Was Lenin as bad as Stalin? [Archive]

View Full Version : Was Lenin as bad as Stalin?

PeacefulRevolution

9th July 2010, 21:31

I'm not an expert on the history of Communist Russia, but I have read several works by Lenin and tend to agree (and, occasionally, disagree) with him on many points. However, when I mention him around someone who is not necessarily pro-communist, their immediate reaction is always, "Don't you know what he did? He was a mass murderer!"

My defense is generally that he killed as an act of war, which makes him no worse than Johnson or Truman or even Washington.

Will someone please tell me the truth about Lenin's so-called "atrocities"? Was he a bloodthirsty tyrant? Was he as bad as Stalin?

Blake's Baby

9th July 2010, 21:49

In before the Stalinists... no, Stalin is responsible for the deaths of 22 million people. Lenin, several thousand, probably. Certainly, fewer than George Washington (if by George Washington, you're personifying the American Revolution), and with similar reasons (a revolt against tyranny, but also in Lenin's case, against WWI which had already killed millions); definitely far far fewer than either Johnson or Truman, and with far better reason.

Only about 15 people were killed in the Russian Revolution. However, when the Monarchists and landlords launched the Civil War (backed by the British, French, American, Japanese, Serbian, Italian, Greek, Canadian etc etc governments and indeed armies) hundreds of thousands were killed. Lenin's fault? No. The capitalists' fault. The Red Terror that was launched against internal enemies during that period, killed many thousands. Lenin's fault? Yes, in that there was the alternative of surrender (at which point the far greater massacres that would have resulted would have been down to the enemy); but also a less 'if you are not for us you're against us' attitude, which would have been better but is difficult in wartime.

So was Lenin rsponsible for mass murder? I'd say so. Several hundred at Kronstadt for instance, attacks on the Anarchists, and such like. But as you say, there was a war going on not of his chosing. I don't always think he made the right decisions. But nothing like the murders committed under Truman (eg, Nagasaki, Hiroshima... I can't remember whether it was Truman or FDR who OKed the firebombing of Desden but up 1/4 million people might have died then); or Johnson's (Kennedy's, Nixon & Kissinger's) brutal war in SE Asia.

Tablo

9th July 2010, 22:38

Stalin was worse, but I don't see how that matters when they both kinda suck.

Also Stalin didn't kill 22867123746302865086184375601845764307825610851230 8764 people. Still killed a lot though.

Blake's Baby

9th July 2010, 23:08

... Stalin didn't kill 22867123746302865086184375601845764307825610851230 8764 people...

Did anyone say he did?

Stephen Colbert

9th July 2010, 23:10

There was a thread where a comrade notes that his parents or something of that caliber claimed that Communism in and of itself led to the deaths of

22867123746302865086184375601845764307825610851230 8764

people

Blackscare

9th July 2010, 23:14

22867123746302865086184375601845764307825610851230 8764

So in a conversation with his parents, they just happen to give a very specific number with, what, 20 or 30 digits? No way, it was hyperbole.

Tablo

9th July 2010, 23:17

I chose this number for an extremely specific reason beyond the understanding of your feeble brains. :cool:

Chimurenga.

9th July 2010, 23:24

Blake's Baby

9th July 2010, 23:58

If by mass murder, you mean put down organized crime (which was rampant in Russia at the time) and counter-revolutionaries which put the entire Russian Revolution in jeopardy, then yes, I guess he was...

Well, yes, those as well, but also the Kronstadt Commune, which was composed of red sailors, the local Party, and workers in the Kronstadt base. Hardly 'counter-revolutionaries'. I think if you are arguing that no-one died unnecessarily, you're deluding yourself comrade.

... Lenin and the Bolsheviks did what needed to be done...

Ah, not 'what they thought needed to be done'. So you are arguing no-one died needlessly.

...And by J. Arch Getty's figures, the number of deaths attributed to Stalin are less than one million. They are even less than 800,000.

...and, obviously, many people don't believe that. Even so, Lenin was responsible for the deaths of an awful lot less than 800,000.

ContrarianLemming

10th July 2010, 00:28

ContrarianLemming

10th July 2010, 00:29

And by J. Arch Getty's figures, the number of deaths attributed to Stalin are less than one million. They are even less than 800,000.

This^ is no better then holocaust denial, fuck you.

Muzk

10th July 2010, 00:32

This^ is no better then holocaust denial, fuck you.

It's okay when it comes from a communist, of course. Because Stalin had no other choice! All the criticism comes from ultra-left bourgeoisie traitor anarcho trots!!!!1!

Barry Lyndon

10th July 2010, 00:44

If by mass murder, you mean put down organized crime (which was rampant in Russia at the time) and counter-revolutionaries which put the entire Russian Revolution in jeopardy, then yes, I guess he was. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did what needed to be done.

And by J. Arch Getty's figures, the number of deaths attributed to Stalin are less than one million. They are even less than 800,000.

Getty's figures uncritically parrot the estimates of the NKVD. The problem is that when the NKVD tortured a suspect to death they listed it as a 'death in custody', not an execution, if they recorded it at all. This figure leaves out the huge numbers of people who died as a result of the deportations of ethnic minorities 1941-49, even if we presume that none of the famine deaths 1932-33 were Stalin's fault.

I also fail to see how this is a rehabilitation of Stalin's regime in any case, that his regime killed 'only' 800,000 people.

mcg

10th July 2010, 01:15

You're right peaceful revolutionary. Lenin was not as bad as Stalin. Nor in my opinion was Lenin even bad. Lenin did have people killed during the Russian civil war and the first world war. However, that was war. He faced real enemies who committed far more atrocities. Lenin was also responsible for other bad things. Secret police, strengthening the central bureaucracy, giving the government direct control over industry and thus repressing local democratic control. We should remember, however, that Lenin was an intelligent well meaning person. His theoretical insights remain important in the study of communism. He was particularly apt at explaining how the capitalist drive for profit contributed to impressive imperialism. (Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism) He also was responsible for many important reforms which helped the people of Russia. 1)He removed the Tzars 2) He removed Russia from WWI 3) He instituted free health care and education for all russians. 4) He increased the rights of women 5) He combated wide spread anti-antisemitism 6) He industrialized and modernized the Russian economy.

There is no doubt in my mind that Lenin would have served the USSR as a better leader than Stalin. Lenin's death and Stalin's rise was a great tragedy and the subject of much debate. Grouping Lenin in with Stalin is blatant propaganda, an attempt to discredit an important communist leader.

Chimurenga.

10th July 2010, 01:32

Well, yes, those as well, but also the Kronstadt Commune, which was composed of red sailors, the local Party, and workers in the Kronstadt base. Hardly 'counter-revolutionaries'. I think if you are arguing that no-one died unnecessarily, you're deluding yourself comrade.

They fought against the Bolsheviks regardless of the Bolsheviks trying to reason with them and talk with them. They WERE counter-revolutionaries. Not to mention that a good number of ex-Kronstadt members went on to side with (and fight for) Nazi Germany against Russia.

Ah, not 'what they thought needed to be done'. So you are arguing no-one died needlessly.

I'm not saying that at all. It's very possible (and I'm sure) that innocent people died. I'm not denying that everyone who died was guilty of something or another.

This^ is no better then holocaust denial, fuck you.

Right, because you cannot refute anything I've said... this is all you can muster up. The funny thing is, I've been told the same thing from a "Free Market" advocate. I don't understand how the denial of a conscious effort to exterminate all members of a particular ethnic group who was viewed as "inferior" could even remotely be compared to the victims of the Stalin regime. Great criticism you have there. :rolleyes:

It's okay when it comes from a communist, of course. Because Stalin had no other choice! All the criticism comes from ultra-left bourgeoisie traitor anarcho trots!!!!1!

I never said that Stalin had no choice. I also never justified every incident that happened under Stalin.

Getty's figures uncritically parrot the estimates of the NKVD. The problem is that when the NKVD tortured a suspect to death they listed it as a 'death in custody', not an execution, if they recorded it at all. This figure leaves out the huge numbers of people who died as a result of the deportations of ethnic minorities 1941-49, even if we presume that none of the famine deaths 1932-33 were Stalin's fault.

I also fail to see how this is a rehabilitation of Stalin's regime in any case, that his regime killed 'only' 800,000 people.

Funny, I just went through and did a search for "death in custody" in 'Victims of the Soviet Penal System', where the figure I presented can be found, and found nothing. Do you know where I can find this information and this criticism of J. Arch Getty?

Also, this is not a rehabilitation by any stretch. I'm just presenting my understanding of what happened and of what I know right now.

To answer the OP's question, no, Lenin was not as bad as Stalin. Lenin did a lot of great things that, unfortunately, rolled back when Stalin came to power.

Lyev

10th July 2010, 01:43

And by J. Arch Getty's figures, the number of deaths attributed to Stalin are less than one million. They are even less than 800,000.Hey man I agree, those pesky old Bolsheviks, "Trotskyites", revolutionaries, intellectuals, artists, poets, scientists, anti-fascists and anarchists deserved everything they got! :mad:

Chimurenga.

10th July 2010, 02:08

Hey man I agree, those pesky old Bolsheviks, "Trotskyites", revolutionaries, intellectuals, artists, poets, scientists, anti-fascists and anarchists deserved everything they got! :mad:

Once again, I never said that.

dearest chuck

10th July 2010, 02:22

in fact, lenin was not as good as stalin.

Wolf Larson

10th July 2010, 02:29

Lenin thought capitalism had peaked and was ready to be overthrown. He was obviously wrong in that regards but meant well (in his own mind). Power was taken from the Soviets (workers councils) and the centralized state or communist party was created (hierarchy) in Russia and Stalin was the end product of a premature overzealous desperate revolution mixed with the effects of hierarchy.

Next time we (socialists) wait until capitalism's productive forces can no longer expand and we must keep a firm eye on any hierarchy established to overthrow the weakened capitalist system (especially if it's centralized/under the control of the few).

Stalin was playing out the hierarchical role handed to him. No one man or 1000 men should have control over millions of lives. The real revolution will be decentralized and will happen when capitalism's productive forces can no longer expand :)

Any other premature hierarchical revolution will end up the same or in the worlds total inhalation (WW3). The revolution will happen when the people "shake themselves of capitalists as a horse shakes off flies".

