Why do so many anarchists on here admire Trotsky, considering Kronstadt?

[Adi Shankara]

Why? something doesn't add up.

[∞]

I don't...honestly I hate Trotsky (the man). I just side with them against Stalinists.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If I may ask.... what is 'Kronstadt' exactly?

[Magón]

If I may ask.... what is 'Kronstadt' exactly?

This (http://libcom.org/history/1921-the-kronstadt-rebellion) is Kronstadt.

And also, I don't support or admire Trotsky the man, but do sympathize and like some of their ideas. (Such as Constant Revolution.)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The suppression of the Kronstadt mutiny was considered to be a "necessary tragedy" by many including Victor Serge, an anarchist who worked with the Bolsheviks and was in the Soviet gov't for a time. As I understand Alexandra Kollantai and the Worker's Opposition supported the suppression as well.

There were strong allegations of White involvement in the Kronstadt mutiny. The event itself was reported in a French newspaper a day before it occurred.

The sailors and workers involved in the mutiny had a different social composition than the revolutionary Kronstadters of 1917, one of the mainstays of the October Revolution. The 1921 Kronstadters were peasant conscripts, enraged by the "war communism" instituted to feed the cities under the nightmare conditions revolutionary Russia faced. The mutinees had legitimate grievances and the Bolsheviks certainly could have handled things better, but they were in survival mode and the entire revolution was basically up shit creek.

I do not uphold the anarchist method but I don't see any reason why an anarchist should oppose suppressing the rebellion in that situation.

Trotsky himself was not at Kronstadt he did give the orders for it to be surpressed.

[promethean]

Why? something doesn't add up.
It is quite strange to see anarchists admire Trotsky who was a follower of Lenin.


1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.
These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.
2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.
Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s02.html).
{
Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm#fwV05P327F01)
Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
}
3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.
(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)
4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.
Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.
Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.
Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.
5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?
– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.
– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.
– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).
– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why? something doesn't add up.

OK,

1) I don't know what you're talking about in regards to anarchists admiring Trotskers, and

2) the mutiny at Kronstadt had nothing to do with anarchism.

[#FF0000]

The suppression of the Kronstadt mutiny was considered to be a "necessary tragedy" by many including Victor Serge, an anarchist who worked with the Bolsheviks and was in the Soviet gov't for a time. As I understand Alexandra Kollantai and the Worker's Opposition supported the suppression as well.

There were strong allegations of White involvement in the Kronstadt mutiny. The event itself was reported in a French newspaper a day before it occurred.

The sailors and workers involved in the mutiny had a different social composition than the revolutionary Kronstadters of 1917, one of the mainstays of the October Revolution. The 1921 Kronstadters were peasant conscripts, enraged by the "war communism" instituted to feed the cities under the nightmare conditions revolutionary Russia faced. The mutinees had legitimate grievances and the Bolsheviks certainly could have handled things better, but they were in survival mode and the entire revolution was basically up shit creek.

I do not uphold the anarchist method but I don't see any reason why an anarchist should oppose suppressing the rebellion in that situation.

Trotsky himself was not at Kronstadt he did give the orders for it to be surpressed.

I think the 'necessary tragedy' line is great because the Bolsheviks pretty much put most of what the Kronstadt sailors wanted into action anyway.

[ContrarianLemming]

The suppression of the Kronstadt mutiny was considered to be a "necessary tragedy" by many including Victor Serge, an anarchist who worked with the Bolsheviks and was in the Soviet gov't for a time. As I understand Alexandra Kollantai and the Worker's Opposition supported the suppression as well.

There were strong allegations of White involvement in the Kronstadt mutiny. The event itself was reported in a French newspaper a day before it occurred.

anarchist faq debunks this myth


The sailors and workers involved in the mutiny had a different social composition than the revolutionary Kronstadters of 1917, one of the mainstays of the October Revolution. The 1921 Kronstadters were peasant conscripts, enraged by the "war communism" instituted to feed the cities under the nightmare conditions revolutionary Russia faced. The mutinees had legitimate grievances and the Bolsheviks certainly could have handled things better, but they were in survival mode and the entire revolution was basically up shit creek.the anarchist faq also debunks this myth too, the rebels were former revolutionaries.

