Kropotkin and WWI

[Os Cangaceiros]

Lenin had good ideas he just didn't set them into place.
"Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold."
This quote by Kropotkin pretty much sums up what I feel. Now is it necessarily Lenin's fault? That is hard to say I'm sure Stalin might have ended his transition to Communism just to take power, I'm not too sure myself. Either way the USSR never was Communist.

tbh I'm not sure that Kropotkin should talk in regards to betraying one's ideals.

[WeAreReborn]

tbh I'm not sure that Kropotkin should talk in regards to betraying one's ideals.
Evidence? I'm curious, but even so at least he never took any authority figure like Lenin who was quoted to say: "While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state."

[Os Cangaceiros]

Evidence?

His support of Russia in WW1.

There's still value in his works/body of thought, of course, but WW1 really seperated the wheat from the chaff in the international socialist movement, IMO.

[WeAreReborn]

His support of Russia in WW1.

There's still value in his works/body of thought, of course, but WW1 really seperated the wheat from the chaff in the international socialist movement, IMO.
Though I must disagree with his support, his main reason being is that he saw German's militaristic and centralized attitude and he saw this as a threat to socialism. He felt if Germany gained more ground they would be the contender for world power and he realized that it would crush the Socialist movement. It is a tough subject because he is right about that assumption, but obviously WW1 was a pointless and damaging war, like all wars are.

[Os Cangaceiros]

*shrug* his justifications for his stance don't really matter to me, especially since so many other anarchists took the right position on the matter.

[Agnapostate]

Reasonable people work within the confines of a given situation, and recognize the best of a bad situation. Since the Allied and Central Powers were not going to vanish the next day, it seemed fairly obvious that it would be most desirable for the regimes that were going to cause the least damage to emerge victorious. I've never understood that particular criticism.

[syndicat]

You'll note that the only quotes of Lenin and Trotsky which Chomsky can dig up to support this thesis are the ones referring to a specific policy (One-man management), one which was essentially ignored on the ground level no less (Management of industry continued to be carried out by a triumvirate of management, local party cell and workers through the unions).


the Russian unions were centralized and controlled top down by bureaucrats who were also party members.

anyway, I'd like to see som evidence for this alleged "tripartite" system existing.

as to Kropotkin, he didn't support Russia in WW1 but France, mainly due to his rather sentimental attitude towards France due to its revolutionary history. it's true of course that Russia was France's ally. but he had no reason to support the tsarist autocracy...he'd fled prison into exile from that regime after all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

but he had no reason to support the tsarist autocracy...he'd fled prison into exile from that regime after all.

He did lend his support to the Kerensky provisional government (as a minister), though, which did participate in WW1.

[syndicat]

He did lend his support to the Kerensky provisional government (as a minister), though, which did participate in WW1.

i'd like to see some evidence for that. he supported the February revolution, which set up the soviets, but so did the Bolsheviks, anarchists, and the left in general in Russia. whether he supported the provisional government against the left in the fall of 1917 (when Kerensky was head of it) is an entirely different proposition. only the more conservative SRs and right Mensheviks took such a position in the fall of 1917. even a majority of the Mensheviks did not take such a position.

[Os Cangaceiros]

i'd like to see some evidence for that. he supported the February revolution, which set up the soviets, but so did the Bolsheviks, anarchists, and the left in general in Russia. whether he supported the provisional government against the left in the fall of 1917 (when Kerensky was head of it) is an entirely different proposition. only the more conservative SRs and right Mensheviks took such a position in the fall of 1917. even a majority of the Mensheviks did not take such a position.

Evidence for what? That Kropotkin was involved in Kerensky's government as a minister? I thought that was common knowledge to people who were interested in his life.


Kerensky consulted him [Kropotkin] constantly.

[WeAreReborn]

Evidence for what? That Kropotkin was involved in Kerensky's government as a minister? I thought that was common knowledge to people who were interested in his life.
Just to put it into some context the whole paragraph reads.

Despite his seventy-five years, he took an immediate and active interest both in the working out of the Revolution and particularly in the conduct of war. Kerensky consulted him constantly. He appeared in the "democratic convention" of all factions held in Moscow where he urged a renewed military offensive. On the side of the Revolution he accepted membership on a commission of intellectuals which undertook the task of promoting further revolutionary changes without bloodshed,-but it never really got under way.
I don't see anything in that paragraph that shows any hypocrisy in Kropotkin's beliefs and actions.

[syndicat]

Very good. You came up with some actual evidence of his support for the Russian war effort.

