Oh, right, right. Did the American bourgeois government drop the nuke? Nope! Pilots did it! Who created those planes? PROLES!
GOTCHA, MARXIST THEORY OF THE STATE!
Exactly how far did Hitler reach when the USSR's landmass is concerned? 30%? 40%? Putting aside Hungary's WW1 territorial (hence significant economic and population) losses, two armies (one enslaving, one liberating, yet, for obvious reasons, both destroying the infrastructure) crossed the country completely from west to east then east to west, destroying approximately 40% of the the total infrastructure, 40% of railroads and 54% of industry, while Hitler only reached western Russia and Ukraine. In terms of populace% loss Hungary was third behind Poland and Russia.
Your characterization, again, is very romantic. lol We are talking about a country of 9+ million people, you dig?
Several economists note that the redevelopment of the DDR lagged behind the West exactly because of the reparations. 20% of the yearly budget for years is hardly scot-free in any book keepers notes, but sure, whatever justifies your insanity.
No you whine and bitch like a libcom with "muh evil Stalinists, why don't you like NATO inspired movements."
I was bringing up that without the fact the Soviets got to these nations after WW2 there wouldn't be a socialist government in any of them as it is unlikely any communist party would get voted in.
If you had more then two functioning brain cells you would know. Instead all you and the anarshit is whine and bitch and moan while not giving any of us a reply on how you can justify NATO shilling the 56 revolution and even admitting they wanted more liberal types of communist in order to build of a taste for liberalism over time.
All you and the anarkid do is piss and moan.
Elijah Campbell
Maybe if you’d bother to actually demonstrate how NATO opportunism in Hungary was qualitatively different from German opportunism in Russia. In both cases neither imperialist force wanted the revolutionary ideology to succeed, they only exploited the chaos caused by social unrest. I guarantee you that if a hardcore anti revisionist ML uprising had come along to kick Khrushchev out the US would have supported it. They formed an alliance with China to control the USSR for fuck’s sake, does that make Mao a NATO agent? If you can’t tell the difference between proletarian democracy and liberalism then you are beyond saving.
Jeremiah Ramirez
Really nigga? Are you this dumb. I already went over it at least twice now. For starters that the CIA and USA radio programs in Europe that were designed to spread liberalism over the nation. The revolution was to their advantage and with the goal to try and make it their own.
Willy sending Lenin into Russia was him being tarted and going "IDK hope this works" and Wilhelm was known for incredibly stupid decisions and tactics he made diplomatically.
One was done by a state with a good intelligence apparatus and a long term goal.
The other was some senile monarch not knowing what the fuck he was even doing. The sad part is this is your only attempt and goal and you know its bad.
You literally can't read huh? In what I have linked, the U.S stated its strategy was not to even be openly anti communist or Soviet. But its goal was to overtime try to make it that more "liberal" and "open" forms of communism would be accepted until it could be watered down to basically socdem reforms.
You are still tarted. They didn't even have an alliance, but the infamous Nixon Mao pic was on trade deals.
Brody Sanchez
Tbf, I'm pretty sure Mao was senile when he wrote that drek.
Christian Thomas
I guess we should have supported Israel, the UK, and France in the Suez Crisis then.
Yeah and? That’s just a difference in tactics, not strategy. If the Germans had been printing Bolshevik pamphlets would that have made Lenin a German agent? And the revolution in Russia was to Germany’s advantage, and they tried to leverage it to their own ends, and were arguably much more successful in doing so than the US was in Hungary, considering they got Brest-Litovsk out of it. That’s not a qualitative difference, it’s just a difference in the sophistication of the operation. Fundamentally they were the same thing, an imperialist power trying to sow discontent inside a rival power to gain an upper hand. Do you know what a qualitative difference is? It means a fundamental difference in what it actually is, not differences in the tactics used, which is all you’re describing. Actually their plan was to promote greater independence from the USSR to weaken the eastern bloc, they weren’t particularly concerned with the domestic policies of these states, just that they left Moscow’s orbit. What you haven’t done is shown why this invalidates the legitimate grievances of Hungarian workers in light of Rakosi’s abysmal tenure as leader. Is this your idea of freedom from capitalism? Where workers of a small weak country shut up and take whatever bullshit is piled onto them from an occupying foreign power? You’re working with a Marcyite mentality that basically puts the geopolitical power of the Soviet Union above all other concerns. According to this logic no matter how shitty or revisionist the USSR was, no matter how far it strayed from socialism, we still have to support it in EVERYTHING that it does. Ironically enough however it was only Khruschev’s treachery that drove Hungary to declare neutrality, they could have easily been brought back into the fold under Nagy. At this point you aren’t even promoting socialism or Marxism anymore, but instead reducing class struggle and worker’s liberation to national power politics. So why don’t you admit that you don’t actually care about workers and instead admit that you just fetishize the Soviet state, even when it acted against the workers?