[ContrarianLemming]

I think the 'necessary tragedy' line is great because the Bolsheviks pretty much put most of what the Kronstadt sailors wanted into action anyway.

Are you telling me direct democracy and local control was active in the Soviet Union afterwards?

[Lafoukos]

Trotsky was against bureaucracy and stuff.

[#FF0000]

Are you telling me direct democracy and local control was active in the Soviet Union afterwards?

Uh no the Kronstadt guys had this list of demands and a lot of it ended up being implemented.

[Tablo]

Uhhh, I'm not a Trotsky fan. I like his more internationalist perspective, but I can't say there is much to like about him or his ideas. Leninist ideologies in general don't sit well with me. Not that I hate all Leninists. Some of the students I work with are MLers even.

[Devrim]

The suppression of the Kronstadt mutiny was considered to be a "necessary tragedy" by many including Victor Serge, an anarchist who worked with the Bolsheviks and was in the Soviet gov't for a time.

Serge had been an anarchist but at the time was a member of the Bolshevik party.


There were strong allegations of White involvement in the Kronstadt mutiny.

Which have all been shown to be slanders and lies.


The sailors and workers involved in the mutiny had a different social composition than the revolutionary Kronstadters of 1917, one of the mainstays of the October Revolution. The 1921 Kronstadters were peasant conscripts, enraged by the "war communism" instituted to feed the cities under the nightmare conditions revolutionary Russia faced.

Neither is this true (from a previous post):


In ‘Kronstadt, 1917-1921: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy’ , the academic, Israel Getzler, who had access to previous unavailable Soviet Military sources analysed much of the data about Kronstadt. On the two major battleships the Petropavlovsk, where the revolt started, and the Sevastopol, over 90% of sailors for whom the data is available had joined the navy either before or during the revolution.

“... that the veteran politicized Red sailor still predominated at Kronstadt at the end of 1920 is borne out by the hard statistical data available regarding the crews of the two major battleships, the Petropavlovsk and the Sevastopol, both renowned since 1917 for their revolutionary zeal and Bolshevik allegiance. Of 2,028 sailors whose years of enlistment are known, no less than 1,904 or 93.9% were recruited into the navy before and during the 1917 revolution, the largest group, 1,195, having joined in the years 1914-16. Only some 137 sailors or 6.8% were recruited in the years 1918-21, including three who were conscripted in 1921, and they were the only ones who had not been there during the 1917 revolution. As for the sailors of the Baltic Fleet in general (and that included the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol), of those serving on 1 January 1921 at least 75.5% are likely to have been drafted into the fleet before 1918. Over 80% were drawn from Great Russian areas (mainly central Russia and the Volga area), some 10% from the Ukraine, and 9% from Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland.
...
Nor, as has so often been claimed, did new recruits, some 400 of whom Yasinsky had interviewed, arrive in numbers large enough to dilute or even 'demoralize' Kronstadt's Red sailors. As Evan Mawdsley has found, 'only 1,313 of a planned total of 10,384 recruits had arrived' by 1 December 1920 and even they seem to have been stationed in the barracks of the Second Baltic Crew in Petrograd.”

Devrim

[JacobVardy]

Why do so many anarchists on here admire Trotsky, considering Kronstadt?

Why? something doesn't add up.

Because the Revolucion Betrayed offers a solid, materialist answer on how the revolution failed.

[9]

I don't know what you're talking about in regards to anarchists admiring Trotskers

This. I suspect the OP doesn't know what he's talking about either. I never read posts by actual anarchists on this forum which indicate any admiration for Trotsky. To the extent that it occurs, there certainly aren't "so many" of them.

[Widerstand]

I like the verbal smack he lays on Stalin, and I think he has an okay Analysis of the Soviet Union. I also somewhat like his permanent revolution concept. And he's handsome.

I really think OP just pulled that out of their ass though.

[Iskalla]

Is this not something that haunted Trotsky throughout his life? Not saying it justifies it, just saying.

[AK]

This (http://libcom.org/history/1921-the-kronstadt-rebellion) is Kronstadt.

And also, I don't support or admire Trotsky the man, but do sympathize and like some of their ideas. (Such as Constant Revolution.)
Permanent*

Constant would imply we are overthrowing the Bourgeoisie every second of the day :blink:

[Queercommie Girl]

Permanent*

Constant would imply we are overthrowing the Bourgeoisie every second of the day :blink:

Constant Revolution/Continuous Revolution is actually a Left Maoist doctrine, not a Trotskyist one.