Lyev

10th July 2010, 02:43

Once again, I never said that.Yeah sorry, I did twist your words a bit there, it was a bit immature. Your position towards Stalin seemed sympathetic, and lots of people were killed on his behalf that had their interests wholly immersed in those of the proletariat and the communist movement in general, or people that actually enriched society and contributed to it in positive ways.

Chimurenga.

10th July 2010, 03:42

Yeah sorry, I did twist your words a bit there, it was a bit immature. Your position towards Stalin seemed sympathetic, and lots of people were killed on his behalf that had their interests wholly immersed in those of the proletariat and the communist movement in general, or people that actually enriched society and contributed to it in positive ways.

I wouldn't call it "sympathy", I just think the figures are distorted. It has nothing to do with Trotskyism, Anarchism, or any Leftist tendency. I try to make it a point to not generalize like that. As for the latter, I agree.

Nolan

10th July 2010, 06:14

You mean as bad ass? Yeah.

infraxotl

10th July 2010, 06:20

They're both human and capable of mistakes, but neither committed atrocities as counter-revolutionary opportunists might like you to believe.

10th July 2010, 13:18

Lenin did not initiate a devastating purge of political opponents (many of whom were communists themselves - Trotskyists and anarchists - in opposition to Stalin's regime. Others were White Army officers, capitalists and other "reactionaries" - which can sometimes mean anything that the government wants it to mean - but this tends to be [deliberately or otherwise] overlooked by Western historians), unlike Stalin. In another thread it stated that Lenin hated the bureaucracy, whilst Stalin supposedly encouraged it. That being said, Stalin did play an important part in the defence of the Soviet Union in World War 2 and helped to greatly industrialise the country in the process.

in fact, lenin was not as good as stalin.
Today is opposite day, I hope.

ComradeOm

10th July 2010, 13:21

Its quite simple - Lenin has nothing to his record like the below

And by J. Arch Getty's figures, the number of deaths attributed to Stalin are less than one million. They are even less than 800,000.Ellman (Soviet Repression Statistics) gives a range of 950,000 - 1.2 million for "repression deaths" in 1937-'38 alone. This figure excludes death shortly after GULAG releases*, those arrested in 1937-'38 but who later died, and deaths during deportation. As such it is almost certainly an understatement

In total Ellman gives a figure of 3-3.5 million deaths, post 1921, from execution or deportation. At least half of these can be considered to be victims of political repression, as opposed to criminal charges. This ties in with Davies et al who suggest (I give a link here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-population-statistics-t137164/index.html)) a total of ten million excess deaths from 1927-'38, of which approx 1.5 million can be attributed to the political violence of 1937-'38

So yeah, I would love to see a breakdown of Getty's figures

*That is, capturing the practice of releasing dying prisoners shortly before death in order to minimise the death toll in the camps

-----

The remainder of Davies' total can be largely attributed to the collectivisation years. Only the most blinkered Stalin apologist can disassociate the Generalissimus from the Soviet state's disastrous agricultural policies. There was no 'man-made famine' but the ill-prepared and ill-conceived collectivisation programme caused chaos throughout the country and directly contributed to millions of deaths by starvation

IllicitPopsicle

10th July 2010, 17:56

They're both human and capable of mistakes, but neither committed atrocities as counter-revolutionary opportunists might like you to believe.

Was Alexander Berkman a counter-revolutionary?

Chapter 38. Kronstadt

Petrograd, February, 1921.[23] (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alexander_Berkman__The_Bolshevik_Myth__Diary_1920-22_.html#fn23) — The cold is extreme and there is intense suffering in the city. Snowstorms have isolated us from the provinces; the supply of provisions has almost ceased. Only half a pound of bread is being issued now. Most of the houses are unheated. At dusk old women prowl about the big woodpile near the Hotel Astoria, but the sentry is vigilant. Several factories have been closed for lack of fuel, and the employees put on half rations. They called a meeting to consult about the situation, but the authorities did not permit it to take place.
The Trubotchny millworkers have gone on strike. In the distribution of winter clothing, they complain, the Communists received undue advantage over the non-partisans. The Government refuses to consider the grievances till the men return to work.
Crowds of strikers gathered in the street near the mills, and soldiers were sent to disperse them. They were kursanti, Communist youths of the military academy. There was no violence.
Now the strikers have been joined by the men from the Admiralty shops and Galernaya docks. There is much resentment against the arrogant attitude of the Government. A street demonstration was attempted, but mounted troops suppressed it.
February 27. — Nervous feeling in the city. The strike situation is growing more serious. The Patronny mills, the Baltiysky and Laferm factories have suspended operations. The authorities have ordered the strikers to resume work. Martial law in the city. The special Committee of Defense (Komitet Oboroni) is vested with exceptional powers, Zinoviev at its head.
At the Soviet session last evening a military member of the Defense Committee denounced the strikers as traitors to the Revolution. It was Lashevitch. He looked fat, greasy, and offensively sensuous. He called the dissatisfied workers “leeches attempting extortion” (shkurniki), and demanded drastic measures against them. The Soviet passed a resolution locking out the men of the Trubotchny mill. It means deprivation of rations — actual starvation.
February 28. — Strikers' proclamations have appeared on the streets today. They cite cases of workers found frozen to death in their homes. The main demand is for winter clothing and more regular issue of rations. Some of the circulars protest against the suppression of factory meetings. “The people want to take counsel together to find means of relief,” they state. Zinoviev asserts the whole trouble is due to Menshevik and Social Revolutionist plotting.
For the first time a political turn is being given to the strikes. Late in the afternoon a proclamation was posted containing larger demands. “A complete change is necessary in the policies of the Government,” it reads. “First of all, the workers and peasants need freedom. They don't want to live by the decrees of the Bolsheviki; they want to control their own destinies. We demand the liberation of all arrested Socialists and non-partisan workingmen; abolition of martial law; freedom of speech, press, and assembly for all who labor; free election of shop and factory committees, of labor union and Soviet representatives.”
March I. — Many arrests are taking place. Groups of strikers surrounded by Tchekists, on their way to prison, are a common sight. Much indignation in the city. I hear that several unions have been liquidated and their active members turned over to the Tcheka. But proclamations continue to appear. The arbitrary stand of the authorities is having the effect of rousing reactionary tendencies. The situation is growing tense. Calls for the Utchredilka (Constituent Assembly) are being heard. A manifesto is circulating, signed by the “Socialist Workers of the Nevsky District,” openly attacking the Communist régime. “We know who is afraid of the Constituent Assembly,” it declares. “It is they who will no longer be able to rob us. Instead they will have to answer before the representatives of the people for their deceit, their thefts, and all their crimes.”
Zinoviev is alarmed; he has wired to Moscow for troops. The local garrison is said to be in sympathy with the strikers. Military from the provinces has been ordered to the city: special Communist regiments have already arrived. Extraordinary martial law has been declared today.
March 2. — Most disquieting reports. Large strikes have broken out in Moscow. In the Astoria I heard today that armed conflicts have taken place near the Kremlin and blood has been shed. The Bolsheviki claim the coincidence of events in the two capitals as proof of a counter-revolutionary conspiracy.
It is said that Kronstadt sailors have come to the city to look into the cause of trouble. Impossible to tell fact from fiction. The absence of a public press encourages the wildest rumors. The official papers are discredited.
March 3. — Kronstadt is disturbed. It disapproves of the Government's drastic methods against the dissatisfied workers. The men of the warship Petropavlovsk have passed a resolution of sympathy with the strikers.
It has become known today that on February 28 a committee of sailors was sent to this city to investigate the strike situation. Its report was unfavorable to the authorities. On March 1 the crews of the First and Second Squadrons of the Baltic Fleet called a public meeting at Yakorny Square. The gathering was attended by 16,000 sailors, Red Army men, and workers. The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Kronstadt Soviet, the Communist Vassiliev, presided. The audience was addressed by Kalinin, President of the Republic, and by Kuzmin, Commissar of the Baltic Fleet. The attitude of the sailors was entirely friendly to the Soviet Government, and Kalinin was met on his arrival in Kronstadt with military honors, music, and banners.
At the meeting the Petrograd situation and the report of the sailors' investigating committee were discussed. The audience was outspoken in its indignation at the means employed by Zinoviev against the workers. President Kalinin and Commissar Kusmin berated the strikers and denounced the Petropavlovsk Resolution as counter-revolutionary. The sailors emphasized their loyalty to the Soviet system, but condemned the Bolshevik bureaucracy. The resolution was passed.
March 4. — Great nervous tension in the city. The strikes continue; labor disorders have again taken place in Moscow. A wave of discontent is sweeping the country. Peasant uprisings are reported from Tambov, Siberia, the Ukraina, and Caucasus. The country is on the verge of desperation. It was confidently hoped that with the end of civil war the Communists would mitigate the severe military régime. The Government had announced its intention of economic reconstruction, and the people were eager to coöperate. They looked forward to the lightening of the heavy burdens, the abolition of war-time restrictions, and the introduction of elemental liberties.
The fronts are liquidated, but the old policies continue, and labor militarization is paralyzing industrial revival. It is openly charged that the Communist Party is more interested in entrenching its political power than in saving the Revolution.
An official manifesto appeared today. It is signed by Lenin and Trotsky and declares Kronstadt guilty of mutiny (myatezh). The demand of the sailors for free Soviets is denounced as “a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the proletarian Republic.” Members of the Communist Party are ordered into the mills and factories to “rally the workers to the support of the Government against the traitors.” Kronstadt is to be suppressed.
The Moscow radio station sent out a message addressed “to all, all, all”:
Petrograd is orderly and quiet, and even the few factories where accusations against the Soviet Government were recently voiced now understand that it is the work of provocators. . . . just at this moment, when in America a new Republican régime is assuming the reins of government and showing inclination to take up business relations with Soviet Russia, the spreading of lying rumors and the organization of disturbances in Kronstadt have the sole purpose of influencing the American President and changing his policy toward Russia. At the same time the London Conference is holding its sessions, and the spreading of similar rumors must influence also the Turkish delegation and make it more submissive to the demands of the Entente. The rebellion of the Petropavlovask crew is undoubtedly part of a great conspiracy to create trouble within Soviet Russia and to injure our international position. . . . This plan is being carried out within Russia by a Tsarist general and former officers, and their activities are supported by the Mensheviki and Social Revolutionists.
The whole Northern District is under martial law and all gatherings are interdicted. Elaborate precautions have been taken to protect the Government institutions. Machine guns are placed in the Astoria, the living quarters of Zinoviev and other prominent Bolsheviki. These preparations are increasing general nervousness. Official proclamations command the immediate return of the strikers to the factories, prohibit suspension of work, and warn the populace against congregating in the streets.
The Committee of Defense has initiated a “cleaning” of the city. Many workers suspected of sympathizing with Kronstadt have been placed under arrest. All Petrograd sailors and part of the garrison thought to be “untrustworthy” have been ordered to distant points, while the families of Kronstadt sailors living in Petrograd are held as hostages. The Committee of Defense notified Kronstadt that “the prisoners are kept as `pledges' for the safety of the Commissar of the Baltic Fleet, N. N. Kusmin, the Chairman of the Kronstadt Soviet, T. Vassiliev, and other Communists. If the least harm be suffered by our comrades, the hostages will pay with their lives.”
“We want no bloodshed,” Kronstadt wired in reply. “Not a single Communist has been harmed by us.”
The Petrograd workers are anxiously awaiting developments. They hope that the intercession of the sailors may turn the situation in their favor. The term of office of the Kronstadt Soviet is about to expire, and arrangements are being made for the coming elections.
On March 2 a conference of delegates took place, at which 300 representatives of the ships, the garrison, the labor unions and factories were present, among them also a number of Communists. The Conference approved the Resolution passed by the mass-meeting the previous day. Lenin and Trotsky have declaredit counter-revolutionary and proof of a White conspiracy.[24] (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alexander_Berkman__The_Bolshevik_Myth__Diary_1920-22_.html#fn24)

