Kollontai: The most able WOMAN for the job!

[A.R.Amistad]

It is truly sad that so many have forgotten the legacy of Alexandra Kollontai. She was the first female Bolshevik, a womens rights activist, was responsible for the establishment of women's rights and programs in the USSR. She was a member of the Left Opposition, but actually remained in Stalin's USSR, worked as an ambassador and survived the purges whilst being an outspoken advocate of Trotsky and for worker's democracy in the Soviet Union! She wrote a lot on the subject of Free Love. Personally, I think she was the most able leader for the USSR government after Lenin's tragic death, and Trotsky would have been more successful in the Red Army and Comintern leadership and promoting world revolution instead of being a statesman.

[Random Precision]

She was a member of the Left Opposition, but actually remained in Stalin's USSR, worked as an ambassador and survived the purges whilst being an outspoken advocate of Trotsky and for worker's democracy in the Soviet Union!

Not true. She was a member of the Workers' Opposition, and mostly left politics after it was disbanded in 1921. She served as ambassador to Sweden for most of her life after that, and wasn't outspoken about Trotsky to my knowledge. Otherwise she might have gotten called back to the USSR for trial mighty quick.

[A.R.Amistad]

She was in the Worker's Opposition yes but never denounced Leninism. She survived the purge because 1. She was too popular with the party to be killed or exiled outright as I understand and 2. Stalin figured the best way to keep Kollontai silent was to keep her out of the country as an ambassador and not influence Russian politics.

[Random Precision]

She was in the Worker's Opposition yes but never denounced Leninism

Well yeah. The Workers' Opposition never did denounce "Leninism", which in fact was not in use as a term until after Lenin's death, a few years after it disappeared.


She survived the purge because 1. She was too popular with the party to be killed or exiled outright as I understand and 2. Stalin figured the best way to keep Kollontai silent was to keep her out of the country as an ambassador and not influence Russian politics.

There were plenty of people who were really popular within the party and who were later found to be in league with Trotsky in a plot to assassinate Stalin, give huge chunks of territory to Germany and Japan, and lead the counter-revolution. Bukharin for instance. I think Kollontai just decided to keep her mouth shut when she saw which way the wind was blowing, and was somehow really lucky that her oppositional past wasn't brought up to someone in Moscow. Cause there were other people, Antonov-Ovseenko for instance, who had been loyal Stalinists for years and suddenly, -poof- gone because someone remembered he had been a Trotskyist once.

[A.R.Amistad]

Bukharin was never in league with Trotsky, in fact he had a personal beef with him and supported Stalin even up to his execution, asking "Koba, why must I die." Also, what I meant in regard to Leninism was that Kollontai, Serge and other members of the WO wrote essays praising Lenin and his contributions.
She defended him even on issues she at one time disagreed with him on.

[Random Precision]

Bukharin was never in league with Trotsky, in fact he had a personal beef with him and supported Stalin even up to his execution, asking "Koba, why must I die."

I was joking. It was what he was accused of at trial though.


Also, what I meant in regard to Leninism was that Kollontai, Serge and other members of the WO wrote essays praising Lenin and his contributions.
She defended him even on issues she at one time disagreed with him on.

What I meant was that in terms of the WO there was no "but" about defending Leninism. They accepted fully what came to be called Leninism, and limited their criticism to features of the post-revolutionary party and state, such as the entanglement of the unions with the state, the power of the party machine, and how the conditions workers deserved in a revolutionary society were not being fulfilled.

Also I don't think Victor Serge was ever a member of the Workers' Opposition.

[A.R.Amistad]

Still, I think Kollontai would have been a great stateswoman and Trotsky would have done better as a professional revolutionary. Kollontai showed some great leadership, as well as Praxis. Plus, in history, women having a natural maternal instinct have been proven to be more humane, practical and less chauvanist leaders. For example, police brutality amongst female cops is low, whereas it is extremely high amongst male cops. Kollontai was also very responsive to the immediate needs of the Russian workers and peasants, and thouroughly opposed beaurocracy. Of course, don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of Trotsky, but I think he might of had a little bit too internationalist and scholastic manner about him that might have created some issues with leadership. He was good at revolution, and I think he should have dedicated his work to the international revolution as opposed to state work.


I was joking. It was what he was accused of at trial though

sorry about taking you literally comrade, no hard feelings ;)


Also I don't think Victor Serge was ever a member of the Workers' Opposition.I'm 95% sure that Victor Serge and Alexandra Kollontai were the leaders of the Worker's Opposition, but of course, we should have doubt. I'll look it up on MIA and get back to you on it.

