describing themselves as "supporters
of Lenin" who claimed to be applying the decisions of the 20th Party Congress to
Hungarian conditions.61 This was clearly shown during the numerous discussions
held throughout 1956 in various scientific and other institutions. In itself the
holding of discussions on various problems of the political or economic life of
the country is a positive factor and is widely practised in all socialist states.
It is furthered by national and local conferences of progressives in various
professions, production conferences at factories and institutes, and finally by
broad discussions of particularly important problems. In the history of Hungary
this form of active participation of the, working people in the government of their
country has been repeatedly used. But of course any discussion, in a socialist
society, should serve the tasks of building socialism, of consolidating the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Some leaders of the Hungarian intellectuals
attempted to use the platforms of the discussion clubs to disseminate views hostile
to the people. In this respect one should dwell especially on the work of the
Petofi circle of the Union of Hungarian Working Youth. It was formed in 1955 and
intended to propagate political knowledge and the discussion of the most important
problems of contemporary Hungary. In the course of its life it remained an
unobtrusive phenomenon in the life of the country, was a kind of expanded political
educational study course for youth.

At the end of 1955, and in the summer of 1956 in particular, as a result of
poor ideological work amongst youth, the Nagy-Losonczy group was able to use this
circle for their own purposes. At meetings of the circle opportunist writers and
other hostile elements who set the tone for the debates began to appear. By means
of various "sensational" statements they attempted to mislead public opinion in
the country and to recruit adherents from wavering elements. In the course of
many debates in various halls, opposition speakers denied the leading role of the
party and working class in the socialist state, preached counter-revolutionary
bourgeois views and finally called for a "new revolution" i.e., in practice for
a rising against the people's democratic system. The enemies of people's

[page 25]

democracy deliberately exaggerated and distorted the significance of the mistakes
committed in the socialist building of Hungary, At the same time they completely
bushed up and even denied the revolutionary gains of Hungary in the last decade.
During these so-called "free" discussions, organized groups of anti-party and
anti-democratic elements did not allow speakers who defended views inconvenient
to these elements to be heard. Open provocative attacks were made. For a
complete description of the Petofi circle it is essential to add that the
discussion of 23 October, which began the counter-revolutionary rising in
Hungary, was organized by this circle, the board of which drew up a program in
which the main item was a demand that Nagy should take over the leadership of
the country.[62]

The discussion of the problems of the press organized by the Petofi circle
at the end of June 1956 was particularly unrestrained. One of the main speakers,
Dery, going far beyond the agenda, sharply attacked the Leninist principle of
democratic centralism in the party and called for the revision of the most important
foundations of party construction. Dery completely denied all the gains of the
young socialist culture of the Hungarian people.

Another speaker, the writer Tadosz, slanderously asserted that in Hungary
there were no basic democratic freedoms and in particular no freedom for the
press. He called for the removal of publishing from the control of the state,
and proclaimed the "need for a new revolution", etc. The "new revolution", for
which he longed and during which he called for the removal of publishing from
the control of the people, would have meant nothing but a counter revolution, a
reactionary rising against the socialist state. Similar anti-Party and
counter-revolutionary speeches were delivered during other debates-, At a debate of
economists many of the speakers cast doubt on whether the right-wing opportunist
deviation had done any damage to the economic development of Hungary.[63] During a
debate of historians some speakers denied the achievements of the historical
science of the people's republic and even spoke of the collapse of Marxist
historiography in Hungary 64 However it is well known that in a short time the
Marxist historiography of the Hungarian people's republic had achieved important
successes. It had provided a new and scientifically based history of Hungary,
had interpreted in a new ay many bright pages of the heroic past of the Hungarian
people, had produced the first Hungarian Marxist books on history, etc. D. Nemesz
correctly stated that it would have been an error to underestimate what had been
produced at the cost of much labor.

It was impossible to agree with the assertion of some historians that the
defects of dogmatism in a number of works of Hungarian historians, which arose
from the cult of the personality, were characteristic of the whole of Marxist
historical science. Individual nationalist assertions were made during the
debate, and the ideas of Marxism about patriotism were wrongly interpreted.