[black magick hustla]

Very good. You came up with some actual evidence of his support for the Russian war effort.

who cares the prince anarchist proved he was worthless when he took a side in WWI like any other sniveling social democrat

[Wanted Man]

Reasonable people work within the confines of a given situation, and recognize the best of a bad situation. Since the Allied and Central Powers were not going to vanish the next day, it seemed fairly obvious that it would be most desirable for the regimes that were going to cause the least damage to emerge victorious. I've never understood that particular criticism.

Yeah. He just supported the idea of making workers die for a war that they had absolutely no interest in; just when real socialists and anarchists were taking the exact opposite stance. No biggie. :rolleyes:

[WeAreReborn]

who cares the prince anarchist proved he was worthless when he took a side in WWI like any other sniveling social democrat
He didn't specifically support the war, he just wanted to end German imperialism. Does that mean I support his choice of picking a side? No not really, but you just must realize his intentions and he was right in assuming that if Germany won Socialism would have taken a massive blow. So you should take into account of intentions before making such an ignorant and not well thought out statement.

[Wanted Man]

He didn't specifically support the war, he just wanted to end German imperialism. Does that mean I support his choice of picking a side? No not really, but you just must realize his intentions and he was right in assuming that if Germany won Socialism would have taken a massive blow. So you should take into account of intentions before making such an ignorant and not well thought out statement.

Socialism? You mean the Provisional Government?

[WeAreReborn]

Socialism? You mean the Provisional Government?
Look I am not condoning his support or calling him a saint. All I am doing is stating his true intentions. That being supporting something that may go against his principles to inevitably defend them. He supported that provisional government so that Socialism could remain a powerful movement. It sounds strange but that is life for you.

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps the discussion on Kropotkin should be split?

[Wanted Man]

Look I am not condoning his support or calling him a saint. All I am doing is stating his true intentions. That being supporting something that may go against his principles to inevitably defend them. He supported that provisional government so that Socialism could remain a powerful movement. It sounds strange but that is life for you.

Actually, come to think of it, didn't Kropotkin support the war even when the Tsar was still in power? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen

Tsarist Russia, well-known as a socialist state where the working-class had the final say. ;)

I don't quite get why people are so desperately defending Kropotkin just because he was a prominent anarchist in his time. That was then, and even then, most other anarchists already knew what was going on. It was literally a dividing issue at the time, so I don't see how one can possibly back the ones who were so obviously wrong even then.

The social-democrats and people like Kropotkin were even worse than other snivelling apologists for imperialist wars, because they defended the war effort from a "left", "anarchist" and "working-class" perspective. But then again, what would the Anarchist Prince know of working-class perspectives?


I'm curious; what would a different position on his part as an individual have accomplished? Resurrection of dead workers? Prevention of all future deaths? The Allied victory in WWI probably minimized the number of deaths that were to occur, considering the nature of the governments of the Central Powers. It was the best of a bad situation.

:huh:

In that case, one might as well support the Iraq War as a socialist. After all, a different position isn't going to bring back any dead Iraqis, and considering the nature of Saddam's regime, it probably minimised the number of deaths. :rolleyes:

But maybe you can tell us all about the nature of the Central Powers and how they were evil imperialist dictators (while their opponents were workers' paradises like Tsarist Russia). How was it the best of a bad situation? In all the nations participating in WWI, there were thousands of socialists who opposed the war from day one. It didn't exactly make their lives any easier, but they agitated against it anyway because it was the right thing to do and because they weren't grovelling class traitors. You're acting as if Kropotkin's position just "happened" to him without much of a conscious decision on his part.

So again, what a preposterous question. What are we going to hear next, that the social-democratic leaders who betrayed the working-class and sent them off to their deaths were just making the best of it? And of course the German social-democrats were just doing what they could in a bad situation when they sent proto-fascist goons to kill Rosa Luxemburg. All perfectly acceptable; but Lenin was a dictator who grabbed power in a coup and buried the revolution...

I don't really care what this thread is about; if a mod wants to, they can split this part off.

[MarxSchmarx]

Split from the "Does noam chomsky hae a point?" thread

[WeAreReborn]

Actually, come to think of it, didn't Kropotkin support the war even when the Tsar was still in power? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen

Tsarist Russia, well-known as a socialist state where the working-class had the final say. ;)

I don't quite get why people are so desperately defending Kropotkin just because he was a prominent anarchist in his time. That was then, and even then, most other anarchists already knew what was going on. It was literally a dividing issue at the time, so I don't see how one can possibly back the ones who were so obviously wrong even then.

The social-democrats and people like Kropotkin were even worse than other snivelling apologists for imperialist wars, because they defended the war effort from a "left", "anarchist" and "working-class" perspective. But then again, what would the Anarchist Prince know of working-class perspectives?



