Russian Revolution from Kronstadt sailers view [Archive]

RGacky3

7th May 2011, 11:37

Yes, funny that Lenin and Co. would wish to stamp out a genuine attempt at soviet-based socialism.

I don't think that was the case, I just think that Lenin and Co. did'nt trust the revolution to anyone else, so they tried to stifle democracy, I think they were genuinely socialists, but it had to be their way, thats one reason why they did'nt accept the constituents assembally, because it was'nt their way or the high way.

That being said, I think proper soviet democracy could have easily happened had the non-bolshevic parties no walk out like cry babies during the Congress of Soviets.

Also it could have happened had the Bolsheviks respected the COnstituents assembally.

Even then had the Cheka and the great terror not happened .... The Russian Revolution was something that should have definately worked, but it was almost a perfect storm.

Zanthorus

7th May 2011, 12:28

There is only one way this thread will end up Leninists vs Libertarians

Why's that? You realise that not only 'libertarians' oppose the supression of the Kronstadt rebels? The opposition 'Leninists vs Libertarians' is a ridiculously ahistorical one which ignores the numerous Marxist currents which arose in opposition to 'Leninism' even within the Bolshevik party itself in the form of the Workers' Opposition, Democratic Centralists, Communist Workers' Party of Russia etc.

Also it could have happened had the Bolsheviks respected the COnstituents assembally.

Yeah, if only the Bolsheviks hadn't called for the supression of the Constituent Assembly, which was carried out by an armed detachment whose leader was... a Kronstadt sailor and confirmed Anarchist! 'Libertarians' crying over the supression of the Constituent Assembly is hilarious, the Anarchist movement were the only ones in 1917 who were vehemently against any kind of 'bourgeois' parliamentary-representative institution, even the propaganda of the Bolsheviks focused on the idea of the Soviets being the best vehicle to secure free and fair elections to the CA. Maybe you should also mull over the fact that after the publication of the 'April Theses' many in both the Anarchist and Marxist movements thought that Lenin was abandoning Marx and going over to the camp of Bakunin.

Savage

7th May 2011, 13:09

Here (http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR003_kron.htm) is a critical analysis that is neither libertarian nor Leninist.

RGacky3

7th May 2011, 15:49

Yeah, if only the Bolsheviks hadn't called for the supression of the Constituent Assembly, which was carried out by an armed detachment whose leader was... a Kronstadt sailor and confirmed Anarchist! 'Libertarians' crying over the supression of the Constituent Assembly is hilarious, the Anarchist movement were the only ones in 1917 who were vehemently against any kind of 'bourgeois' parliamentary-representative institution, even the propaganda of the Bolsheviks focused on the idea of the Soviets being the best vehicle to secure free and fair elections to the CA. Maybe you should also mull over the fact that after the publication of the 'April Theses' many in both the Anarchist and Marxist movements thought that Lenin was abandoning Marx and going over to the camp of Bakunin.

Sure .... I'm not putting everything on Lenin here, just seeing why the revolution turned into what it turned into.

Let me know whats wrong in the documentary.

Savage

8th May 2011, 00:38

Blaming one specific figure for the asphyxiation of soviet power is ludicrous, the worsening material conditions of the revolution need to be understood, and then we can look at how much the Bolsheviks themselves were to blame (It should also be noted that there were Bolsheviks opposed to Kronstadt and even some participating in the revolt). I think it may have been Zanthorus who I remember saying that there are writings of Lenin where he implies the will to transfer power back the soviets but realizes the impossibility of this given the conditions (but of course this should be obvious as long as we assume that Lenin did not revise his own theory, the USSR of the 20's was not 'Leninist' socialism).

RGacky3

8th May 2011, 09:14

the worsening material conditions

I hear that a lot, but what are the actual material conditions and what did they have to do with things like the Cheka, the great terror, no actual democracy and so on?

Savage

8th May 2011, 10:01

I hear that a lot, but what are the actual material conditions and what did they have to do with things like the Cheka, the great terror, no actual democracy and so on?
The Russian Revolution was part of an international revolutionary wave, the workers of various European countries were able to establish their own power to certain degrees and for certain sporadic time periods, but ultimately the Russian Revolution was an isolated event in which the gains of the Soviets, historically vital as they may be, were fairly quickly eradicated. By mid 1918, most of the Soviets had been devastated by the Civil War, and along with the inherently worsening economic conditions, they quickly became empty shells, this becoming increasingly obvious, even before Kronstadt. I think that the terror of the despotic state that was the product of the failed revolution was unavoidable, regardless of the actions of the Bolsheviks, but that doesn't mean we should remain uncritical of them.
The Cheka I believe was originally a working class militia designed to combat the anti-soviet terrorism of the White Army, obviously it later became a secret police force with no working class interest.