The anti-Party and counter-revolutionary speeches were not properly
rebuffed during the debates and did serious harm to the socialist development
of Hungary. It would however, ben an error to think that during these discussions
correct Marxist views on the main principles of politics, economics and literature
were not put forward. But the feeble work of the HWP over a number of years, the
serious mistakes of the former leadership, the inability of this leadership to
draw the necessary conclusions from the experience of socialist construction in
Hungary, all formed a favorable soil for the demagogic chatter of the oppositionist
anti-party group, complicating the struggle against the harbingers of bourgeois

[page 26]

The negative influence of the discussion was aggravated by the fact that
the Hungarian press was insufficiently active against the propaganda for bourgeois
ideology. Moreover some of the papers themselves became the mouthpiece of
bourgeois views. This primarily applied to Irpdalmi.Ujsag the pages of which
carried a large number of articles which aroused the enthusiasm of the enemies
of Hungary. This is a fact which the paper was compelled to admit in one of its
own articles 0f course the paper also has readers whose 'sympathies' are of
very doubtful origin," an editorial on 7 July 1956 stated. Articles of a revisionist
nature which mislead the Hungarian people also appeared in Muvelt Nep.

It should be observed that the central organ of the HWP, Szabad Nep. also
published individual articles which contributed to ideological confusion and
disorganization. Some articles of this paper contained uncritical information
about various debates, and in a number of cases the paper passed over in silence
important problems of ideological work, without properly rebuffing the bourgeois
views of individual Hungarian cultural workers.

One cannot say that opportunist articles were not rebuffed at all by the
Hungarian press. A number of comrades made the correct Marxist criticism of
these articles. However, it should be regretfully admitted that party criticism
was unable utterly to unmask the hostile character of the anti-Party opposition
and to avoid the dissemination of-counter revolutionary and anti-Party views.

In the autumn of 1956 articles began to appear in the press which
essentially openly preached the advantages of, the bourgeois system. Finding no proper
opposition, the champions of bourgeois deology became more and more impudent in
their attacks on the people's democratic system. On the eve of the
counterrevolutionary rising there was a further merger of the right-wing opportunists of
the Nagy-Losonczy group with the writers opposition. At a conference of writers
in September 1956 many members of this opposition--Hay, Ackael and others--discussed
the problem of Nagy? demanding his rehabilitation and that he should take over the
government. Incidentally the September conference of writers paid little attention
to literature, devoting itself basically to the discussion of political problems.
Again the voice of members of the anti-Party factional group, who strove for the
recognition of the special place and role of writers in the state, and who
contrasted themselves with the part of the Hungarian working class, were heard.

The opportunist anti-Party work of the Magy-Losonssy group and its
supporters among writers on the literary front was fully supported by Hungarian
reactionary emigres, one of the leaders of who, Ferenc Nagy, advocated
colla-boration between emigres and the internal opposition in the summer of 1956, well
understanding that this was not a question of individual differences within the
HWP. He stressed the complexity of the situation and the need for flexible tactics
to overthrow the people's democracy. The support of the wiev of the opposition
group given by reactionary Hungarian esiigres if a charecteristic proof of the
counter-revolutionary nature of the views of Nagy and his supporters.

Thus for a long time before the counter-revolutionary rising there vas in
Hungary fairly widespread dissemination of various anti-Party views and propaganda
for bourgeois ideology. The errors of the former leadership as well as the rotten
liberalism cqncerning those propagating hostile views and defects in the ideological
work of the party led to a further increase in the work of the opportunist
Nagy-Losonczy group and of their supporters. International imperialism utilized
ideological diversion to weaken the forces of socialism in Hungary. These are some of
the facts of the history of the ideological preparations for the counter-revolutionary
rising in Hungary. They show once again how immensely important to the successful
development of socialism is the timely and resolute exposure of the intrigues of
the champions of bourgeois ideology, and how necessary is the leading role of the
revolutionary party of the working class in the period of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, particularly in ideology. The founders of scientific communism

[page 27]

have shown that historical experience, including the events in Hungary, have
confirmed that the ideological struggle is one of the most importand forms of
class struggle.

Referring to the internal significance of the Hungarian events, Khrushchev
observed: "The lesson of the Hungarian events during which counter-revolution
utilized some writers for its dirty aims, reminds us whither political carelessness,
lack of principle and lack of character in relation to the intrigues of the forces
hostile to socialism may lead.[66]

The opportunist views and work of the Nagy-Losonczy group. the organized
attacks of some Hungarian writers and journalists on the main principles of the
dictatorship of the proletariate the slanderous campaign of imperialist propaganda
against the Hungarian people's republic--all these are links in the same chain
For a long time ideological diversion against Hungary was aimed at the undermining
of the people's democracy in Hungary and was a most important prerequisite for the
counter-revolutionary uprising.