:huh:

In that case, one might as well support the Iraq War as a socialist. After all, a different position isn't going to bring back any dead Iraqis, and considering the nature of Saddam's regime, it probably minimised the number of deaths. :rolleyes:

But maybe you can tell us all about the nature of the Central Powers and how they were evil imperialist dictators (while their opponents were workers' paradises like Tsarist Russia). How was it the best of a bad situation? In all the nations participating in WWI, there were thousands of socialists who opposed the war from day one. It didn't exactly make their lives any easier, but they agitated against it anyway because it was the right thing to do and because they weren't grovelling class traitors. You're acting as if Kropotkin's position just "happened" to him without much of a conscious decision on his part.

So again, what a preposterous question. What are we going to hear next, that the social-democratic leaders who betrayed the working-class and sent them off to their deaths were just making the best of it? And of course the German social-democrats were just doing what they could in a bad situation when they sent proto-fascist goons to kill Rosa Luxemburg. All perfectly acceptable; but Lenin was a dictator who grabbed power in a coup and buried the revolution...

I don't really care what this thread is about; if a mod wants to, they can split this part off.
All that the wikipedia article proved is he was anti-German. The whole supporting the tsarist regime is bullshit. He was one of the main causes for Russian agitation which helped end the tsarists regime. That is why he was praised by Lenin and adored by the Russian people. Though I must admit that I think he should have been neutral, you are still wrong about your claims. You just magnify the issues to make him seem much worse then he is.. Speaking of working class perspectives, he gave up his title of prince of 12 to live among the people and he did. He lived in poverty all of his adult life.

[Achara]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen

Oops, I didn't see that it was already posted ;)

[Wanted Man]

All that the wikipedia article proved is he was anti-German.

National chauvinism is okay for anarchists? That was exactly the great betrayal that the social-democrats committed; forgoing class differences and propagating against the foreign devils.


The whole supporting the tsarist regime is bullshit. He was one of the main causes for Russian agitation which helped end the tsarists regime. That is why he was praised by Lenin and adored by the Russian people.

That is great. Of course Kropotkin opposed the Tsarist government in the past. But when you decide to throw all that overboard and line up behind your own government in an imperialist war, that's a good way of ruining your own record. For this, both Lenin and many anarchists criticised him. Both Bolsheviks and anarchists from other countries denounced the "anarcho-chauvinist" or "anarcho-Patriot" Kropotkin et al.


Though I must admit that I think he should have been neutral, you are still wrong about your claims. You just magnify the issues to make him seem much worse then he is.. Speaking of working class perspectives, he gave up his title of prince of 12 to live among the people and he did. He lived in poverty all of his adult life.

That's highly admirable on an individual level, but apparently he was still a little prince politically.

[WeAreReborn]

National chauvinism is okay for anarchists? That was exactly the great betrayal that the social-democrats committed; forgoing class differences and propagating against the foreign devils.



That is great. Of course Kropotkin opposed the Tsarist government in the past. But when you decide to throw all that overboard and line up behind your own government in an imperialist war, that's a good way of ruining your own record. For this, both Lenin and many anarchists criticised him. Both Bolsheviks and anarchists from other countries denounced the "anarcho-chauvinist" or "anarcho-Patriot" Kropotkin et al.



That's highly admirable on an individual level, but apparently he was still a little prince politically.
I am not anti-German myself and I think it is an ignorant belief. However, I think you are over exaggerating in your statements. He was a "little prince politically" because he built up a reputation for himself through all his life works, not because of his status. He was a renowned Geographer and scientist and also, obviously, a brilliant thinker and forged the way for Anarcho-Communism. I disagree with him on his stance towards WW1, but I'm just being a devil's advocate because you are on the opposite extreme and are definitely over emphasizing key points.

[RED DAVE]

i'd like to see some evidence for that. he supported the February revolution, which set up the soviets, but so did the Bolsheviks, anarchists, and the left in general in Russia. whether he supported the provisional government against the left in the fall of 1917 (when Kerensky was head of it) is an entirely different proposition. only the more conservative SRs and right Mensheviks took such a position in the fall of 1917. even a majority of the Mensheviks did not take such a position.
Despite his seventy-five years, he took an immediate and active interest both in the workout of the [February] Revolution and particularly in the conduct of the war. Kerensky consulted him constantly. He appeared in the "democratic convention" of all factions held in Moscow where he urged a renewed military offensive.(emph added)

http://books.google.com/books?id=HDL4rxpeCaYC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=kropotkin+kerensky&source=bl&ots=y4VDEfMzGy&sig=Ih59NBcxFLKXvHZD87RbS3tL_uI&hl=en&ei=0CHCTK63O4P88AaIvrT8Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kropotkin%20kerensky&f=false

RED DAVE