RGacky3

8th May 2011, 10:43

The Russian Revolution was part of an international revolutionary wave, the workers of various European countries were able to establish their own power to certain degrees and for certain sporadic time periods, but ultimately the Russian Revolution was an isolated event in which the gains of the Soviets, historically vital as they may be, were fairly quickly eradicated. By mid 1918, most of the Soviets had been devastated by the Civil War, and along with the inherently worsening economic conditions, they quickly became empty shells, this becoming increasingly obvious, even before Kronstadt.

So your saying there was a power void that the Bolsheviks just took hold of? Whats the connection?

I think that the terror of the despotic state that was the product of the failed revolution was unavoidable, regardless of the actions of the Bolsheviks, but that doesn't mean we should remain uncritical of them.

Why was it unavoidable? Say the CA was respected as an institution, or say the Soviets even when weak, were the main power holders, and not only in name, who's to say that they could'nt have won the civil war?

Savage

8th May 2011, 10:51

So your saying there was a power void that the Bolsheviks just took hold of? Whats the connection?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking.

Why was it unavoidable? Say the CA was respected as an institution, or say the Soviets even when weak, were the main power holders, and not only in name, who's to say that they could'nt have won the civil war?

The Soviets had significantly degenerated prior to the conclusion of the civil war, from this angle, the Soviets didn't win the civil war, they were defeated by it.

Thug Lessons

8th May 2011, 14:21

I honestly can't think of a single thing less relevant to communism today than what the Bolsheviks did at some backwater Baltic seaport nearly a hundred years ago.

Zanthorus

8th May 2011, 14:36

I think it may have been Zanthorus who I remember saying that there are writings of Lenin where he implies the will to transfer power back the soviets but realizes the impossibility of this given the conditions

That was me, quoting the Internationalist Communist Tendency's article (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2001-08-01/1921-beginning-of-the-counter-revolution) on Kronstadt, who were in turn quoting Neil Harding:

What 1921 and the decline of the revolution demonstrate, however, is the need for that party to be international and centralised prior to the revolutionary outbreak. That same party remains outside all governmental or statist functions as a body whatever its local membership have to do. At a local level power is wielded by the armed workers’ councils. They are the only state bodies until the bourgeoisie is suppressed world wide. The Party is a political vanguard which defends the programme of communism rather than any territory claiming to be en route to communism. There may be those who would argue that this is as utopian as it is idealist but we have to remember that 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. Had this proposal been made in November 1917 and had the soviets retained political life, then it would have been possible. In 1921 the Bolsheviks were reduced to the Micawber position of holding on to state power in the hope that “something would turn up” in the shape of world revolution.

I honestly can't think of a single thing less relevant to communism today than what the Bolsheviks did at some backwater Baltic seaport nearly a hundred years ago.

This is only true if our analysis of specific events can be isolated and sealed off from the rest of our politics, but I think that it is clear that differences over the question of Kronstadt reveal much broader differences over the nature of a 'workers' state' and so on.

RGacky3

8th May 2011, 14:41

I honestly can't think of a single thing less relevant to communism today than what the Bolsheviks did at some backwater Baltic seaport nearly a hundred years ago.

Well think harder.

Thug Lessons

8th May 2011, 15:33

This is only true if our analysis of specific events can be isolated and sealed off from the rest of our politics, but I think that it is clear that differences over the question of Kronstadt reveal much broader differences over the nature of a 'workers' state' and so on.

Krondstadt is a historical footnote that's been blown out of proportion by propagandists, as the very first paragraph of that ICC article acknowledges. It's no doubt necessary to explain it historically, if only to counter all the misunderstandings and propaganda surrounding it, but it doesn't have any unique potential as a tool for analysis. In any case, regardless of the theoretical issues at stake, a 21st-century communist movement has nothing to gain by defining itself on a specific historical instance well outside of living memory, (i.e. Kronstadt and the Russian revolutionary process generally).