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL MEETING
OF THE CREWS OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND SQUADRONS OF THE
BALTIC FLEET
HELD MARCH 1, 1921
Having heard the report of the representatives sent by the General Meeting of Ship Crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there, Resolved:

In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, the pre-election campaign to have full freedom of agitation among the workers and peasants;
To establish freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, for Anarchists and Left Socialist parties;
To secure freedom of assembly for labor unions and peasant organizations;
To call a non-partisan Conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt, and of Petrograd Province, no later than March 19, 1921;
To liberate all political prisoners of Socialist parties, as well as all workers, peasants, soldiers, and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labor and peasant movements;
To elect a Commission to review the cases of those held in prison and concentration camps;
To abolish all politodeli (political bureaus) because no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the Government for such purposes. Instead there should be established educational and cultural commissions, locally elected and financed by the Government;
To abolish immediately all zagraditelniye otryadi (Armed units organized by the Bolsheviki for the purpose of suppressing traffic and confiscating foodstuffs and other products. The irresponsibility and arbitrariness of their methods were proverbial throughout the country).
To equalize the rations of all who work, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health;
To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the Army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in mills and factories. Should such guards or military detachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the Army from the ranks, and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers;
To give the peasants f ull f freedom of action in regard to their land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means; that is, without employing hired labor;
To request all branches of the Army, as well as our comrades, the military kursanti, to concur in our resolutions;
To demand for the latter publicity in the press;
To appoint a Traveling Commission of Control;
To permit free kustarnoye (individual small scale) production by one's own efforts.

Resolution passed unanimously by Brigade Meeting, two persons refraining from voting.
PETRICHENKO, Chairman Brigade Meeting.
PEREPELKIN, Secretary.
Resolution passed by an overwhelming majority of the Kronstadt garrison.
VASSILIEV, Chairman.
Kalinin and Vassiliev vote against the Resolution.
March 4. — Late at night. The extraordinary session of the Petro-Soviet in the Tauride Palace was packed with Communists, mostly youngsters, fanatical and intolerant. Admission by special ticket; a propusk (permit) also had to be secured to return home after interdicted hours. Representatives of shops and labor committees were in the galleries, the seats in the main body having been occupied by Communists. Some factory delegates were given the floor, but the moment they attempted to state their case, they were shouted down. Zinoviev repeatedly urged the meeting to give the opposition an opportunity to be heard, but his appeal lacked energy and conviction.
Not a voice was raised in favor of the Constituent Assembly. A millworker pleaded with the Government to consider the complaints of the workers who are cold and hungry. Zinoviev replied that the strikers are enemies of the Soviet régime. Kalinin declared Kronstadt the headquarters, of General Kozlovsky's plot. A sailor reminded Zinoviev of the time when he and Lenin were hunted as counter-revolutionists by Kerensky and were saved by the very sailors whom they now denounce as traitors. Kronstadt demands only honest elections, he declared. He was not allowed to proceed. The stentorian voice and impassioned appeal of Yevdakimov, Zinoviev's lieutenant, wrought the Communists up to a high pitch of excitement. His resolution was passed amid a tumult of protest from the non-partisan delegates and labor men. The resolution declared Kronstadt guilty of a counter-revolutionary attempt against the Soviet régime and demands its immediate surrender. It is a declaration of war.
March 5. — Many Bolsheviki refuse to believe that the Soviet resolution will be carried out. It were too monstrous a thing to attack by force of arms the “pride and glory of the Russian Revolution,” as Trotsky christened the Kronstadt sailors. In the circle of their friends many Communists threaten to resign from the Party should such a bloody deed come to pass.
Trotsky was to address the Petro-Soviet last evening. His failure to appear was interpreted as indicating that the seriousness of the situation has been exaggerated. But during the night he arrived and today he issued an ultimatum to Kronstadt:

The Workers' and Peasants' Government has decreed that Kronstadt and the rebellious ships must immediately submit to the authority of the Soviet Republic. Therefore, I command all who have raised their hand against the Socialist fatherland to lay down their arms at once. The obdurate are to be disarmed and turned over to the Soviet authorities. The arrested Commissars and other representatives of the Government are to be liberated at once. Only those surrendering unconditionally may count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic.
Simultaneously I am issuing orders to prepare to quell the mutiny and subdue the mutineers by force of arms. Responsibility for the harm that may be suffered by the peaceful population will fall entirely upon the heads of the counterrevolutionary mutineers.
This warning is final.
TROTSKY,
Chairman Revolutionary Mititary Soviet of the Republic.
KAMENEV,
Commander-in-Chief.
The city is on the verge of panic. The factories are closed, and there are rumors of demonstrations and riots. Threats against Jews are becoming audible. Military forces continue to flow into Petrograd and environs. Trotsky has sent another demand to Kronstadt to surrender, the order containing the threat: “I'll shoot you like pheasants.” Even some Communists are indignant at the tone assumed by the Government. It is a fatal error, they say, to interpret the workers' plea for bread as opposition. Kronstadt's sympathy with the strikers and their demand for honest elections have been turned by Zinoviev into a counter-revolutionary plot. I have talked the situation over with several friends, among them a number of Communists. We feel there is yet time to save the situation. A commission in which the sailors and workers would have confidence, could allay the roused passions and find a satisfactory solution of the pressing problems. It is incredible that a comparatively unimportant incident, as the original strike in the Trubotchny mill, should be deliberately provoked into civil war with all the bloodshed it entails.
The Communists with whom I have discussed the suggestion all favor it, but dare not take the initiative. No one believes in the Kozlovsky story. All agree that the sailors are the staunchest supporters of the Soviets; their object is to compel the authorities to grant needed reforms. To a certain degree they have already succeeded. The zagraditelniye otryadi, notoriously brutal and arbitrary, have been abolished in the Petrograd province, and certain labor organizations have been given permission to send representatives to the villages for the purchase of food. During the last two days special rations and clothing have also been issued to several factories. The Government fears a general uprising. Petrograd is now in an “extraordinary state of siege”; being out of doors is permitted only till nine in the evening. But the city is quiet. I expect no serious upheaval if the authorities can be prevailed upon to take a more reasonable and just course. In the hope of opening the road to a peaceful solution, I have submitted to Zinoviev a plan of arbitration signed by persons friendly to the Bolsheviki:

To the Petrograd Soviet of Labor and Defense,
CHAIRMAN ZINOVIEV:
To remain silent now is impossible, even criminal. Recent events impel us Anarchists to speak out and to declare our attitude in the present situation.
The spirit of ferment manifest among the workers and sailors is the result of causes that demand our serious attention. Cold and hunger had produced discontent, and the absence of any opportunity for discussion and criticism is forcing the workers and sailors to air their grievances in the open.
White-guardist bands wish and may try to exploit this dissatisfaction in their own class interests. Hiding behind the workers and sailors they throw out slogans of the Constituent Assembly, of free trade, and similar demands.
We Anarchists have long exposed the fiction of these slogans, and we declare to the whole world that we will fight with arms against any counter-revolutionary attempt, in coöperation with all friends of the Social Revolution and hand in hand with the Bolsheviki.
Concerning the conflict between the Soviet Government and the workers and sailors, we hold that it must be settled not by force of arms, but by means of comradely agreement. Resorting to bloodshed, on the part of the Soviet Government, will not — in the given situation — intimidate or quieten the workers. On the contrary, it will serve only to aggravate matters and will strengthen the hands of the Entente and of internal counter-revolution.
More important still, the use of force by the Workers' and Peasants' Government against workers and sailors will have a demoralizing effect upon the international revolutionary movement and will result in incalculable harm to the Social Revolution.
Comrades Bolsheviki, bethink yourselves before it is too late! Do not play with fire: you are about to take a most serious and decisive step.
We hereby submit to you the following proposition: Let a Commission be selected to consist of five persons, inclusive of two Anarchists. The Commission is to go to Kronstadt to settle the dispute by peaceful means. In the given situation this is the most radical method. It will be of international revolutionary significance.
ALEXANDER BERKMAN
EMMA GOLDMAN
PERKUS
PETROVSKY
Petrograd, March 5, J921.
March 6. — Today Kronstadt sent out by radio, A statement of its position. It reads:

Our cause is just, we stand for the power of Soviets, not parties. We stand for freely elected representatives of the laboring masses. The substitute Soviets manipulated by the Communist Party have always been deaf to our needs and demands; the only reply we have ever received was shooting. . . . Comrades! They deliberately pervert the truth and resort to most despicable defamation. . . . In Kronstadt the whole power is exclusively in the hands of the revolutionary sailors, soldiers and workers — not with counter-revolutionists led by some Kozlovsky, as the lying Moscow radio tries to make you believe. . . . Do not delay, Comrades! join us, get in touch with us: demand admission to Kronstadt for your delegates. Only they will tell you the whole truth and will expose the fiendish calumny about Finnish bread and Entente offers.
Long live the revolutionary proletariat and the peasantry!
Long live the power of freely elected Soviets.
March 7. — Distant rumbling reaches my ears as cross the Nevsky. It sounds again, stronger and nearer, as if rolling toward me. All at once I realize that artillery is being fired. It is 6 P.M. Kronstadt has been attacked!
Days of anguish and cannonading. My heart is numb with despair; something has died within me. The people on the streets look bowed with grief, bewildered. No one: trusts himself to speak. The thunder of heavy guns rends the air.
March 17. — Kronstadt has fallen today.
Thousands of sailors and workers lie dead in its streets. Summary execution of prisoners and hostages continues.
March 18. — The victors are celebrating the anniversary of the Commune of 1871. Trotsky and Zinoviev denounce Thiers and Gallifet for the slaughter of the Paris rebels. . . .