[Devrim]

I'm 95% sure that Victor Serge and Alexandra Kollontai were the leaders of the Worker's Opposition, but of course, we should have doubt. I'll look it up on MIA and get back to you on it.

Serge was a member of the Left Opposition not the Workers' Opposition.

Devrim

[A.R.Amistad]

Serge was a member of the Left Opposition not the Workers' Opposition.

HA epic fail I was wrong. I just looked it up on MIA, but I thought he had been in both. I know he was more understanding of the Krondstadt rebellion tan a lot of the other leading Bolsheviks.

[Leo]

Kollontai withdrew completely from active politics as early as 1921 with the ban on the Workers Opposition at the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party and spent the rest of her life as a diplomat, becoming the Russian ambassador to Norway in 1923. She having no involvement with the political struggles in Russia after 1921, and being out of country anyway was what spared her life of the Stalinist terror.


Bukharin was never in league with Trotsky, in fact he had a personal beef with him

They were for the most on quite friendly terms actually, Bukharin at one point even discretely proposed an alliance via Kamanev to Trotsky against Stalin who he considered to be the new Genghis Khan who was going to strange all the Bolsheviks.

[A.R.Amistad]

Kollontai withdrew completely from active politics as early as 1921 with the ban on the Workers Opposition at the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party and spent the rest of her life as a diplomat,

I actually have some comrades in Socialist Action who knew people who had lived during the days of the CLA and later SWP in the 30's and 40' who actually worked with Alexandra Kollontai in Boston on activism for the world Left Opposition.

[Leo]

Probably they are confusing Kollontai with someone else. It would be unthinkable and scandalous for a Russian ambassador in a different country (Mexico or Sweden, in the 30s and 40s) to go to the US and do political work, even if she was actually supportive of the left opposition - which she was not, as is recorded by people like Serge, Angelica Balbanoff as well as Trotsky himself. She in fact was, as rarely as she was involved with politics, due to her awareness of the fact that her life depended on it, supportive of Stalinism in general in the 30s when she made public political remarks.

[Yehuda Stern]

I find no reason for all this praise for Kollontai. Yes, she started her life a brave revolutionary activist, but ended up a wretched Stalinists who claimed that in the USSR, women have full control over their bodies, when in fact the Stalinist counterrevolution had already taken away the right to abortion for example.

To glorify such cowards is to spit in the faces of the internationalists who were murdered in Stalin's show trails.

[Revy]

Alexandra Kollontai was part of the Workers' Opposition, as stated, together with Alexander Shlyapnikov and others. The Workers' Opposition was a minority faction on the left of the Bolshevik party which protested the rising tide of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and the New Economic Policy.

Trotsky in fact opposed the Workers' Opposition: (he said the following at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921:

The Workers’ Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, fetishising the principles of democracy. They seem to have placed the workers’ voting rights above the Party, as though the Party did not have the right to defend its dictatorship even if that dictatorship were to collide for a time with the transitory mood of the workers’ democracy ... What is indispensable is the consciousness, so to speak, of the revolutionary historical birthright of the Party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship in spite of the temporary vacillations in the elemental stirrings of the masses, in spite of the temporary vacillations even in the workers’ milieu. That consciousness is for us the indispensable cement. It is not on the formal principle of workers’ democracy that the dictatorship is based at any given moment, though the workers’ democracy is, of course, the only method by whose help the masses are increasingly drawn into political life. source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1991/trotsky3/01-newcourse.html)

I see no reason given this that Kollontai would have felt enthusiastic over Trotsky. She may have felt he was better than Stalin but she had already during Stalin's rule recoiled into an obscure diplomatic position, effectively removing herself from politics.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Plus, in history, women having a natural maternal instinct have been proven to be more humane, practical and less chauvanist leaders. For example, police brutality amongst female cops is low, whereas it is extremely high amongst male cops.

This is ridiculous. Women in power are not 'more humane' because of 'maternal instinct'. In my opinion this position is actually a sexist one, despite the 'feminists' who brandish it about.
"Today's electoral campaigns (with Hillary Clinton as a candidate for US president, following that of Ségolène Royal in France) want us to kid us into believing that having women in charge of government could possibly bring an end to the brutal attacks against the working class. They would also have us believe that a woman head of state would mean fewer barbaric wars; ‘a woman' would be less ‘violent', more ‘humane' and more ‘peaceful' than men.