I think it is a very good idea. Basically it suggests that revisionist elements are potentially ever-present, so in a defensive sense the socialist revolution never really ends.

We are not overthrowing the bourgeois every second of the day, but we are guarding against a potential bourgeois counter-revolution constantly.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Eternal revolution is the price of communism.

We must be forever prepared to defend our socialist/communist society from those who potentially might sabotage it.

[Imposter Marxist]

I admire Trotsky FOR Kronstadt! :laugh:
Bazinga!
I haven't seen many anarchists who admire Trotsky, honestly.

[Black Sheep]

I don't "admire" trotsky, but i respect the notion of battling non-democratic (democratic, as in workers' democratic) states.
One core of the anarchist class struggle tradition, and a contrasting one with other tendencies, is self-management, equality in decision making and bottom-up running of a collectivised economy.

Trotsky's polemic on the bureaucratic regime of USSR includes severe criticism on the suppression of the soviets,careerism,unequal wages and benefits, the suppression of factions in the communist party, the decline of proletarian internationalism of USSR and the communist international in foreign politics, the return of petty bourgeoisie and patriotic mentalities in the (wage-defined) middle 'class', the corruption of the red army etc etc
Many,many times when reading the revolution betrayed, i stumble on parts which reaffirm the notion that (non stalinist!) marxists and anarchists have much,much in common.

Left opposition, true term.I can admire, in the sense of i 'like' a communist opposition to a defunkt attempt to communism, which approaches my model and my standards more than the defunkt attempt's ones.
Note that the trotksy admiring relation is not symmetric - trotsky bashes anarchists many times and with severe hatred and loathing, in fact in every book of him i've read :D

I guess that Trotsky is one of the marxists / marxist thought i 'respect' and have not thrown away down the drain with my turn to anarchism.

[Dimentio]

Why? something doesn't add up.

Sorry... I did not really mean to thank you.

Most people don't know so much about history. And since anarchists hate Stalin and Trotsky was an enemy of Stalin, they root for Trotsky. Most anarchists also think its cool to wear Che t-shirts.

[AK]

Constant Revolution/Continuous Revolution is actually a Left Maoist doctrine, not a Trotskyist one.
Since we are talking about Trotsky - and the similarly named concept of "Permanent Revolution" is a Trotskyist one - I think it's safe to conclude that that poster meant "Permanent Revolution", not "Constant Revolution".

[JacobVardy]

And he's handsome.

He also made it with Frida Kahlo. Gotta respect that. :D

[Pavlov's House Party]

trotsky didn't actually oversee the crushing of the kronstadt uprising, he only accepted the blame because he was commander of the red army.

i suppose from an anarchist perspective, one could dislike trotsky as a person but admire and take from his theoretical contributions to marxism. i'm a trotskyist and i don't even think he was some perfect awesome revolutionary; he was an uptight, grumpy old man who talked down on people for swearing and chewing gum. if you are a real trotskyist you accept his theoretical contributions, not go on about how he was the best communist person there ever was.

[Devrim]

trotsky didn't actually oversee the crushing of the kronstadt uprising, he only accepted the blame because he was commander of the red army.

That and the fact that he did actually issue the military orders for its suppression.

Devrim

[Red Commissar]

People don't have to fit an exact cut-out of what their political declaration is you know.

[Adil3tr]

I find it surprising you actually hate him. Why? He wasn't some blood thirsty murderer. Anarchists have committed violence, but I cut them slack because of context, and I think all of Trotsky's actions had plenty.

[revolution inaction]

Sorry... I did not really mean to thank you.

Most people don't know so much about history. And since anarchists hate Stalin and Trotsky was an enemy of Stalin, they root for Trotsky. Most anarchists also think its cool to wear Che t-shirts.

i've never seen an anarchist in a che-shirt, or come across one who liked trotsky


I find it surprising you actually hate him. Why? He wasn't some blood thirsty murderer. Anarchists have committed violence, but I cut them slack because of context, and I think all of Trotsky's actions had plenty.

he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of revolutionaries and played a significant roll in crushing the revolution

[revolution inaction]

Uh no the Kronstadt guys had this list of demands and a lot of it ended up being implemented.



RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921
Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:
1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.
2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.
3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.
4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.
5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.
6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.
7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.
8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.
9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.
10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.
11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.
12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.
13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.
14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.
15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.
The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.
PETRICHENKO, President of the Brigade Meeting
PEREPELKIN, Secretary
The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the entire Kronstadt garrison.
VASILIEV, President
Together with Comrade Kalinin, Vasiliev votes against the resolution.


would you point out which ones please?

[Devrim]

would you point out which ones please?

11 and 15.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

I don't support or admire Trotsky the man, but do sympathize and like some of their ideas. (Such as Constant Revolution.)


I also somewhat like his permanent revolution concept. And he's handsome.


he similarly named concept of "Permanent Revolution" is a Trotskyist one

Permanent revolution is not a Trotskyist theory, it was Marx's theory of the tasks of the proletariat in the revolution he thought was coming soon in Germany based on his analysis of the 1848 revolution in which the bourgeoisie had sided with the forces of Feudal reaction against the rising proletariat:


...the party of the petty bourgeoisie, has become more and more organized in Germany, the workers’ party has lost its only firm foothold, remaining organized at best in individual localities for local purposes; within the general movement it has consequently come under the complete domination and leadership of the petty-bourgeois democrats. This situation cannot be allowed to continue; the independence of the workers must be restored...

[...]

We told you already in 1848, brothers, that the German liberal bourgeoisie would soon come to power and would immediately turn its newly won power against the workers... It was indeed the bourgeoisie which took possession of the state authority in the wake of the March movement of 1848 and used this power to drive the workers, its allies in the struggle, back into their former oppressed position. Although the bourgeoisie could accomplish this only by entering into an alliance with the feudal party, which had been defeated in March, and eventually even had to surrender power once more to this feudal absolutist party, it has nevertheless secured favourable conditions for itself...

[...]

While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one.

At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship... Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy.

[...]

Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

The second German revolution never came, of course, but Permanent revolution remained floating around behind the scenes in Marxist circles. Eventually it was taken up by a Russian Marxist by the name of Alexander Helphand Parvus, who Trotsky met when he travelled to Munich in the summer of 1904 to escape all the factional squabbling between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in the RSDLP. Trotsky explicitly mentions Marx's use of the Permanent revolution concept in the 1931 preface to the first Russian edition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/prre.htm) of The Permanent Revolution.

[Widerstand]

2 out of 15. Wow, that's a lot actually.

[#FF0000]

Welp I'm sort of a dummy.

[dearest chuck]

And he's handsome.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/trotskyface.jpg

[∞]

Most of us really don't, WE DON'T DAMNIT (http://www.jstor.org/pss/260531)

[Adil3tr]

I'm not dropping Trotsky. Kronstadt isn't nearly enough to make me do that.

[Magón]

Permanent revolution is not a Trotskyist theory, it was Marx's theory of the tasks of the proletariat in the revolution he thought was coming soon in Germany based on his analysis of the 1848 revolution in which the bourgeoisie had sided with the forces of Feudal reaction against the rising proletariat

You're right, but I just meant since Trotsky put it into action somewhat, I give him credit for it. Not that I take away any of Marx, but Trotsky obviously was the one to take that point to the finest in his days.

[dearest chuck]

stalin was a hottie.

[Zanthorus]

You're right, but I just meant since Trotsky put it into action somewhat, I give him credit for it. Not that I take away any of Marx, but Trotsky obviously was the one to take that point to the finest in his days.

I think you'll find it was the workers of Russia who put it into action. Trotsky used it to criticise Comintern policy in China, France and Spain, as well as the claims to have achieved 'socialism in one country'. His arguments were OK as far as it goes, but I don't think that really constitutes putting it into action.

[Black Sheep]

We also feel sympathy for him and trotskyists, due to the cookies incident :/

[RedTrackWorker]

Have any of the anarchist responses on Krondstadt been updated to reflect the new information from the Soviet archives that is covered in this piece http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html ? I'm no fan of the Spartacists (and they're no fan of me), but this piece covers some good information, for instance, on why the uprising happened before the ice thawed.