ContrarianLemming

10th July 2010, 19:00

debate closed?

Zanthorus

10th July 2010, 19:20

I get that the putting down of the Kronstadt revolt was terrible but in reality what would have happened if the Bolsheviks had tried to implement their demands? I remember that at one point Lenin himself was entertaining the possibility of making the Soviets proper instruments of working-class rule instead of useless shells but he quickly abandoned the idea simply because the bureaucracy was already too large.

From the ICT's article on the events of 1921 (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2001-08-01/1921-beginning-of-the-counter-revolution):

...in 1921 itself, at the Tenth Party Congress:

"For a brief moment Lenin flirted with the idea of effecting a separation between Party and state. He briefly urged a clear specification and demarcation of the respective spheres of each and proposed that the organs of the state be given much greater autonomy and freedom from Party interference."

Harding later tells us that Lenin recognised “almost instantly” that his proposal would not work. But this was because the situation in 1921 made it impossible to re-write the past. The Bolsheviks could not abandon state power because the soviets were already empty shells.

Simply put there were no other options in Russia at the time besides the degeneration of the revolution in the face of the failure of the world revolution.

So really, what would the granting of the Kronstadter's demands done to change the course of the revolution in concrete terms?

infraxotl

10th July 2010, 19:25

the Communists received undue advantage over the non-partisans.

This is where I stopped pretending to read lol. If that wall of text is a whiny screed about how revolutionaries were not nice to counter-revolutionaries I'm glad I never planned on reading it.

IllicitPopsicle

10th July 2010, 22:34

This is where I stopped pretending to read lol. If that wall of text is a whiny screed about how revolutionaries were not nice to counter-revolutionaries I'm glad I never planned on reading it.

Now now, let's not take things out of context.

The Trubotchny millworkers have gone on strike. In the distribution of winter clothing, they complain, the Communists received undue advantage over the non-partisans. The Government refuses to consider the grievances till the men return to work

The book from which I took this "wall of text" (yes, it's the entire chapter he did on Kronstadt) is not written by some right winger. Berkman was deported from the United States for being an Anarchist; on top of that, he wanted to help the Soviet Union.

Chapter 2: On Soviet Soil

January 20, 192O. — Late in the afternoon yesterday we touched the soil of Soviet Russia.
Driven out from the United States like criminals, we were received at Belo-Ostrov with open arms. The revolutionary hymn, played by the military Red Band, greeted us as we crossed the frontier. The hurrahs of the red-capped soldiers, mixed with the cheers of the deportees, echoed through the woods, rolling into the distance like a challenge of joy and defiance. With bared head I stood in the presence of the visible symbols of the Revolution Triumphant.
A feeling of solemnity, of awe overwhelmed me. Thus my pious old forefathers must have felt on first entering the Holy of Holies. A strong desire was upon me to kneel down and kiss the ground — the ground consecrated by the life-blood of generations of suffering and martyrdom, consecrated anew by the revolutionists of my own day. Never before, not even at the first caress of freedom on that glorious May day, 1906 — after fourteen years in the Pennsylvania prison — had I been stirred so profoundly. I longed to embrace humanity, to lay my heart at its feet, to give my life a thousand times to the service of the Social Revolution.
It was the most sublime day of my life.

Additionally, Berkman wrote a more "formal" report concerning the Kronstadt Rebellion. Rather than post it in its entirety here, I'll merely link to it.

Clicky (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alexander_Berkman__The_Kronstadt_Rebellion.html)

I. Labor Disturbances in Petrograd

It was early in 1921. Long years of war, revolution, and civil struggle had bled Russia to exhaustion and brought her people to the brink of despair. But at last civil war was at an end: the numerous fronts were liquidated, and Wrangel — the last hope of Entente intervention and Russian counter-revolution — was defeated and his military activities within Russia terminated. The people now confidently looked forward to the mitigation of the severe Bolshevik régime. It was expected that with the end of civil war the Communists would lighten the burdens, abolish war-time restrictions, introduce some fundamental liberties, and begin the organisation of a more normal life. Though far from being popular the Bolshevik Government had the support of the workers in its oft announced plan of taking up the economic reconstruction of the country as soon as military operations should cease. The people were eager to coöperate, to put their initiative and creative efforts to the reconstruction of the ruined land.

So no, this isn't about "revolutionaries" not being nice to "counter-revolutionaries." But good try.

infraxotl

10th July 2010, 23:46

Like Trotsky wanted to help the USSR. Being wrong is counter-revolutionary, regardless of the direction you're coming from.

The Red Next Door

11th July 2010, 00:13

bailey_187

11th July 2010, 00:25

Lenin hated the bureaucracy, whilst Stalin supposedly encouraged it.

‘…there should not be left in the country a single official, no matter how highly placed, concerning whom the ordinary man might say: he is above the law’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p.212)

‘We must make a sharp turn towards combating the new chauvinist sentiments and pillory those bureaucrats in our institutions and those party comrades who forgetting what we gained in October, namely the confidence of the formerly oppressed people, a confidence that we must cherish’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p. 252)

‘…a resolute struggle against bureaucracy in the direction of enlisting the broad masses of the working class in this struggle’. (J. V. Stalin: Works. 7; pp. 349-501)

‘Bureaucracy, is one of the worst enemies of our progress’. (J. V. Stalin: Speech Delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, May 16, 1927,)

bailey_187

11th July 2010, 00:27

This^ is no better then holocaust denial, fuck you.

So apparently Yale Univeristy Press are printing books as bad as Holocaust Denial books :confused: Ok then...

Barry Lyndon

11th July 2010, 01:47

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 02:14

Trotsky, the founder of the Red Army

This kind of bullshit should get people restricted from posting in the "Learning" forum.

And to think you'd say this immediately after slandering "Stalinists" for making Stalin out to be more important than Lenin.

11th July 2010, 02:52

Like Trotsky wanted to help the USSR. Being wrong is counter-revolutionary, regardless of the direction you're coming from.
Being wrong is counter-revolutionary? What the hell?

‘…there should not be left in the country a single official, no matter how highly placed, concerning whom the ordinary man might say: he is above the law’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p.212)

‘We must make a sharp turn towards combating the new chauvinist sentiments and pillory those bureaucrats in our institutions and those party comrades who forgetting what we gained in October, namely the confidence of the formerly oppressed people, a confidence that we must cherish’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p. 252)

‘…a resolute struggle against bureaucracy in the direction of enlisting the broad masses of the working class in this struggle’. (J. V. Stalin: Works. 7; pp. 349-501)

‘Bureaucracy, is one of the worst enemies of our progress’. (J. V. Stalin: Speech Delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, May 16, 1927,)
Hmm, thanks for this. I was a little sceptical about the validity of the original claim in a thread long ago.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 03:42

Like Trotsky wanted to help the USSR. Being wrong is counter-revolutionary, regardless of the direction you're coming from.

LOL @ you.

So then, who is wrong in your eyes? List the tendencies you believe to be wrong and we'll see how many forum members are "counter-revolutionary." :laugh:

InuyashaKnight

11th July 2010, 03:52

No i don't think so.

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 04:36

LOL @ you.

So then, who is wrong in your eyes? List the tendencies you believe to be wrong and we'll see how many forum members are "counter-revolutionary." :laugh:

If you don't have the right tactics/strategies, it doesn't matter what your intentions are. If you're anti-Stalin, you're wrong, therefore your opinion is counter-revolutionary.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 04:46

Haha. Troll.

11th July 2010, 05:10

If you're anti-Stalin, you're wrong, therefore your opinion is counter-revolutionary.
Your idiocy deserves a place in my sig.

Barry Lyndon

11th July 2010, 05:12

If you don't have the right tactics/strategies, it doesn't matter what your intentions are. If you're anti-Stalin, you're wrong, therefore your opinion is counter-revolutionary.

Therefore confirming my contention that your a cultist. Hinging your politics on the evaluation of a single individual is never a good idea, and it is utterly un-Marxist.

Barry Lyndon

11th July 2010, 05:25

As a Marxist, I credit the positive things that the Soviet Union did accomplish- great strides in women's rights, the elimination of illiteracy and homelessness, the construction of healthcare for all, the destruction of czarist feudalism and the defeat of the Nazi war machine as the accomplishments of millions of Soviet workers and peasants, ordinary men and women.
You credit it to an all-knowing, all-seeing semi-divine Great Leader. That just about says it all about your politics.

11th July 2010, 05:33

You credit it to an all-knowing, all-seeing semi-divine Great Leader.
Don't you know Stalin single-handedly fought off the Nazis and industrialised the Soviet Union at the same time?

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 05:35

Consequently, Che liberated Cuba all by himself. :rolleyes:

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 06:57

Your idiocy deserves a place in my sig.