One of the main tasks of the contemporary international working class
movement is resolutely to rebuff the intrigues of bourgeois ideology, in whatever
veiled form they may appear, and to struggle for the purity of Marxist-Leninist

[page 28]


(30) Nepszabadsag. 9 December 1956.

(31) Nepszabadsag. 28 March 1957.

(32) I. Nagy, Egy Evtized. Valogatott Beszedek es Irasok. T. I, II. Budapest. 1954.

(33) Nepszabadsae. 29 May 1957.

(34) I. Nagy, ibid, vol. 2, page 504.

(35) V. I. Lenin, vol. 29, page 531.

(36) I. Nagy, ibid. page 506.

(37) Ibid.

(38) Ibid, page 509.

(39) See Szabad nep, 24 Oetober 1954.

(40) I. Nagy, ibid, vol. 2, pp. 84-95.

(41) Ibid., vol. I, p. 379.

(42) Szabad nep. 18 April 1955.

(43) Feher L. A magyar mezogazdasag fejlodesenek utja. Budapest 1957, pp. 15-l6.

(44) Missing.

(45) I. Nagy, ibid., rol. II, p. 390.

(46) Muvelt nep, 2 September 1956.

(47) Nepszabadsag. 12 December 1956.

(48) Nepszabadsag, 10 March 1957.

(49) Kallai G. A magyororszag ellenforradalom a markszizmus-leninizmus fengehen
Budapest, 1957, p. 13.

(50) Nagy, vol. II, p. 7.

(51)Nepszabadsag, 7 May 1957.

(52)Once More On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Probatariat
Moscow, 1956, p. 2)

(53) Kallai G. ibid, p. 79.

(54) Tagyarorszag. 6 March 1957.

(55) Tarsadalmi saemle, 1955, No. 12, p. 24.

(56) Qubted from Kallai, G; ibid, p. 18.

(57) V. I. Lenin, vol. 10, p. 77.

(58) Tarsadalmi szemle, 1955, No. 12, p, 29.

(59) v. I, Lenin, vol. 31, p. 292.

(60) F. Fejto. La tragedie hongroise on une revolution socialiste antisovietique.
Paris. 1956, p. 227.

(61) See, for example, the article of a. Hay,Irodalmi Usag, 5 May 1956.

[page 29]

(62) Prister-Hungarian Reports, Moscow, 1957. p. 1

(63) zabad nep, 3 June 1956.

(64) See Szazadok. 1956, No. 3, pp. 425-440.

(65) Szabad nep. 3 July 1956.

(66) No S. Khrushchev:"For the Close Ties of Literature and Art with the
Life of the People."

[page 30]

By A. Gulyg
O. lakhot
N. Ivanov
Kommunist. No. 17, 1957 (excerpt)

Granted that the policy of the socialist state is entirely correct, it
is impossible, given the world-wide system of capitalism, to foresee all the
turning points in international relations, and therefore there is still room
for chance events. The latter may be expressed in the non-observance of trade
obligations, in subversive activity or in military aggression.

It is understandable that the establishment of a firm guarantee against
any chance event is of primary importance in all countries belonging to the
socialist system. This is shown particularly by the events in Hungary In the
autum of 1956. Some comrades ask whether they should be regarded as a fortuitous
or an inevitable phenomenon? For example the editors have received a letter from
a teacher, Comrade Melnikova, which states that at a seminar for categories of
materialist dialectics in the Saran party school of the Mordofrlan oblast commit.
of the CPSU the students were interested in whether the events in Hungary in the
autumn of 1956 should be regarded as a fortuitous or an inevitable phenomenon.

In reply to these comrades we should first of all observe that the question
is put in a somewhat scholastic manner. It is impossible to "allot" events in
political life, just as it is with other phenomena, to a particular individual
category, to cram them into the Procrustean bed of necessity or chance Dialectics
demands a thorough, concrete approach to phenomena, in analysing which it is
important to find out what is basic and essential and to be able to distinguish
it from what is fortuitous.

In examining the road followed by the Hungarian people in the last 12 years
we see how historical necessity which determined its development, unwaveringly
blazed its own trail. After the defeat of the Hitlerite hordes by the Soviet
army, the Hungarian people overthrew the bated fascist regime and established a
people's democracy. The laws which are common to all countries in the transition
to socialism governed the emergence, in Hungary of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The broad masses of the people were drawn into the building of a socialist
society, the working peasantry received land, the factories and works became
national property. During the years of the people's regime the vulume of
industrial output has increased more than tbree time important steps have been
taken in the socialist reconstruction of agriculture; the living standard of the
people has been significantly raised. All these successes were a necessary aspect
of the building of socialism.