Well think harder.
Gacky, you are a ray of light shining down from heaven and into my heart.

Obs

9th May 2011, 00:08

yeah let's sabotage the fuck out of the revolutionary government in the middle of a civil war that'll learn 'em

RGacky3

9th May 2011, 07:14

yeah let's sabotage the fuck out of the revolutionary government in the middle of a civil war that'll learn 'em

The point was they did'nt consider it a revolutionary government.

Thug Lessons

9th May 2011, 07:50

How do you mistake that for a youtube Gacky?

Obs

9th May 2011, 11:49

The point was they did'nt consider it a revolutionary government.

So it was really a conflict between tendencies. Guess we found out who had the most productive modus operandi, eh?

RGacky3

9th May 2011, 12:06

If by that you mean more guns, then yeah, but what we did find out is what one tendancy turns into, and its not pretty.

Savage

9th May 2011, 12:09

So it was really a conflict between tendencies. Guess we found out who had the most productive modus operandi, eh?

Except that we've already established that there were and are non-Anarchists that didn't support the suppression, including rank and file members of the Bolsheviks, and that the programme of establishing soviets is as much 'Leninist' as it is 'libertarian', so no, the Kronstadt uprising was hardly a specifically Anarchist movement (it was communist, working class), and the function of the 'soviet' state at this period of time was hardly considered socialist by Lenin,

End of February 1922:
"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions And there is absolutely nothing terrible in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)

RGacky3

9th May 2011, 13:05

Yeah, this was'nt an anarchist vrs lennist conflict, I don't think I was claiming that.

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 12:22

Kronstadt is a difficult and complex subject- but it seems there has been much mythologising of the "noble" Kronstadt sailors...

"But what of the ordinary participants of the Kronstadt rebellion? Were these sailors really ready to die for “communism without Bolsheviks”? Sailor Dmitry Urin wrote on March 5, in a letter to his father in the Herson province of Ukraine, “We dismissed the commune, we have Commune no more, now we have only Soviet power. We in Kronstadt made a resolution to send all the Jews to Palestine, in order not to have in Russia such filth, all sailors shouted: ‘Jews Out’...” (9) Ibid, vol. 1, doc. 58, p. 119. If anyone had any doubts about the “real revolutionary” content of this letter this phrase is sufficient to dispel that. It is so stark that it needs no further comment."
http://www.marxist.com/makhno-anarchists-kronstadt-russia.htm

Also consider Petropavlovsk Resolution

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 the Ship Crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there, Resolved:
(1) 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;
(2) To establish freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, for Anarchists and left Socialist parties;
(3) To secure freedom of assembly for labor unions and peasant organizations;
(4) 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 10th, 1921;
(5) 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;
(6) To elect a commission to review the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps;
(7) To abolish all politotdeli (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;
(8) To abolish immediately all zagryaditelniye otryadi;
(9) To equalize the rations of all who work, with the exception of those employed in trades is detrimental to health;
(10) 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;
(11) To give the peasants full 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;
(12) To request all branches of the army, as well as our comrades the military kursanti, to concur in our resolutions; (13) To demand that the press give the fullest publicity to resolutions;
(14) To appoint a Travelling Commission of Control; (15) To permit free kustarnoye (Individuals small scale) production by one's own efforts.
(15) To permit free kustarnoye (Individuals small scale) production by one's own efforts. Resolution passed unanimously by a brigade in meeting, two persons refraining from voting.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/kronstadt/berkkron.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/kronstadt/berkkron.html)

manic expression

10th May 2011, 12:49

If by that you mean more guns, then yeah, but what we did find out is what one tendancy turns into, and its not pretty.
Your pacifism humors us.

Kiev Communard

10th May 2011, 12:50

RGacky3

10th May 2011, 13:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2105653#post2105653)
If by that you mean more guns, then yeah, but what we did find out is what one tendancy turns into, and its not pretty.
Your pacifism humors us.

I wasn't talking about pacifism, I was saying that juts because the bolsheviks won militarily does'nt mean they were correct ideologically.

How the hell do you get pacifism from that post?

manic expression

10th May 2011, 13:11

I wasn't talking about pacifism, I was saying that juts because the bolsheviks won militarily does'nt mean they were correct ideologically.
This isn't as much primarily about ideology as it is about plain facts. The Bolsheviks were pursuing the interests of the workers in the Civil War, and the rebellion was a threat to that.