"All this chatter is nothing but pure mystification. Capitalist domination isn't a problem of sexuality but of social class. When bourgeois women take control of the state, they carry out exactly the same capitalist policies as their male predecessors. They would all follow in the steps of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who is remembered for her leadership in the Falklands War in 1982 and for having let 10 IRA hunger strikers demanding political prisoner status die around the same time. They all behave the same, like Sarkozy's associates, Michèle Alliot-Marie, Rachida Dati, Valérie Pécresse, Fadela Amara and their consorts. The bourgeoisie can't contemplate any difference between the sexes in the management of its national economy. And the boss of the bosses' organisation, Laurence Parisot, also does a good job for the bourgeoisie, as her predecessors from the ‘stronger sex' did before him."- ICC, International Women’s Day: only communist society can end the oppression of women (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/international-womens-day) (2008)

[Revy]

This is ridiculous. Women in power are not 'more humane' because of 'maternal instinct'. In my opinion this position is actually a sexist one, despite the 'feminists' who brandish it about.
"Today's electoral campaigns (with Hillary Clinton as a candidate for US president, following that of Ségolène Royal in France) want us to kid us into believing that having women in charge of government could possibly bring an end to the brutal attacks against the working class. They would also have us believe that a woman head of state would mean fewer barbaric wars; ‘a woman' would be less ‘violent', more ‘humane' and more ‘peaceful' than men.

"All this chatter is nothing but pure mystification. Capitalist domination isn't a problem of sexuality but of social class. When bourgeois women take control of the state, they carry out exactly the same capitalist policies as their male predecessors. They would all follow in the steps of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who is remembered for her leadership in the Falklands War in 1982 and for having let 10 IRA hunger strikers demanding political prisoner status die around the same time. They all behave the same, like Sarkozy's associates, Michèle Alliot-Marie, Rachida Dati, Valérie Pécresse, Fadela Amara and their consorts. The bourgeoisie can't contemplate any difference between the sexes in the management of its national economy. And the boss of the bosses' organisation, Laurence Parisot, also does a good job for the bourgeoisie, as her predecessors from the ‘stronger sex' did before him."- ICC, International Women’s Day: only communist society can end the oppression of women (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/international-womens-day) (2008)



One could mention Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as well.

[Yehuda Stern]

Trotsky in fact opposed the Workers' Opposition:

As he should have. The Workers' Opposition was a centrist group which gave in to the pressures to subordinate the dictatorship of the working class, led by its vanguard, to the moods of the backwards sections of the class.


I see no reason given this that Kollontai would have felt enthusiastic over Trotsky.

I see no reason that Stalin should have been enthusiastic over Trotsky either. Unsurprisingly, they ended together in the same camp.


she had already during Stalin's rule recoiled into an obscure diplomatic position, effectively removing herself from politics.

Recoiling into an obscure position is one thing; glorifying Stalinism's reactionary policy on women's rights is another. Kollontai just didn't want to be an oppositionist. Getting a well paid job seemed like a better deal.

[blake 3:17]

I wish Lenin and Trotsky had been more open to the Workers Opposition. I tend to think its suppression was part of the beginning of an end.

Edited to add:
It’s funny when so-called Marxists, when attempting to analyze social relations, claim that the fact that women leaders tend to be less brutal is to be found not in social relations and everything involved with that but rather can be explained by biology! Historical materialism is thrown out the window, and in its place vulgar naturalism. This would be as absurd and reactionary as claiming that capitalists have a natural ability and hence right to control the less-intelligent and poor workers.

That seems right to a degree. However we see the nurture/nature debate in terms of gender, I think gender still matters. Teresa Ebert wrote a very interesting piece on Kollontai and Red Love. Link here: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724 Kollontai did very important work towards building socialism which I don't think the male leadership of Soviet Russia would have done.


Also, it is telling that the word WOMAN is emphasized in the title. No, the fact that she is female has absolutely nothing to do with any of her achievements or failures. Frankly, if she had been male she would have been a foot page in a history book.

I think she's a bit more important than that. Again I think her gender does matter -- social relations blocked her doing a lot of things because she was a woman, social relations allowed her to do certain things because she was a woman.

[Devrim]

Also, it is telling that the word WOMAN is emphasized in the title. No, the fact that she is female has absolutely nothing to do with any of her achievements or failures. Frankly, if she had been male she would have been a foot page in a history book.

