Asklemmy

Using “counter-revolution”. The definition of a revolution is going against the currently established authority / government. If you imply the 1956 revolution is a counter-revolution, then simply I guess in some way the Communist Party wasn’t the ruling party and never had any power in Hungary despite clearly them having absolute control over it.

This is just phrasemongering. Socialism is revolutionary compared to capitalism, wishing to reinstate capitalism and/or fascism is trying to turn the clock back, ie counter-revolutionary, and serves the bourgeoisie.

Right under that journalist who was willing to provide favorable / biased views a communist leader in change of him being allowed to visit said country in the CIA doc.

Not sure what you're getting at, here.

Aptheker clearly thinks burning communist and communist aligned literature is a vile thing.

He'd be correct.

But when we are talking about cleansing and removing fascistic, everything is quite acceptable then. He would still prefer to see some of the books being present as examples, but clearly he doesn’t find major issues with it, even if he realized this degenerated into a full-scale censorship.

Yes, it's much better to censor fascist literature than communist. You're equating fascism and communism in this point, censorship was employed against fascists and capitalists.

There are some publications which analyzies Apthaker takes coming from the Young Socialist in this example, where he automatically thinks that the Social Democratic Party supported Horthy, because they existed under his regent

The SDP being more friendly to Horthy than the Bolsheviks were to the Tsar isn't unheard of. In Germany, for example, the SPD sided against the KPD and indirectly aided the Nazis in coming to power.

He clearly dismisses and doesn’t talk about how each eastern bloc countries were exploited and it’s resources were straight up funneled into the USSR, with way way less things to receive from them, which only started to turn around way later after Stalin’s death.

He dismisses this because the extent was exaggerated. The RSFSR was more developed, but did not export capital nor did it have any colonies nor neocolonies. Socialism involved lots of trade, and all of the members in the socialist bloc dramatically benefited from socialism. The sheer scale of plunder by capitalism far exceeds the uneveness in the USSR.

The author also presents that he took the Communist Party’s opinion of Laszlo Rajk’s execution as absolute truth with no question, only to be finally changed about this subject.

As a communist, he sided with the predominent opinion among communists, until shown proof of otherwise. Not surprising.

But what about the sources? It seems like he indeed cherry-picks too by using bias far-right sources and fabricated communist sources with no independent verifications.

But what about the sources? It seems like he indeed cherry-picks too by using bias far-right sources and fabricated communist sources with no independent verifications.

Yep, he does use far-right sources, like the New York Times, when they admit inconvenient truths. When capitalists praise communists, this makes it easier to accept than the standard demonization. Further, the idea that non-communist sources, independent and opposed to the system, need to confirm communist sources is deeply misunderstanding how media works. Discrediting a source because ideologically opposed sources don't back it up is false.

What is more damning is that his claim of the initial hours of where the freedom fighters supposedly instantly began to do antisemitic remarks, causing chaos, attacking innocent policeman has no source.

Your own source automatically discredits non-communist sources that back up his claims.

And not only that he states that noone knows who shot into the public at the Parlamient square which is absolutely debunked by now, and it was made by the ÁVH members with some tanks as additional measures.

Much of this article itself is unsourced, and as we know Wikipedia is right-wing biased. Even if this is indeed true, his lack of knowledge doesn't mean he is incorrect.

With so so much bias and willfully keeping off informations, it’s hard to trust any of his statements. One statement can be accepted, that antisemitism were indeed present in 1956, albeit in rural and isolated incidents. A fresher analyisis has a publication on the presence of antisemitism in 1956.

Your own sources were equally biased, and removed information as well. Being biased does not inherently mean incorrect, and your own articled willingly discredited communist-aligned sources.

As we can see these indeed happened, and in really cruel ways, but only in small instances. 4 towns and a few villages compared to the 3184 villages and 58 towns. There are also eyewitness accounts despising antisemite people’s remarks in Budapest by the crowds, but I can’t find sources for these.

Other jewish members aiding the revolution: Donáth Ferenc, István Kovács, György Fazekas, Erika Szeles, István Angyal, Istvan Eörsi, Gábor Földes, József Gáli, Miklós Krassó, László Nickelsburg, Ottó Szirmai

Peter Hidas, your source, was a participant in the 1956 counter-revolution. Hardly an unbiased source, with clear motivations to minimize the pograms. The presence of Jewish people in the counter-revolution does not discredit the fascist nature of it, but again confirm what I always said: there were faux-progressive elements combined with fascist elements in an overall counter-revolution.

While it can be agreed that pre-Stalin era leaders such as Lenin probably wasn’t antisemite, what about Stalin? He murdered a number of high profile jewish politicians, maybe this is just a coincidence, he was a paranoia filled psychopath maniac after all. Khrushchev and other people claimed he having antisemite sentiments, although I don’t know if there are verifications for these. While publicly he stated not being an antisemite, his actions seems suspicious. What about suddenly dissolving a pro-communist JAC in the name of imperialism according to him?. And what about this statement? It just seems convenient to call everyone who you don’t like an american agent or any word. But if he really thought they were american agents, it still specifically hurted jewish communities.

Perhaps the Doctor’s Plot where it so happens to be that a higher percentage of them were jews.

Again, quoting my prior comment:

Anti-semitism was punishable by death penalty in the USSR, this is largely Red Scare fearmongering. In fact, the soviets were accused of being jewish supremicists, hence the hysteria around "Judeo-Bolshevism." The USSR was the opposite of anti-semitic:

Source: Works, Vol. 13, 1930 - January 1934 Publisher: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954

"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle.

Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty."

• J. Stalin January 12, 1931

This is teetering into Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization by painting the soviets as antisemitic. This is really just projection.