RGacky3

10th May 2011, 13:14

The Bolsheviks were pursuing the interests of the workers in the Civil War, and the rebellion was a threat to that.

Thats your opinion, I say that they were not pursuing the interests of the workers, or they were pursuing some of their interests while destroying other interests.

You could also argue that the rebellion was pursuing hte interests of hte workers in trying to institute a proper workers democracy and socialism.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 13:19

Thats your opinion, I say that they were not pursuing the interests of the workers, or they were pursuing some of their interests while destroying other interests.
Of course they were destroying other interests, that's the whole point of a revolution.

You could also argue that the rebellion was pursuing hte interests of hte workers in trying to institute a proper workers democracy and socialism.The rebels were fighting against the Soviets. That much is an incontrovertible fact. All their declarations about "democracy" ring hollow because of this.

RGacky3

10th May 2011, 13:31

Of course they were destroying other interests, that's the whole point of a revolution.

other interests of the workers, like it being in their interests to have a real say over public policy, or have freedom of speech.

The rebels were fighting against the Soviets. That much is an incontrovertible fact. All their declarations about "democracy" ring hollow because of this.

They were fighting against Bolshevik subversion of the soviets.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 14:05

other interests of the workers, like it being in their interests to have a real say over public policy, or have freedom of speech.
The leaders put in place by the Congress of the Soviets were directing the war effort, and anti-Soviet dissidents like Emma Goldman freely walked the streets. That's exceptional for the situation.

They were fighting against Bolshevik subversion of the soviets.
Call it what you want, they were fighting the Soviets.

RGacky3

10th May 2011, 14:14

The leaders put in place by the Congress of the Soviets were directing the war effort, and anti-Soviet dissidents like Emma Goldman freely walked the streets. That's exceptional for the situation.

They were not anti-soviet dissidents, they were anti-cheka, anti great terror and so on.

Call it what you want, they were fighting the Soviets.

No they were not, they were calling for re-elections, proper elections, they were fighting against the Bolsheviks.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 14:47

They were not anti-soviet dissidents, they were anti-cheka, anti great terror and so on.
Yeah, sure, they were for the Soviets but not for the organizations that were defending the Soviets. Awesome logic. But anyway, I see that you admit that dissidents were allowed to walk the streets freely.

No they were not, they were calling for re-elections, proper elections, they were fighting against the Bolsheviks.In the middle of a civil war. You do understand how that's sabotage, right? And yes, they were fighting the Soviets, as the Congress of the Soviets was the basis of the government at the time.

trivas7

10th May 2011, 15:00

I don't think that was the case, I just think that Lenin and Co. did'nt trust the revolution to anyone else, so they tried to stifle democracy, I think they were genuinely socialists, but it had to be their way, thats one reason why they did'nt accept the constituents assembally, because it was'nt their way or the high way.

That being said, I think proper soviet democracy could have easily happened had the non-bolshevic parties no walk out like cry babies during the Congress of Soviets.

Also it could have happened had the Bolsheviks respected the COnstituents assembally.

Even then had the Cheka and the great terror not happened .... The Russian Revolution was something that should have definately worked, but it was almost a perfect storm.
The best layed plans...

Revolutions never accomplish their intended goals.

Thirsty Crow

10th May 2011, 15:00

In the middle of a civil war. You do understand how that's sabotage, right? And yes, they were fighting the Soviets, as the Congress of the Soviets was the basis of the government at the time.
Still peddling the old line, eh?
No, the civil war against the whites was over with the retreat of Wrangel from Crimea in November 1920. Everything said about the following events must be judged from this perspective.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 15:06

Still peddling the old line, eh?
No, the civil war against the whites was over with the retreat of Wrangel from Crimea in November 1920. Everything said about the following events must be judged from this perspective.
Those events took place with a revolutionary government exhausted and depleted from the events of the previous years, as well as continuing civil warfare. That is the perspective that matters most here, and it is the one that the Bolsheviks took in suppressing the anti-Soviet revolt at Kronstadt.

Thirsty Crow

10th May 2011, 15:50

Those events took place with a revolutionary government exhausted and depleted from the events of the previous years, as well as continuing civil warfare. That is the perspective that matters most here, and it is the one that the Bolsheviks took in suppressing the anti-Soviet revolt at Kronstadt.

