Hungarian Tragedy, by Peter Fryer

[p032] HUNGARIAN TRAGEDY HUNGARIAN TRAGEDY by Peter Fryer. (Dobson, 5/-) When the Daily Worker sent Peter Fryer to Hungary to “get the facts”, it did not anticipate that a book such as “Hungarian Tragedy” would be the outcome. For once the subscriptions of the Daily Worker readers got them the ‘facts’ on Eastern Europe, and not the customary Stalinist lies and distorted half-truths. Peter Fryer went on his assignment full of confidence to a country where “we” were in power, a country where, as he thought ‘“a new life was being built, where workers were in command...” A few hours in Magyarovar stripped him of all these beautiful illusions and ripped the scales (which had covered them for 14 years) from his eyes. He saw the truth of the Stalinist regime, of the people’s demo- cracies, the ‘glorious’ monolithic commun- ist party, and the way Socialism was being built. He also saw the hideous truth of. the police state and its privileged bureaucracy, and over all the role of the Kremlin. (AlI- though to be sure this is not clearly enough exposed). What is important is that he had the courage and the honesty to tell what he had seen. ers’ revolutionary struggles. In the course of these struggles, the workers come to understand more clear- ly the need for revolution. Obviously the more clearly they understand this, the more desperately will the capi- talists trv to ‘buy’ the workers away from struggle. If they do not succeed in ‘buying’ off the workers, they must either capitulate or try to break the power of the workers by more violent and open suppression of work- ing class organisations. Mr. Strachey’s book is only the first volume of a longer work. We hope that the other volumes will not be long delayed, if only because Mr. Strachey has pro- mised us an alternative to the labour theory of value. We await this “latest” alternative with interest, for up to date, the only alleged alternative to the labour theory of value, namely, the theory of marginal utility, is not a theory of value at all. Some economists may dispute this, but Mr. Strachey won’t, because he proves this himself. Therefore in promising us an alternative he must be aware that he proposes to break entirely new ground in economic history. In fact, if he is as good as his word and does produce an alternative theory of value, his work will be the most important in the field since Marx’s Capital was published. We doubt, how- ever, that the promise will be kept, for, if the evidence supplied by the volume already published is a reliable guide to what is to follow, Mr. Strachey is not going to make history. “Contemporary Capitalism” by John Strachey (Gollanz, 25s.) His book is first of all a trenchant answer to the Daily Worker and to the British Communist Party leaders, and to all those who characterise the Hungarian uprising as counter- revolutionary and fascist. It is also a record of one of the most significant events of our time, different from other re- cords of these events in that it is written from a Marxist point of view. As such one could perhaps compare it with John Reed’s “Ten Days that Shook the World”, on a smaller scale. He lived in the midst of a revolution. A revolution this time not against capitalism, but against a corrupt and degener- ate bureaucracy. He was with the people that made this revolution, visited Workers’ Councils, and saw their first fumblings with responsibility and true democracy, and had his last illusion shattered (as he says) when at an election to a council, one of the delegates walked up and apologised for the long time taken, saying, “I am sorry it is so slow, but you must understand that we have not got much practice in elect- ing people’! He was also present when the Soviet troops— troops of the first workers’ State in history—came in to crush a workers’ uprising. Here, however, it is necessary to make an observation which the author has unfortunately failed to make. That is, the absence of a demo- cratically organised and centralised Marxist leadership capable of co-ordinating and directing the spontaneous and irrepressible struggle of the working class against the Stalinist Moloch. This was the real tragedy of the Hungarian Revo'ution and it is best illustrated when Fryer tries to justify, wrongly in my _ opinion, the weak and dilatory policy of Attilla Szigeti and the Gyor government before the second Russian intervention. Instead of marching immediately on to Budapest and organising its defence, the Gyor

[p033] government, which had whole units of the Hungarian Army under its command and the support of the whole of Western Hungary behind it, placed its faith in the round table nego- tiations of Nagy and the Russians. The working c'ass, as is usual in such a situation, were a thousand times to the left of their leaders. If the leaders had paid more attention to the fee’ings of the workers and placed less reliance on the pro- mises of the Russians, Budapest could never have been iso- lated and history might have taken a different turn. But this, alas, did not happen. What made the uprising possible in the first place? He tries to answer this question, giving a brief resume of the politica! history from 1945. He puts the blame where it be- longs. On Stalinism and Stalinist policy which, claiming to be Marxist, distorted and twisted Marxism so that it was not even a caricature of Marxism but its very negation. Why did the Soviet leaders try to crush the revolution? This question is not answered in this: book. To answer it, one must explain the nature of Stalinism. What is it? How did it arise and why did it flourish? For the answer one must go to the writings of Leon Trotsky, particulariy his book “The Revolution Betrayed”, where he analyses and explains the growth of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and the theories propounded to nourish and safeguard this caste, which today we know as Stalinism, and states quite clearly that its overthrow will be a violent one. “There is no peace- ful outcome for this crisis. No devil ever yet voluntarily cut off his own claws. The Soviet bureaucracy will not give up its positions without a fight. The development leads obvi- ously to the road of revolution.” These words have been amply borne out by Peter Fryer. Peter Fryer calls his book “Hungarian Tragedy”, and so far as he exp'ains in his introduction it is correct. But this chapter of Hungarian history will surely be classed with the great revolutions of our time, and will have as far-reaching consequences for the world proletariat. He is privileged in being able to record it—and immorta’ise it. K. M. Colour, Colonies, Capitalism