It's an oasis in the desert of your bad posts, all of revleft should thank me. http://i31.tinypic.com/2unwp6b.gif

Therefore confirming my contention that your a cultist. Hinging your politics on the evaluation of a single individual is never a good idea, and it is utterly un-Marxist.

I don't, but it's sufficient for this thread because all three of you are anti-stalinists and therefore, enemies of the people.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:04

Kool story, mein trollischer.

11th July 2010, 07:06

It's an oasis in the desert of your bad posts, all of revleft should thank me. http://i31.tinypic.com/2unwp6b.gif

I don't, but it's sufficient for this thread because all three of you are anti-stalinists and therefore, enemies of the people.
Lay down on the dogmatism.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:09

No no, don't tell him to stop! This is entertaining! I thought all the Stalinists either died with the fall of the Soviet Union or turned into supercapitalist Oligarchs. It's fascinating to see one in its original state!

Burn A Flag

11th July 2010, 07:11

Revolution is not an Abbie. H demonstration at the pentagon, tea party or etc, It a hot bloody mess and imperialist and fascist have been more murderess and genocidal as communists. the only person who is an example of a murdering communist who wasn't really a communist but a CIA stooge, Pol Pot.:D

You know, I heard that before, but I could never find a source. Does anyone have a decent source about Pol Pot's ties to the US?

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:14

That is rather interesting. ^^

11th July 2010, 07:16

You know, I heard that before, but I could never find a source. Does anyone have a decent source about Pol Pot's ties to the US?
I didn't read through much of it, but it's a decent source... maybe.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

Blackscare

11th July 2010, 07:19

Everyone on revleft should read the ED entry on trolling revleft so they don't get had so damn easily.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Forum_Trolling#RevLeft

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:31

Ooh the flat earth society... I may troll my way on over there....

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:36

Lmao
* * I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it. *From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world. *For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one. *Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other. *Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

** When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning. *Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics. *An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is * 1 + 1 * it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2. *This of course works. *For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present. *And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2 * You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

** There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2. *If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens. *When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop. *According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop. *Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together. *What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

**
** Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand. *If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates. *The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics. *What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct. *You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon. *Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere. *Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint. *Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

** *This is more valid today than of days past. *The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense. *From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.

"Fucking magnets, how do they work?"

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 07:37

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:44

5... 4... 3... 2...

11th July 2010, 07:49

"Trolling"? "Encyclopediadramatica"? Once again I am not surprised when all the individuals with incorrect politics are white middle class children.

Countdown until I get banned by one of the all-white mod team for "reverse racism".
No, rather you should feel shame in the lack of validity in your argument that we are all white, middle-class children.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 07:53

It is funny, though, that this discussion was racially ambiguous until he brought race up. Potentially polarizing strawman? I think so.

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 08:00

chegitz guevara

11th July 2010, 08:01

Don't you know Stalin single-handedly fought off the Nazis and industrialised the Soviet Union at the same time?

DOn't forget the alien invasion where 50' Stalin defeated the Martians.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 08:05

I'm not versed in the useless ways of arguing about fallacies, but I'm pretty sure posts 43-46 are strawmen, and mine is a perfectly valid point about how I've never heard of any working class man or woman talk about going home after a long day at work to post trolls and update their favorite "encyclopediadramatica" entries.

Only a troll would feign ignorance of trolling. Seriously, even the tea partiers know what trolls are, and they're the dumbest people on the Internet!

11th July 2010, 08:22

I'm not versed in the useless ways of arguing about fallacies, but I'm pretty sure posts 43-46 are strawmen, and mine is a perfectly valid point about how I've never heard of any working class man or woman talk about going home after a long day at work to post trolls and update their favorite "encyclopediadramatica" entries.
Since when was trolling an accurate class analysis?

Zeus the Moose

11th July 2010, 08:31

DOn't forget the alien invasion where 50' Stalin defeated the Martians.

Fifty years later, this momentous event was commemorated in video-game form: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_lZabYCwPY

Wanted Man

11th July 2010, 10:20

Shokaract

11th July 2010, 12:29

In after Godwin's law.
Defending the Soviet Union is like defending Nazi Germany.
Stalin murdered more people than Hitler.
Communism is worse than Nazism.

lolwut.

Thirsty Crow

11th July 2010, 14:43

If you don't have the right tactics/strategies, it doesn't matter what your intentions are. If you're anti-Stalin, you're wrong, therefore your opinion is counter-revolutionary.
This kind of dogmatic bullshit really exposes stalinoid dumbfucks for what they really are.

IllicitPopsicle

11th July 2010, 15:51

Infraxotl is a troll, people.

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 16:53

This kind of dogmatic bullshit really exposes stalinoid dumbfucks for what they really are.

Asserting that your overall opinion of an important (much more so than any anarchist/trotskyist/left-communist ever) "controversial" (only if you're retarded) historical figure's actions is a good starting point for determining if you're counter-revolutionary is hardly dogmatic.

Barry Lyndon

11th July 2010, 16:56

Umm, whatever you say, sir. When in doubt, just make up random bullshit!

Do you actually have anything to say, besides a snooty one-liner? I didn't think so.

Fietsketting

11th July 2010, 17:06

Stalinoid, sounds like some sort of hostile alien. :laugh:

danyboy27

11th July 2010, 17:25

its useless to calculate the number of death, officially russia agreed on the official count of 3 million, but that dosnt include all the collateral damage including mass deportation, ''accidental'' death in NKVD and CHEKA prison, intimidation, etc etc etc.

We could play the blame game for eternity, but what we(including the leninist i guess) should be doing is to do whatever it take to NOT do the same mistake Lenin did.

bie

11th July 2010, 17:38

Getty's figures uncritically parrot the estimates of the NKVD. The problem is that when the NKVD tortured a suspect to death they listed it as a 'death in custody', not an execution, if they recorded it at all. This figure leaves out the huge numbers of people who died as a result of the deportations of ethnic minorities 1941-49, even if we presume that none of the famine deaths 1932-33 were Stalin's fault.

I also fail to see how this is a rehabilitation of Stalin's regime in any case, that his regime killed 'only' 800,000 people.
The number of 786 098 condemned to the capital punishment by soviet high courts from 1917-1991 (not by Stalin, as some non-educated members of this forum insist) was given to the public by the KGB in Feb 1990, based on one document only. Knowing that many significant documents about the history of the Soviet Union (eg "Beria's letter") were falsified during 1989-1996 by the team of professionals in the village of Nagornoye and from 1996 in the village of Zaretye (Russian Federation), the authenticity of the information has yet to be verified. Especially, that they are number of alternative statements about the total no. of convicts. For example according to Dimitri Volkogonov, the person appointed by Yeltsin to take charge of the old Soviet archives, there were 30,514 persons condemned to death by military tribunals between 1 October 1936 and 30 September 1938, that contradicts the former estimate. And only a fraction of the executions were actually carried on, in most cases they were changed for the less severe type of the punishment. Having that in mind it is also worth to remind that the overwhelming majority of convicts were dangerous criminals, murderers, mass rapers etc. As during the thirties, less than 20% of the all convicts were charged as counterrevolutionaries the remaining 80% were just ordinary criminals, as in any other state. Therefore it is not really justified to classify them as "victims of communism", as some of rightists and antistalinists do.

The Russian anticommunist association, "Memorial" made a list of the all citizens who were mistreated due to the "political reasons" in the period of 1917-1991, who in huge majority were rehabilitated (as they were all considered innocent a priori), even when most of them were actually criminals. On that list there are around 1 mln people. Most of them were convicted for short sentence in prison (3-5 years) It was proved that some names are put there twice or more. Also - there are people who were Nazi collaborators during the II WW.

It is also good to have in mind that during the worst "stalinist" times in the Soviet penal system were less people (2% of the total population) than is today in USA (7%).

Therefore I recommend to be more critical and intellectually independent and to NOT ACCEPT the information, which is just nothing else that the anticommunist propaganda (even if it spread by "leftists" as eg. "Barry Lyndon" - who are usually trotskyists or former trotskyists). It is very important to realize that this propaganda works in the interest of the narrow circles of the bourgeoisie.

danyboy27

11th July 2010, 17:46

The number of 786 098 condemned to the capital punishment by soviet high courts from 1917-1991 (not by Stalin, as some non-educated members of this forum insist) was given to the public by the KGB in Feb 1990, based on one document only. Knowing that many significant documents about the history of the Soviet Union (eg "Beria's letter") were falsified during 1989-1996 by the team of professionals in the village of Nagornoye and from 1996 in the village of Zaretye (Russian Federation), the authenticity of the information has yet to be verified. Especially, that they are number of alternative statements about the total no. of convicts. For example according to Dimitri Volkogonov, the person appointed by Yeltsin to take charge of the old Soviet archives, there were 30,514 persons condemned to death by military tribunals between 1 October 1936 and 30 September 1938, that contradicts the former estimate. And only a fraction of the executions were actually carried on, in most cases they were changed for the less severe type of the punishment. Having that in mind it is also worth to remind that the overwhelming majority of convicts were dangerous criminals, murderers, mass rapers etc. As during the thirties, less than 20% of the all convicts were charged as counterrevolutionaries the remaining 80% were just ordinary criminals, as in any other state. Therefore it is not really justified to classify them as "victims of communism", as some of rightists and antistalinists do.

The Russian anticommunist association, "Memorial" made a list of the all citizens who were mistreated due to the "political reasons" in the period of 1917-1991, who in huge majority were rehabilitated (as they were all considered innocent a priori), even when most of them were actually criminals. On that list there are around 1 mln people. Most of them were convicted for short sentence in prison (3-5 years) It was proved that some names are put there twice or more. Also - there are people who were Nazi collaborators during the II WW.

It is also good to have in mind that during the worst "stalinist" times in the Soviet penal system were less people (2% of the total population) than is today in USA (7%).

