Cowbee

The problem with having your own definition of a social term is that whenever you use it, others all generally see it as a negative term for a communist. For what it's worth, I don't really see people unable to perform self-crit among Marxists, but I see the word "tankie" thrown nonetheless.

Until we automate it all it will still exist, unfortunately.

Well, there's a big difference between a government run by the working class, and one run by representatives of the capitalist class.

Sure, work will continue as it must, just not in the same form of wage slavery.

"Authoritarianism" isn't really a thing. What ultimately matters is which class in society has control of the state, and that determines how it responds to class conflicts. What determines the strength of state force in those conflicts is the circumstances society is found in, not the whims of random individuals.

Working in a mode of production where you have more direct input, a common social goal, and your needs certified, would eliminate the vast majority of the issues we have with labor under capitalism. Fewer people would hate work to the same degree.

"Actually Existing Socialism," countries like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, and former USSR. Countries that have shifted to a mode of production where the large and key industries are publicly owned, rather than privately owned. The vast majority of Marxists worldwide support these countries, to varying degrees and of course with nuances. The ones who claim the title "Marxist" yet condemn them and those who support them as "tankies" are the chauvanistic western type devoid of meaningful practice.

This is a decent overview of the background that led up to the events of 1956, and this is a decent overview of the darker side, where the lynchings happened. Content Warning: lynched corpses. Here is a source on MI6 training and arming the counterrevolutionaries. Those 3 articles give only the briefest overview of the events, but don't do the real buildup to them, their complexities, what the people actually supported, or the real character in any depth. If you want to actually take a deep dive, these are additional sources:

The History of the Working Class Movement in Hungary

1956 Counter-Revolution in Hungary

Others can offer more sources.

Overall, when it comes to geopolitical enemies of the United States in particular, it would not be a bad idea to treat your current understanding with extreme skepticism until you've investigated counter-sources as well. That doesn't mean the US always lies, in fact it frequently tells mostly the truth, but will distory either the quality or quantity of an event.

To clarify, the overwhelming majority of Marxists support AES overall, except the very western, chauvanistic types that wish to endlessly critique society, not change it.

"Authoritarian" is a meaningless word, usually attributed to those who support proletarian states against landlords and capitalists. The "Marxists" that call other Marxists "tankies" tend to be the extremely western chauvanistic types that wish to endlessly critique society, not change it.

It did, because I did. I don't care to play your posturing games.

Wikipedia is a western-centric overview, not a historical document. The anti-communists in Hungary were marking up the doors of Jews and communists, lynching them. For Czechoslovakia, again, the counter-revolutionaries were anti-communist nationalists who wanted to install a far-right government. It's cut and dry among Marxist-Leninists that intervention was correct these days.