[DaComm]

Do I like Trotsky? I give him a 6/10.
Pros:
-Looks awseome
-I like his Criticism of USSR

Cons:
*Total strawman when it comes to Anarchy
*I dislike his organizational methods

Come to think of it...3/10.

[fa2991]

Why? something doesn't add up.

Because my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Also, Trotsky's a masterful writer.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Because my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Strongly disagree.

[Kléber]

During the Spanish Civil War, the revolutionary-minded anarchists and Trotskyists fought together in defense of workers' power against the Stalinist/reformist traitors whose reactionary measures dulled the anti-fascist resistance and paved the way for Franco. Pravda and Comintern agents in their official correspondence spoke of an anarcho-Trotskyist conspiracy which needed to be wiped out through intimidation and assassinations as a precondition for a Stalinist takeover of Spain. Kronstadt aside, it is only natural for revolutionary socialists of different historical tendencies to feel solidarity after we have been on the same side of so many barricades.

[AK]

Because my enemy's enemy is my friend.
So if some progressive Bourgeoisie hate fascists...?

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Well, it was the Bolsheviks, the Marxist Communists, who created the first proletarian revolution and state in history. I don't see the anarchists having any such accomplishments to point to, except of course the 'Free Territory' in Ukraine run by that bandit and warlord.

A revolutionary theory is provided correct if it's hypothesis is verified by revolutionary practice. The revolutionary practice of anarchism, with it's undiscliplined violence, unorthodox and unproven methods of political organization, deliberate isolation from the working masses, and ultra-leftist opposition to policies like conscription and the death penalty (which are essential for the survival of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) clearly prove by historical assessment that anarchism is an incorrect revolutionary theory.

Socialism in practice, although it had immense problems, could be proven to work in reality, not just in theory. Even in isolation it has been proven to be able to work if that country has a moderate amount of production and limited access to the outside world.

The same way democratic centralism has proven it's worth in being able to organize the working class and its revolutionaries.

Only arguments I had heard by 'anarchists' are emotive non-scientific one's, with big words like 'democracy' and 'freedom' which lack a materialist basis.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The revolutionary practice of anarchism, with it's undiscliplined violence, unorthodox and unproven methods of political organization, deliberate isolation from the working masses

Do yourself a favor and read Black Flame (http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/).

(Actually, why bother. :rolleyes:)


and ultra-leftist opposition to policies like conscription and the death penalty

I'm not a big fan of capital punishment, but this is simply objectively false, judging both from your example of anarchism in practice (Ukraine), and the Spanish Civil War.

[Tomhet]

As an anarchist, I couldn't give two shits about Leon Trotsky!
What exactly. does he have to do with the modern communist/anti capitalist movement?

[Zanthorus]

What exactly. does he have to do with the modern communist/anti capitalist movement?

Well, to begin with, it's usually a good idea to know where you've come from. Trotsky was the vice-chairman and then chairmen of the St Petersburg Soviet during the 1905 Russian revolution, one of the minority members of the second international who opposed the first world war and took a revolutionary internationalist stance, an increasingly important figure within the Bolshevik party in the run up to the October revolution as Lenin's right hand man against the centrist faction of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin, the leader of the Military-Revolutionary Committee which seized power, a major figure within the early Soviet government, playing a vital role in the foundation and organisation of the Red army and a major figure within the early Communist International. That, along with his critique of the Soviet Union and analysis of what went wrong with the Soviet Union, make him a key figure for anyone attempting to understand the Russian revolution. Besides which, he also made important tactical critiques of the class-collaborationist policies of the Comintern in China (The alliance with the Kuomintang) and in the various countries where 'Popular Front' government were formed (Spain, France etc).

Oh yeah, and in Britain at least, the majority of the left is Trotskyist (Or at least 'influenced by Trotsky' in the case of the SWP).

[Aesop]

I have no problem with anarchists but one thing that ticks me off is the way that some anarchists state that the russian revolution was not a revolution with the the goal of making a socialist world, but was just for the bolsheviks to become the new red tsars.
In addition the buzzword of 'leninist' is causally which is used to put genuine workers revolution and the works of Trotsky in the same box as Stalin.
Why don't i ever hear about the asturian commune in which the anarchist leadership were as bad as the social democrats in supporting the militant insurrection which consequently lead to thousands of workers being murdered or imprisoned?
Yet you don't see 'trotskyists' harping on about this blatant act of stupidity.
Not trying to be sectarian,however i think that it is important that people acknowledge the hypocrisy of some people who identify themselves as anarchists.