Therefore I recommend to be more critical and intellectually independent and to NOT ACCEPT the information, which is just nothing else that the anticommunist propaganda (even if it spread by "leftists" as eg. "Barry Lyndon" - who are usually trotskyists or former trotskyists). It is very important to realize that this propaganda works in the interest of the narrow circles of the bourgeoisie.
who is declaring that there was falsification? i am just curious of your sources.

bie

11th July 2010, 17:57

who is declaring that there was falsification? i am just curious of your sources.
The most prominent person is comrade Victor Ilyukhin, the member of Russian Duma from KPRF. Last month he delivered an important public speech about that in Duma (unfortunately is in Russian) - it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGr7eNmyPMY&feature=player_embedded

What is important here that he presented not only the stamps, that were used for the falsifications, but also the blank papers with inscriptions "top secret" that were the used by falsifiers. Therefore there is a significant material evidence. Nikita Petrov, from the fierce anticommunist organization "Memorial" said that it was "probably is about a falsification amateur who has made himself some money on his forgeries" (that, of course cannot be the case). What is important here than even anticommunists have to agree that the evidence prove that the falsification took place. The whole case was revealed during the independent investigation on the Katyn case, carried on, among the others by the international project "truth about Katyn".

Wanted Man

11th July 2010, 19:17

Do you actually have anything to say, besides a snooty one-liner? I didn't think so.

Well, what is there to add? You basically wasted your time writing a page full of bullshit. One could also write an entire paragraph about how, "To agree with Barry Lyndon on Stalin, you have to sincerely believe in eating babies and kicking puppies, and you have to believe that socialism cannot work." It's all a bunch of strawman bullshit that's impossible to refute, because there aren't any facts to engage with. It's just Glenn Beck-style partisan rambling that is aimed at the dumbest readers who already agree with you anyway.

danyboy27

11th July 2010, 20:05

The most prominent person is comrade Victor Ilyukhin, the member of Russian Duma from KPRF. Last month he delivered an important public speech about that in Duma (unfortunately is in Russian) - it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGr7eNmyPMY&feature=player_embedded

What is important here that he presented not only the stamps, that were used for the falsifications, but also the blank papers with inscriptions "top secret" that were the used by falsifiers. Therefore there is a significant material evidence. Nikita Petrov, from the fierce anticommunist organization "Memorial" said that it was "probably is about a falsification amateur who has made himself some money on his forgeries" (that, of course cannot be the case). What is important here than even anticommunists have to agree that the evidence prove that the falsification took place. The whole case was revealed during the independent investigation on the Katyn case, carried on, among the others by the international project "truth about Katyn".
a guy who tried to ban homosexuality in russia, twice.

and you want me to believe this guy????

Cyberwave

11th July 2010, 20:29

To even put Lenin the same sentence with Stalin is insulting. Stalinists are defined by their fanatical worship of Stalin at all costs, even willing to belittle Lenin in order to make Stalin look better. Why? Because in order to admire Stalin, you have to sincerely believe that Trotsky, the founder of the Red Army who saved the Russian Revolution from destruction in the civil war, was a traitor. By extension, you'd have to believe that Lenin was an idiot for putting Trotsky in such an important position. You also have to believe that virtually every other major figure in the Russian Revolution besides Stalin was a traitor or counter-revolutionary of some sort, because Stalin had them all killed. Basically to Stalinists, Stalin was the only true communist, in fact the personal embodiment of communism itself, so to attack him and his policies is 'anti-communist', 'bourgeois', 'liberal', etc.

And then, after ripping every tenet of Marxism and Leninism to pieces in order to accommodate their Stalin-worship, the Stalinists deny that any such thing as 'Stalinism' exists.

Since when have we belittled Lenin to make Stalin look better? At most we have tried to show that if anything it was Stalin who truly modernized Russia and truly brought about changes, but Lenin put down the very foundations necessary to build a socialistic country as well as the theoretical stances that were required, and was furthermore a dedicated revolutionary. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha were true Marxists, so obviously we don't dismiss everybody else; given you probably don't even know who Hoxha is considering your fallacious claim. And regardless it's not as if we don't criticize these people; it is moreover the Trotskyists who fail to criticize Trotsky for example. But generally speaking, whether or not one is a "counter-revolutionary" is not set in stone, and overtime their positions can change. It was only logical that people within the Party would become this way and it is naive to think that Stalin knew everyone was a counter-revolutionary or was always on a purging spree. He couldn't guess that Khrushchev was a revisionist after all...

If someone likes to make the "Lenin [and Trotsky] was a true communist but then Stalin messed everything up" claim, which is what you're basically doing, then they would be completely ignorant of Lenin's own views of Trotsky when on numerous occasions he asserted Trotsky was swine, a careerist, childish liberal, factionalist, sectarian, opportunist, and so the list goes on. Trotsky and Lenin were pitted against each other on numerous occasions, as were the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Need I mention the August Bloc and the hatred of Trotsky that ensued?

"We need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail .... I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better comrade than Comrade Stalin." (Lenin, Closing Speech on the Political Report of the Central Committee of the R.C.P.(B.). (28 March 1922). Works, vol. 33, p. 315.)

"On April 23, 1922, on Lenin's suggestion, Stalin was also appointed to head the secretariat, as General Secretary." (Stalin: Man of History, by Ian Grey, p. 159.)

Since when did Trotsky form the Red Army? The decision to create the Red Army came from a council comprised of numerous people, Trotsky having no more or less say in the matter inherently. You ignore Stalin's contribution to the Red Army especially when he was largely responsible for victories against the White Army. Stalin was furthermore leader of Red Army military struggle between 1918 and 1920. In 1919, Lenin and the Central Committee put Stalin in a more positive light than Trotsky when it came to organization of the Reds, and Trotsky simply was furious that the spotlight wasn't on him. While Stalin may have played a lesser role in organization overall (though still generally equal to Trotsky in that skill) his role in the Red Army proved more crucial than Trotsky.

"Trotsky's outrageous individualism, his open disdain for Bolshevik cadres, his authoritarian style of leadership and his taste for military discipline frightened many Party cadres. They thought that Trotsky could well play the rôle of a Napoléon Bonaparte, effecting a coup d'état and setting up a counter-revolutionary authoritarian régime." (Ludo Martens)

Stalinism doesn't exist and it won't exist. It is merely Marxism-Leninism; all Stalin did was expand upon Marx and Lenin's works. Where in his theoretical work did he call for totalitarianism? He would have rejected the label of "Stalinism" himself anyway.

NecroCommie

11th July 2010, 20:40

What a bore. All this conversation about who killed who is ultimately irrelevant. In the end both anarchists and leninists agree that the revolution should not end up killing civilians, and that it would end up with (potential) party being entirely separated from the communities/soviets.

No matter who killed who, the russian revolution degenerated due to international intervention, and lack of international support. The backwardness of russia can also be blamed. It is amazing how communists talk of Lenin as if he was some omnipotent mage that simply decided things to be. It is ridiculous to claim that he saw deaths as desirable. When we remember that his actions were highly influenced by the situation of russia, it is much easier to understand how little options he had.

Also, as part of him not being omnipotent, it must be understood that Lenin had the consent of party bureucracy, a vast majority of party members, and I dare say majority of russians. Blaming everything on Lenin is counterproductive. We have little to condemn him of, and a lot we can learn from his actions.

Pavlov's House Party

11th July 2010, 21:05

infraxotl

11th July 2010, 21:19

No matter who killed who, the russian revolution degenerated due to international intervention, and lack of international support. The backwardness of russia can also be blamed. It is amazing how communists talk of Lenin as if he was some omnipotent mage that simply decided things to be. It is ridiculous to claim that he saw deaths as desirable. When we remember that his actions were highly influenced by the situation of russia, it is much easier to understand how little options he had.

Also, as part of him not being omnipotent, it must be understood that Lenin had the consent of party bureucracy, a vast majority of party members, and I dare say majority of russians. Blaming everything on Lenin is counterproductive. We have little to condemn him of, and a lot we can learn from his actions.

The same can be said for Stalin.

Cyberwave

11th July 2010, 21:41

Lenin actually contributed a lot to Marxist theory, whereas Stalin's only contribution was the idea of "socialism in one country" and his insistence on the "two stage theory", which has only led to degenerated worker's states and the sell outs of dozens of revolutions in the third world.

Stalin not only formulated socialism in one country and the two stage theory, but the theory of aggravation of class struggle under socialism as well. Stalin's theories attempt to show that Marxism-Leninism is the proper, scientific ideology to follow. Stalin correctly defended and built upon Leninism and produced it's true meanings even further, exposing the attempts made by Trotskyists to substitute Leninism for their own ideology. The following works by Stalin demonstrate his theoretical abilities quite well, and prove that he did in fact contribute to Marxism.

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html)
The Foundations of Leninism. (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html)
The Fight Against The Right and Ultra-Left. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/ecci-speech.htm)
Marxism Versus Liberalism. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm)
Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)
The National Question, which was praised by Lenin. (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html)
Anarchism or Socialism? (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

On the other hand, Trotsky merely distorted Bolshevism because he was never able to comprehend it. Trotskyists then continually try and claim their positions are the "true Leninist" ones, and they exhibit their inherent lack of historical and theoretical knowledge. Trotsky was essentially arguing for "classical Marxism" in some senses, which would have been impossible for Russia at the time. His contributions were mainly of permanent revolution, which had already been put forward as early as Marx. Therefore, he didn't necessarily contribute that much himself.

bie

11th July 2010, 22:40

a guy who tried to ban homosexuality in russia, twice.

and you want me to believe this guy????
It is not the matter of belief - we don't talk about religion here. The forensic laboratory in Moscow of Dr Molokov has proved that the "Beria's Letter" was written on 2 different typewriters, where one was never used to write any other NKVD document. There were found more than 50 signs of the falsification. The one of the team of falsifiers had testified and provided the investigators with material evidence: with stamps and paper. As we see there are very solid evidence. It is not the matter of who you believe or not.

automattick

11th July 2010, 23:07

Was Lenin as bad as Stalin? To be honest, no--but that doesn't excuse him for his actions post-1917.

Much of Lenin's writings pre-1917 were seen as quite "libertarian" (note: not libertarian as in the American sense of the word), and even the anarchists signed on to the April Theses. Once the Civil War starts you start to see many authoritarian tendencies arise, especially with Trotsky, who ironically becomes the left-leaning Bolshevik when Stalin rises to power.