In history there has not yet, been a case in which an overthrown class has
yielded its position without a struggle. In Hmagary the dictatorship of the
proletariat was established by peaceful means; the country did not experience
a civil war in the course of which the basic cadres of the exploiting classes
perish. The country had a considerable number of former landowners, manufacturers,
officers of the Horthy army, kulaks, and senior civil servants; they were the
main forces of the daunter-revolutionary rising in October-November last year.
People of various social strata were also drawn into the rising. They included
the representatives of the petty bourgeois, i.e. intellectuals who had isolated
themselves from the masses, students who had come under the influence of bourgeois

[page 31]

views, groups of workers from among those who had recently come into production
but had not yet become part of the cadres of the Hungarian proletariate. The main
bulk of the working class and working peasants did not take part in the rising.
Thus the correct meaning of the events in Hungary was that it was an attempt by
the forces of reaction to halt the move of the country towards socialism by force
of arms and reestablishment of the capitalist system. The class straggle in. the
period of transition from capitalism to socialism is natural, necessary, but this
inevitability, like any other, is manifested in a fortuitous way. The element
of chance can be found in all of the concrete circumstances which developed in

The actions of the insurgents were facilitated by the fact that in the
course of building socialism in Hungary serious errors were committed. These
were manifest in the weakening of the dictatorship of the proletari it, in the
isolation of the former leadership of the Hungarian Workers Party (HWP)from the
masses, in the slackening of the struggle against the enemies of society. The
conspirators had accomplices in the ranks of the IMP in the shape of the treacherous
Nagy-Losonczy group. Of course, all of the errors committed by the previous
leadership of the BMP did not stem from the people's democratic system and
therefore were of a fortuitous nature.

But the main instidators of the counter-revolutionary rising in Hungary
were the imperialist circles of the Western powers. The Hungarian events have
shown once again that imperialist forces did not abandon their attempts to halt
by any means the progress of the people's democratic system. The
espionage-diversionist work against the socialist countries arises out of the very nature
of contemporary imperialsim and is an inalienable and essential feature of it.
Imperialists would not be imperialists if they did not conduct this subversive
activity, if they did not attempt to organize counter-revolutionary risings, to
split the states belonging to the world-wide socialist system, did not conduct
preparations for a new war. But for people's Hungary the foreign intervention
was a historical chance, which by no means stems from the natural, laws of progress
towards socialism,. Of course this chanoe eould have been foreseen add it was a
serious error on the part of the previous leadership to blunt its vigilance towards
the intrigues of its enemies.

A necessary aspect of the events in Hungary was the rebuff met with by the
insurgents among the massages of the people, the overwhelming majority of workers
and laboring people, A people which had gained its freedom could not voluntarily
be enslaved by imperialists, its resistance and victory were completely natural
and to be expected. It is true that at the beginning the masses of the people ware
disorganised and this is explained by the absence of leadership and by the
confusion caused by tee Nagy-Losonczy group. The true strength of the people was only
shown when its resistance was aided by the political party of the Hungarian
proletariat - the HSWF, which was reorganised in the course of the battle, and
when the Revolutionary Workers and. Peasant's Government was formed. Comrade j.
Kadar had every reason to state that the Revolutionary Worker's, and Peasant's
Government arose "as a result of historical necessity".

The support given by the Soviet state, which extended the hand of aid to
the free Hungarian people . was just as necessary and naturals Close cooperation
and aid in the joint struggle is a law for all the countries which have discarded
the yoke of imperialiam. The Soviet army, which acted in response to the appeal
of the government of Hungary, aided the Hungarian people to rout the forces of
counter-revolution aad to establish law and order in the country. With the

[page 32]

fraternal assistance of the Soviet army which carried out its international duty,
the Hungarian people defended the independence of their country, and the gains of
the peoples democratic system. Therefore the danger of the transformation of
Hungary into a nucleus of aggression and a military base for theimperialists in
the very heart of Europe was averted and the real danger to the vital, interests
of all the peoples of the socialist countries and to the cause of peace throughout
the world was liquidated. The great commonwealth of socialist nations clearly
showed that it is able to rebuff resolutely and firmly all attempts to encroach
upon its vital interests.

  OSA / Digital archive / Background reports / Subjects / Browse / Search