I agreed absolutely with the rest of your post. On this bit I am not so sure. Certainly Kollontai was is much better known today than Alexander Shlyapnikov, who was the leader of the Workers' Opposition, and in that way you are correct. However, she did also write the most famous text about them, as well as writing novels and extensively on the women's question, and more importantly she survived the purges. All of these things contribute to her being well known. You have a point here, but I think that it is not only her sex.


Probably they are confusing Kollontai with someone else. It would be unthinkable and scandalous for a Russian ambassador in a different country (Mexico or Sweden, in the 30s and 40s) to go to the US and do political work, even if she was actually supportive of the left opposition - which she was not, as is recorded by people like Serge, Angelica Balbanoff as well as Trotsky himself. She in fact was, as rarely as she was involved with politics, due to her awareness of the fact that her life depended on it, supportive of Stalinism in general in the 30s when she made public political remarks.

Leo is right on this one. A.R.Amistad or his comrades must be confusing her with somebody else.


I wish Lenin and Trotsky had been more open to the Workers Opposition. I tend to think its suppression was part of the beginning of an end.

But the attacks on faction rights in the party started much earlier than their complete surpression at the 10th congress. As far as I know, the first faction to be banned was the 'Left Communists' in spring 1918.

Devrim

[Leo]

As he should have. The Workers' Opposition was a centrist group which gave in to the pressures to subordinate the dictatorship of the working class, led by its vanguard, to the moods of the backwards sections of the class.

I have never heard this about the Workers' Opposition, what moods of the backwards sections of the class did it gave in to? Can you elaborate this a little bit?

I personally was under the impression that the biggest problem with the Workers' Opposition was that it was basically rooted in the trade-union bureaucracy.

[A.R.Amistad]

According to the MIA she was "sympathetic" to the Left Opposition, but subsequently conformed. The reason I put so much emphasis on her being a female was because, in Russian society, male chauvinism is particularly high. Male chauvinism was a factor in why the USSR degenerated into totalitarianism. It would have been a major breakthrough in society, in Russia if not the world, to see a woman as a world leader.


Historical materialism is thrown out the window, and in its place vulgar naturalism. This would be as absurd and reactionary as claiming that capitalists have a natural ability and hence right to control the less-intelligent and poor workers.


Also, it is telling that the word WOMAN is emphasized in the title. No, the fact that she is female has absolutely nothing to do with any of her achievements or failures. Frankly, if she had been male she would have been a foot page in a history book.

Also, I don't think that it is sexist to analyze differences in leadership of men and women. I based my idea off of the matriarchal societies of the Iroquois Nation, who were very much an egalitarian society with minimal violence, oppression, etc. partly (and I would argue majorly) because of female leadership. What I am saying is that I think paternalistic attitudes would have been greatly reduced by Kollontai's leadership. Also, referring to the first quote, historical materialism is not thrown "out the window" because (and I should have avoided this before so I take some of my previous statements back) I am analyzing strictly how maternal leadership has worked as opposed to paternalist leadership. In society, it has been pretty consistent. Look at ancient West Africa or the Polynesians. So its looking at it through a historical-societal lens, not a natural one. My mistake. till I think Comrade Rebelgrrl makes a statement I don't entirely agree with. Ideas about human nature are not alien to Historical Materialism, we just don't believe humans are entirely naturally chauvinistic or that social Darwinism has any credibility.


As he should have. The Workers' Opposition was a centrist group which gave in to the pressures to subordinate the dictatorship of the working class, led by its vanguard, to the moods of the backwards sections of the class.


I also would like to say that the WO actually opposed the backwards parts f society, i.e. the Nepmen, from gaining control, whereas Stalin and Bukharin and others supported the rise of the Nepmen. In this case, it would seem the Bukharinists were the real "centrists."