The general attitude toward Lenin as a "bad guy" comes from the hierarchical structure of the new Soviet state. Having inaugurated democratic centralism, the power the soviets once had began to rapidly diminish, and party discipline becomes more important than class interests. I don't know why Trotskyists don't start their analysis with Lenin (probably out of deference, more than anything), yet we begin to see an emerging bureaucracy and cult of personality surrounding Lenin. Stalin simply saw an opportunity and took a process already underway and perverted it as he saw fit.

That's a very basic overview, I'm sure other left communists and anarchists would be able to go into more detail.

Adil3tr

11th July 2010, 23:35

My defense is generally that he killed as an act of war, which makes him no worse than Johnson or Truman or even Washington.

Will someone please tell me the truth about Lenin's so-called "atrocities"? Was he a bloodthirsty tyrant? Was he as bad as Stalin?

Not Quite. He was fighting against incredible odds against the white army and 14 foreign invading armies. The white army killed 100,000 jews, as well as hundreds of thousands of workers. The highest estimated for the checka executions is 50,000, and surly many of these were justified. White army terrorists shot him three times, almost killed Trotsky, and killed the head of the checka. "Act of War" implies he was on the offensive, which was not the case. He didn't declare war on the whites, they attacked him. What would you have him do?

danyboy27

12th July 2010, 11:53

It is not the matter of belief - we don't talk about religion here. The forensic laboratory in Moscow of Dr Malenkov has proved that the "Beria's Letter" was written on 2 different typewriters, where one was never used to write any other NKVD document. There were found more than 50 signs of the falsification. The one of the team of falsifiers had testified and provided the investigators with material evidence: with stamps and paper. As we see there are very solid evidence. It is not the matter of who you believe or not.

and some guy found ''overwhelming'' evidences that the U.S never been to the moon.

surely this Dr Malenkov wont see any problem confirming his analisys with other scientist, right?
did he?

beccause he is in no position of making those kind of declaration until unbiaised expert confim what he just said.

bie

12th July 2010, 20:30

beccause he is in no position of making those kind of declaration until unbiaised expert confim what he just said
And how can you know if he is in the position or not? Molokov forensic laboratory that made the analysis is the certified public institution, that made the opinions for governmental bodies. Here is the expertise:

http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/02-Expertise-1.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/02-Expertise-2.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/02-Expertise-3.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/02-Expertise-4.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/02-Expertise-5.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/03-Fototable-1.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/03-Fototable-2.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/03-Fototable-3.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/03-Fototable-4.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/03-Fototable-5.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/05-Sertifikat.jpg
http://www.katyn.ru/images/pages/06-Diplom.jpg

It someone is interested, that expertise wasn't objected or challenged by anyone. The bourgeoisie strategy is silence.

Zanthorus

12th July 2010, 21:05

White army terrorists... killed the head of the checka

Dzerzhinsky died of a heart attack in 1926 didn't he?

danyboy27

12th July 2010, 21:13

And how can you know if he is in the position or not? Malenkov's forensic laboratory that made the analysis is the certified public institution, that made the opinions for governmental bodies. Here is the expertise:

It someone is interested, that expertise wasn't objected or challenged by anyone. The bourgeoisie strategy is silence.

well, i dont see why the russian governement would deny a study that is more likely to empower russian nationalism.

its a fine played game, on one side they admit katyin happened, pleasing the polish, and on the other side they dont challenge the study beccause they know it will stimulate russian nationalism, in that case silence prove nothing.

its a basic scientific procedure to confirm an evidence at least twice, that how they do to identify false painting and in other scientific fields, double, triple verification is essential.
No matter how ''respectable'' this institution might be, nothing can guarantee us that this whole falsification thing is not a falsification itself, its russia for christ sake, you know better than me that corruption is still rampant today.

in case of such grave accusation, double verification is almost necessary to both confirm the veracity of the claim and preserve the integrity of the research team, its a basic ethical procedure.

when this study took place?? i cant find nothing about this institution over the internet...

Os Cangaceiros

12th July 2010, 21:16

An extremely long post filled with cyrillic characters

Thank you, bie. That was extremely helpful, and I'm sure I speak for the other 99% of the board who can't speak Russian when I say that.

ComradeOm

13th July 2010, 12:58

Dzerzhinsky died of a heart attack in 1926 didn't he?Probably referring to Uritsky, head of the Petrograd Cheka, who was assassinated in August 1918. Ironically Uritsky was one of the more moderate Chekists and his death triggered a wave of terror

Although it'd be inaccurate to say that either he or Lenin were victims of "White army terrorists". IIRC Uritsky was assassinated by a cadet operating independently while Fanni Kaplan was a Left SR

Sir Comradical

13th July 2010, 13:32

Talk about a loaded question...

Blake's Baby

13th July 2010, 13:32

Joe Payne

13th July 2010, 18:38

Zanthorus

13th July 2010, 19:04

In terms of numbers, no Lenin did not kill more or even an equal number of people as Stalin did, however the experiences of Kronstadt and the Ukraine show the wholly counter-revolutionary actions of the Bolshevik regime.

I don't entirely agree with the supression of anarchists under the Bolsheviks but there were pogroms in the territory occupied by the Black Army even if Mahkno and the RIAU higher ups were not themselves anti-semitic. The RIAU was not exactly "libertarian" either. Although in theory entry into the army was voluntary, even the anarchist historian Peter Arshinov admits that in practice people had to be conscripted to fight. Some of the points in this article by the Mahknovists on marxist.org should probably also be cause for concern for anyone who thinks that the measures taken by the Bolsheviks were too "authoritarian":

8. The workers' and peasants' soviets, the self-defence units of the workers and peasants, and the individual peasant and worker must not allow any counter-revolutionary manifestations by the bourgeoisie or military officers. Nor must they allow the emergence of banditry. Anyone convicted of counter-revolutionary acts or of banditry will be shot on the spot.

9. Soviet and Ukrainian money must be accepted along with all other kinds of money. Violators of this rule will be subject to revolutionary punishment.

[...]

11. All individuals who attempt to hinder the distribution of this declaration will be regarded as counter-revolutionaries.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1920/telegraph.htm

I've already gone over the Kronstadt rebels. But to repeat, Lenin had already considered creating a division between the Bolshevik party and the state at the tenth party congress and quickly abandoned it because the Soviets had already been turned into empty shells. The international counter-revolution was already setting in and it's difficult to see exactly what the Kronstadt demands would've done to reverse the process. I'd like it noted actually that even the Workers Opposition which was on the far left of the Bolshevik party suported the crushing of the Kronstadt rebels.

The examples you bring up are anyway too one-sided. Were the Bolsheviks counter-revolutionary when they overthrew the provisional government? When they abolished the Tsarist legal code and legalised no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality?

Did you know that Lenin was actually criticised by the right-wing "Marxists" of the old social-democracy for being an "anarchist" and a "new Bakunin"? Do you think that's the kind of insult that you get for being an authoritarian counter-revolutionary?

bie

13th July 2010, 19:18

who is declaring that there was falsification? i am just curious of your sources.

Thank you, bie. That was extremely helpful, and I'm sure I speak for the other 99% of the board who can't speak Russian when I say that.
Can I ask you a question? What other language do you expect the primary source about the history of the Soviet Union to be?

well, i dont see why the russian governement would deny a study that is more likely to empower russian nationalism.
Maybe because it was Russian government that fabricated that falsification? And because it is the Russian government who want to keep normalized relation with anticommunist authorities of Poland and UE? Maybe because Putin and Medvedev many times stated publicly that they support the version of Soviet involvement in the massacre in Kozie Gory? Maybe because Russian oligarchy want to keep good relations with Germans? etc.

ts a fine played game, on one side they admit katyin happened, pleasing the polish, and on the other side they dont challenge the study beccause they know it will stimulate russian nationalism, in that case silence prove nothing.
I am sure that Russian authorities know about this much more than we do and know the truth. They play a sort of a game, but it involves also a strong pressure exerted by the people who are well aware of the real story behind the Soviet Union - and who don't want the history of their country to be falsified. Many people remember even Josef Stalin times. He is one of the most popular Russian leaders. If he was so bad, as you are being told by the bourgeoisie in the West, why are the people coming back to his times and his leadership so many times even now?

Few words about silence - it is not only Russian government that is silent in this case. How can you explain that anticommunist NGO like eg. "Memorial" did not object the results of the investigation?

its a basic scientific procedure to confirm an evidence at least twice, that how they do to identify false painting and in other scientific fields, double, triple verification is essential.
Where is such procedure? In Russia? Details please.

No matter how ''respectable'' this institution might be, nothing can guarantee us that this whole falsification thing is not a falsification itself, its russia for christ sake, you know better than me that corruption is still rampant today
I don't understand. I have presented you with sufficient evidence to show what is the story with the "Beria's letter". The authenticity of the that document has been constantly objected by many investigators since 1991, and there were found more than 50 things that proves its falseness. Now there are even more solid evidence: expertize by the state laboratory, stamps and paper, testimonies of one of the team of falsifiers.

So this is the point - the history of the Soviet Union is BEING FALSIFIED in order to discredit communist times.

when this study took place?? i cant find nothing about this institution over the internet...
It was made on 31.04.2009. There are the details:
http://www.katyn.ru/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=195
(www.translate.google.com)

Jose Gracchus

13th July 2010, 19:44

I don't entirely agree with the supression of anarchists under the Bolsheviks but there were pogroms in the territory occupied by the Black Army even if Mahkno and the RIAU higher ups were not themselves anti-semitic. The RIAU was not exactly "libertarian" either. Although in theory entry into the army was voluntary, even the anarchist historian Peter Arshinov admits that in practice people had to be conscripted to fight. Some of the points in this article by the Mahknovists on marxist.org should probably also be cause for concern for anyone who thinks that the measures taken by the Bolsheviks were too "authoritarian"

False dichotomy fallacy. Just because there may have been flaws or authoritarian deviations or errors by the Makhnovshchina does not mean that they were equal or equivalent or identical in character to those of the Bolsheviks. Nor even if it did, does that ipso facto justify Bolshevik authoritarianism. You may be right, but you must actually make the factual and philosophical case, rather than compare the Makhnovshchina to the Bolsheviks versus a black box of revolutionary virtue and ideals that is not explained or elucidated, and to engage in tu quoque reasoning.