[enrici]

We also feel sympathy for him and trotskyists, due to the cookies incident :/

Cookies incident? What's that?

[this is an invasion]

We also feel sympathy for him and trotskyists, due to the cookies incident :/
Speak for yourself, bud. The cookies incident was one of the coolest things to happen ever.

[this is an invasion]

Cookies incident? What's that?
Some people (anarchists I'm pretty sure) broke into Trotsky's grave and stole his ashes. They then baked the ashes into cookies and sent them to various organizations.



LOL

[enrici]

Some people (anarchists I'm pretty sure) broke into Trotsky's grave and stole his ashes. They then baked the ashes into cookies and sent them to various organizations.

LOL

That's terrible! I am still pretty new to the left, but stuff like this is convincing me that I'll never become an anarchist.

Say what you will about Trotsky and, yes Stalin (and if you look through my posts you can see I'm very anti-Stalinist), but at least they had the maturity to square themselves to the task of running a movement and a nation.

Whereas anarchists think that stunts like this will win them the revolution. On the bloody front lines of revolution today, it's not anarchists stepping up to the plate.

[Zanthorus]

LOL

I think it's actually pretty disgusting to consider making foodstuff out of the ashes of a dead man. You're really just reinforcing the 'infantile anarchist' stereotype here.

[this is an invasion]

Whereas anarchists think that stunts like this will win them the revolution. On the bloody front lines of revolution today, it's not anarchists stepping up to the plate.

No it's usually just regular ole working class people that are "on the bloody front lines of the revolution today."


I am extremely against vanguardist groups, and I don't wish to "run" anything except for my own life. I do my best everyday to make it impossible for people trying to be vanguardists.

[this is an invasion]

I think it's actually pretty disgusting to consider making foodstuff out of the ashes of a dead man. You're really just reinforcing the 'infantile anarchist' stereotype here.
I don't really feel like I have to prove my "maturity" or whatever to people on RevLeft.

[syndicat]

re Kronstadt, demand 11 wasn't implemented because under NEP there was no limitation of peasants to not hiring people as wage labor.

just for the record, i don't "admire" Trotsky in the least. he was a statist authoritarian who defended "the dictatorship of the party".

[revolution inaction]

As an anarchist, I couldn't give two shits about Leon Trotsky!
What exactly. does he have to do with the modern communist/anti capitalist movement?

what not to do

[DaComm]

Some people (anarchists I'm pretty sure) broke into Trotsky's grave and stole his ashes. They then baked the ashes into cookies and sent them to various organizations.



LOL

Dude! :blink: Were they eaten? And seriously...whats with the lol?

[this is an invasion]

Dude! :blink: Were they eaten? And seriously...whats with the lol?
The lol is because it's hilarious.

I think it was actually a hoax though.

[Reznov]

Do you have any statisical evidence to support your claim, good sir?

[this is an invasion]

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/7202

you decide.

Either way it's lol

[Widerstand]

That's terrible! I am still pretty new to the left, but stuff like this is convincing me that I'll never become an anarchist.

Say what you will about Trotsky and, yes Stalin (and if you look through my posts you can see I'm very anti-Stalinist), but at least they had the maturity to square themselves to the task of running a movement and a nation.

Whereas anarchists think that stunts like this will win them the revolution. On the bloody front lines of revolution today, it's not anarchists stepping up to the plate.

Oh you with your fancy strawmans, ignorance and hatespeech are sure doing a much better job at revolutionizing than us lazy goodfornothing scumbags!

[Kuppo Shakur]

So if some progressive Bourgeoisie hate fascists...?
There's no queue, it's simultaneous.

[Devrim]

re Kronstadt, demand 11 wasn't implemented because under NEP there was no limitation of peasants to not hiring people as wage labor.

Well yes there is that. If you look at 15, there is a problem as well:


To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

The NEP allowed for people to engage others in handicraft production.

Somebody said that a lot of the demands were implemented:


Uh no the Kronstadt guys had this list of demands and a lot of it ended up being implemented.

Someone then asked, which. I said 11 and 15, as none of the political ones were.

Devrim