[Luís Henrique]

While I disagree with the cheap criticism of Kollontai by people who have never faced something remotely comparable to the Stalinist meat grinder, I would have to say that she was never an option (unlike Trotsky or Bukharin) to Lenin's succession.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

It is truly sad that so many have forgotten the legacy of Alexandra Kollontai. She was the first female Bolshevik, a womens rights activist, was responsible for the establishment of women's rights and programs in the USSR. She was a member of the Left Opposition, but actually remained in Stalin's USSR, worked as an ambassador and survived the purges whilst being an outspoken advocate of Trotsky and for worker's democracy in the Soviet Union! She wrote a lot on the subject of Free Love. Personally, I think she was the most able leader for the USSR government after Lenin's tragic death, and Trotsky would have been more successful in the Red Army and Comintern leadership and promoting world revolution instead of being a statesman.
I have to disagree, especially with the assertions you have amde about "female leadership" later in the thread, that's a very problematic and biologist position. Kollontai could have been the female Stalin, for all we know. Sure this is maybe dragging this to an extreme, but the fact of the matter it the role people play are defined by where they stand in history and what choices they make. And Kollontai was not an outspoken supporter of Trotsky, if she continued to support the Left Opposition after the purges she, like many others, kept quiet about it. And by support, I mean morally, I would seriously doubt that she dared to give any practical support to the opposition after they started dying. This said, there is much I respect about her. Her works on female emancipation are very good and certainly deserves to be remembered, but going into alternative history mode saying that if only Aleksandra Kollontai had taken leadership does not do us any good. Had the left opposition succeded she would probably have found herself on their side, like many others of those who capitulated.
The reason why we are "Trotskysists", comrade is that Leon Trotsky actually was the left oppositional to most clearly and strongly criticized the stalinist leadership of the soviet union. And for this he payed with his life, trying to rebuild the revolutionary movement worldwide. And this is the struggle that lay before us today, thinking about "what if's" the way you are doing doesn't really do much for that I am afraid. Although as I said I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back the positive aspects of Kollontais legacy, especially in regards to marxist feminism. I also think she would have taken issues with your claims about female leadership.

[Revy]

Well, I guess since there has never been a dictatorship ruled by a woman, it leads some people to (falsely) assume such a thing could not be possible.

iEtw3XJoJrE

[Niccolò Rossi]

The user 'RebelGrrrl' was banned and her posts have (unfortunately/wrongly) been removed from this thread. You can, however, still see them here (from the trashcan): 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571451&postcount=1), 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571614&postcount=1), 3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571617&postcount=2), 4 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1572161&postcount=3)

[FSL]

The user 'RebelGrrrl' was banned and her posts have (unfortunately/wrongly) been removed from this thread. You can, however, still see them here (from the trashcan): 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571451&postcount=1), 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571614&postcount=1), 3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571617&postcount=2), 4 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1572161&postcount=3)


If people were suggesting that Kollontai would be a better leader for the party because she would be "more sweet" than Stalin, a degree of anger seems justified.

There were and are many women in revolutionary movements/armies that are in no way more "feminine". And even the concept behind that word is flawed.

[Yehuda Stern]

Leo,

What you said is just a more concrete analysis. It is quite regular for the trade union faction of a given party to veer to the right because of its contact with the mass of workers rather than being concerned mostly with the vanguard. Basically, I would say that the WO's propositions were rather syndicalist in the sense that they emphasized the power of the unions over that of the party, meaning that their proposals would have in fact given more weight to those elements in the party who were being formed as the Stalinist regime.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'd like to apologize if I have come across as offensive or chauvinist in this thread. I saw that this thread was listed as "chauvinist" so I take responsibility and I am deeply sorry that this is how people felt. Again, If I have offended in any way feel free to message me and I will send a personal apology.

In Solidarity,

[chegitz guevara]

She was in the Worker's Opposition yes but never denounced Leninism. She survived the purge because 1. She was too popular with the party to be killed or exiled outright as I understand and 2. Stalin figured the best way to keep Kollontai silent was to keep her out of the country as an ambassador and not influence Russian politics.

Actually, being popular was pretty much a guarantee of getting killed, even if you were a Stalinist. Look at Kirov. "Kirov drew the unwelcome attention of Stalin, particularly after the 1934 party congress, where delegates voting for new Central Committee membership elected Kirov, who received only three negative votes, the fewest of any candidate, while Stalin received 292 negative votes." It got him killed a little while later.

[Random Precision]

Actually, being popular was pretty much a guarantee of getting killed, even if you were a Stalinist. Look at Kirov. "Kirov drew the unwelcome attention of Stalin, particularly after the 1934 party congress, where delegates voting for new Central Committee membership elected Kirov, who received only three negative votes, the fewest of any candidate, while Stalin received 292 negative votes." It got him killed a little while later.

There is no concrete evidence that I'm aware of that puts Kirov's assassination down to Stalin. I think Robert Conquest was the first historian to claim this. Other "revisionist" historians without Cold War politics, like Arch Getty, disagree.