I've already gone over the Kronstadt rebels. But to repeat, Lenin had already considered creating a division between the Bolshevik party and the state at the tenth party congress and quickly abandoned it because the Soviets had already been turned into empty shells.

And we're supposed to take his word as holy writ? The final analysis? No corroboration or consensus necessary? How Marxist or materialist is this? Some politician with obvious and apparent immediate incentives to make a certain conclusion, is a trusted and objective source? The Bolshevik Tenth Party Congress is the trusted and absolute source for whether Bolshevik Party monopoly over the State is justified or the only possible system?

Is this serious reasoning? Argument from Lenin's fiat? You haven't made the case. You in essence have just said "Lenin sez" and full stop. That's not adequate to sustain your claims.

The international counter-revolution was already setting in and it's difficult to see exactly what the Kronstadt demands would've done to reverse the process. I'd like it noted actually that even the Workers Opposition which was on the far left of the Bolshevik party suported the crushing of the Kronstadt rebels.

This is like a U.S. "progressive" explaining that left-radicals are nuts and utopian because even Bernie Sanders, the Establishment's man on the left, isn't with them! Is it not obvious how this reasoning would never be accepted in any other circumstance? Is it not surprising that a sector of the party monopoly would not necessarily be representative of non-party proletarian democratic ambitions? The various Bolshevik oppositions were elements of opposition to the increasing rigidity and dissipation of even intra-party democracy, and for control over the party-state. What they do or do not say does not establish the likelihood of Kronstadt being possible or not.

The examples you bring up are anyway too one-sided. Were the Bolsheviks counter-revolutionary when they overthrew the provisional government? When they abolished the Tsarist legal code and legalised no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality?

This reasoning could also defend all manner of Bernsteinism and reformism? Do you think those are "revolutionary" at times as well?

Did you know that Lenin was actually criticised by the right-wing "Marxists" of the old social-democracy for being an "anarchist" and a "new Bakunin"? Do you think that's the kind of insult that you get for being an authoritarian counter-revolutionary?

Since when do slurs and hurls from the right make truth regarding revolutionary politics?

Zanthorus

13th July 2010, 20:17

False dichotomy fallacy. Just because there may have been flaws or authoritarian deviations or errors by the Makhnovshchina does not mean that they were equal or equivalent or identical in character to those of the Bolsheviks. Nor even if it did, does that ipso facto justify Bolshevik authoritarianism. You may be right, but you must actually make the factual and philosophical case, rather than compare the Makhnovshchina to the Bolsheviks versus a black box of revolutionary virtue and ideals that is not explained or elucidated, and to engage in tu quoque reasoning.

That was not a false dichotomy and nor was it tu quoque. The supression of the Makhnovists was presented as being an example of the Bolsheviks counter-revolutionary nature, however that claim can only be sustained if the Mahknovists themselves were not acting in a counter-revolutionary manner. Your point would only be valid if Mahknovists criticisms of the Bolsheviks had been presented as refuting Bolshevism and I responded by pointing out Mahknovist hypocrisy. But that wasn't what was being discussed.

Is this serious reasoning? Argument from Lenin's fiat? You haven't made the case. You in essence have just said "Lenin sez" and full stop. That's not adequate to sustain your claims.

I would think that the defeat of the November revolution and Spartacist uprisings in Germany and the end of the biennio rosso in Italy would be evidence enough that the balance of forces internationally was not swinging in favour of communism.

The various Bolshevik oppositions were elements of opposition to the increasing rigidity and dissipation of even intra-party democracy, and for control over the party-state.

None of the factions of the Bolshevik party wanted control over the state since they already technically had it, being members of the ruling regime. The aims of the factions was to influence party policy in their favoured direction. In the case of the Workers' Opposition they wanted industry to be directly controlled by the Trade Unions in contrast to Lenin in the centre of the debate who argued for autonomy of unions from the state (But not control of production) and Trotsky who argued for integration into the state. The significant part here is that the whole debate revolved around the unions. The factory committees and soviet councils had already been emasculated.

This reasoning could also defend all manner of Bernsteinism and reformism? Do you think those are "revolutionary" at times as well?

I find it amusing that someone, a self-proclaimed "libertarian socialist" no less, still uses "Bernsteinism" as slang for reformist social-democracy. I take your point on the overthrow of the Tsarist legal code, but I doubt many reformists would accompany that by overthrowing a provisional government and instating government by the soviet councils.

Jose Gracchus

14th July 2010, 00:42

That was not a false dichotomy and nor was it tu quoque. The supression of the Makhnovists was presented as being an example of the Bolsheviks counter-revolutionary nature, however that claim can only be sustained if the Mahknovists themselves were not acting in a counter-revolutionary manner. Your point would only be valid if Mahknovists criticisms of the Bolsheviks had been presented as refuting Bolshevism and I responded by pointing out Mahknovist hypocrisy. But that wasn't what was being discussed.

This only proves my point. Your argument nears absurdity when it contrasts Makhnovist behavior with a black box standard of ideally "revolutionary" virtue. Since they do not meet it, and neither do the Bolsheviks, the implication is that any standard is absurd (or, any standard unfavorable to the Bolsheviks). That's preposterous. As I said, I probably agree with you on the Makhnovshchina, but simply saying that they sometimes had terror or authoritarianism does not mean that it was equivalent or identical to that of the Bolsheviks, and does not mean that holding them to a standard of revolutionary behavior and sincerity is absurd. But that is what is necessary to make unfavorable remarks toward Bolshevik authoritarianism specious.

I would think that the defeat of the November revolution and Spartacist uprisings in Germany and the end of the biennio rosso in Italy would be evidence enough that the balance of forces internationally was not swinging in favour of communism.

That's a truism. Perhaps you'd like to directly connect that to the claim that it would have been impossible to have free elections to the soviets, that the Bolsheviks could not possibly have relinquished their monopoly on control of the state, that all that was impossible. Please connect that to an explanation of the infeasibility of the Kronstadt demands, rather than just handwaving that international trending against communism meant it was physically impossible for their to be any alternative to what happened. I'm afraid I do not find it instantly intuitive.

None of the factions of the Bolshevik party wanted control over the state since they already technically had it, being members of the ruling regime. The aims of the factions was to influence party policy in their favoured direction. In the case of the Workers' Opposition they wanted industry to be directly controlled by the Trade Unions in contrast to Lenin in the centre of the debate who argued for autonomy of unions from the state (But not control of production) and Trotsky who argued for integration into the state. The significant part here is that the whole debate revolved around the unions. The factory committees and soviet councils had already been emasculated.

Then what relevance does this have to the central issue I stated: that how does the Workers Opposition's lack of support for Kronstadt resemble anything like conclusive proof that alternatives to Bolshevik power monopoly were impossible?

I find it amusing that someone, a self-proclaimed "libertarian socialist" no less, still uses "Bernsteinism" as slang for reformist social-democracy.

I'm sorry if my jargon is not up to par to the shibboleths of left-wing revolutionary sectarianism and arcane subcultural niches. You'll forgive me if I don't feel the sting of this remark.

I take your point on the overthrow of the Tsarist legal code, but I doubt many reformists would accompany that by overthrowing a provisional government and instating government by the soviet councils.

An ironic comment, given how your entire argument has been about justifying the "emasculation" (as you put it) of those selfsame soviet councils by the Bolsheviks (inevitable, justified, or otherwise), and how government by those soviet councils after the Civil War was over its worst was impossible. In essence, because Lenin, and Bolshevik factions said so, and because communists in other countries weren't doing great. I suppose that suffices as conclusive proof in some circles, but I find it vague and questionable at best.

Joe Payne

14th July 2010, 13:09

Also a note, the Mahknovischna was not the only place where anarchists were attacked, there was significant anarchist presence in the unions and a large grouping of anarchists in Moscow. These anarchists were imprisoned and murdered as well.

I also don't see the fact that the Soviets had become shells as defending the Bolshevik policy on Kronstadt. Who the hell turned them into empty shells in the first place? The Bolsheviks.

Glenn Beck

20th July 2010, 17:14

Some people believe in 1918 that the Left SRs were 'White Army terrorists' though, rather than revolutionaries with a mistaken conception of revolutionary war (among other things). But then, some people believe the Kronstadt Commune was 'counter-revolutionary', as opposed to it's repression being the counter-revolution.

It's curious that an ultra-left, and as such someone whose political views are essentially predicated on the ability to see a vast number of supposed revolutionaries as counterrevolutionaries in disguise would take such a charitable perspective towards the various oppositionist factions in Russia that situated themselves 'on the left'.

DuracellBunny97

11th January 2011, 07:45

really, the best representatives of communism are the ones who never got much power, Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin, but he certainly can't be seen as a hero, Trotsky was responsible for many deaths as well. It's best to look at the writers and revolutionaries. presidents and dictators only ended up screwing their country. When it comes to communism, it's important to realize that it is fundamentally a good idea, despite some things it may have inspired, and communist governments did achieve things, but many tried to push socialism before their society's were ready, resulting in totalitarian, and oppressive government, this needs to be avoided, in order to achieve a truly democratic, and communist civillization, capitalism can't be abolished overnight, it would take time.

NGNM85

11th January 2011, 09:40

The whole thesis is flawed. It's like saying; 'Which is worse; athletes' foot or eczema?' I'm not particularly fond of either one.

Savage

11th January 2011, 10:04

The bureaucratization and demise of the Soviets cannot be attributed solely to the fault of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as there were many other factors at play.
During the Russian Civil War the Red army comprised primarily of worker volunteers, and this combined with the sabotage and repression against the soviets committed by the White Army contributed directly to the evaporation of the workers councils. The Cheka also proved to be antagonistic in regards to the soviets, but whether the Bolsheviks can be blamed for this is questionable.
Despite their mistakes made, the Bolsheviks should be given credit for attempts to re-install workers control, but on top of all problems within the Soviet Union was the failure of the German Revolution and the implications of this.

Fietsketting

11th January 2011, 10:09

Imposter Marxist

11th January 2011, 13:41

manic expression

11th January 2011, 13:53

This^ is no better then holocaust denial, fuck you.
No idea why this was bumped, but while we're at it, we might as well clarify that comparing Soviet purges to the Holocaust IS Holocaust Denial.