Of course that the perspective the Bolsheviks took would be the most important one. Party hegemony, as opposed to class hegemony, works that way.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 15:56

Of course that the perspective the Bolsheviks took would be the most important one. Party hegemony, as opposed to class hegemony, works that way.
The perspective of the working class was little different.

RGacky3

10th May 2011, 22:03

Those events took place with a SELF PROCLAIMED revolutionary government exhausted and depleted from the events of the previous years, as well as continuing civil warfare. That is the perspective that matters most here, and it is the one that the Bolsheviks took in suppressing the anti-Soviet revolt at Kronstadt.

Fixed

The perspective of the working class was little different.

WHich is why they did'nt respect the constituents assembally, and destroyed functioning democracy going forward, because face it they were more interested in their own perspective than the perspective of the working class.

RGacky3

10th May 2011, 22:03

Let me put it to you this way, had Lenin never came to Russia do you think the revolution would have or could have happened?

manic expression

10th May 2011, 22:24

WHich is why they did'nt respect the constituents assembally, and destroyed functioning democracy going forward, because face it they were more interested in their own perspective than the perspective of the working class.
The Constituent Assembly was a bourgeois institution, its destruction was an integral task of the working-class revolution.

Let me put it to you this way, had Lenin never came to Russia do you think the revolution would have or could have happened?
I would think so, but I honestly don't know. I try not to deal with counterfactuals.

Jose Gracchus

10th May 2011, 22:58

yeah let's sabotage the fuck out of the revolutionary government in the middle of a civil war that'll learn 'em

Wrangel was gone the previous November. The Kronstadt rebels did not want "sabotage" or even, indeed, to "rebel". The Bolshevik government regarded their proposal to hold new soviet elections as a political threat and blockaded the offending port before assaulting it with troops saturated by party elements to avoid Red Army soldiers having excessive sympathy for the rebellion.

Typical Leninist school of falsification at work.

Obs

11th May 2011, 02:32

Wrangel was gone the previous November. The Kronstadt rebels did not want "sabotage" or even, indeed, to "rebel". The Bolshevik government regarded their proposal to hold new soviet elections as a political threat and blockaded the offending port before assaulting it with troops saturated by party elements to avoid Red Army soldiers having excessive sympathy for the rebellion.

Typical Leninist school of falsification at work.

I think a lot of the men and women who died in Siberia and the Ukraine would've loved to know that the war ended as soon as Wrangel had been defeated. Don't forget that the Soviets still had to defeat the Japanese and the anarchists after the Whites had been all but dispersed.

PhoenixAsh

11th May 2011, 02:44

That was their mistake. Anarchists are by far preferable above leninism.

After the initial betrayal of the revolution by the bolsheviks and their subsequent further betrayal of its principles in Kronstadt it then proceeded with its appaling repression of anything that was more leftwing and genuine than the boslheviks...foregoing the principles of thesis, antithesis and synthesis which should be a cornerstone of radical leftwing policy....in that lay the foundations of everything that went subsequently wrong in the years and decades after.

Saying that this is all because of counter revolution and the threat to the system is an easy escape. It means the principles on which that revolution were founded were both incorrect and not genuine.

That is what tends to happen when you kill off your radical commrades and manage to establish a political dictatorship which dictates how people should live their lives and organises everything instead of giving that power to the workers...where it belongs.

Jose Gracchus

11th May 2011, 02:51

I think a lot of the men and women who died in Siberia and the Ukraine would've loved to know that the war ended as soon as Wrangel had been defeated. Don't forget that the Soviets still had to defeat the Japanese and the anarchists after the Whites had been all but dispersed.

Vacuous non-reply. I said they did not look to rebel. Rather, the Pride of October revolutionary workers and sailors of Kronstadt wanted to hold open meetings with Petrograd workers who were striking, and discuss the situation, and the Bolshevik leadership responded with hysterical violent repression and deceitful propaganda so preposterous you won't dare cite it today. There was no design to sabotage the war effort.

Obs

11th May 2011, 03:13

Vacuous non-reply. I said they did not look to rebel.

What the fuck is striking if not rebellion?

Jose Gracchus

11th May 2011, 03:15

Slave-logic. Striking is a perfectly reasonable alternative when THE WORKERS STATE won't let you send your workers' deputies to it namesake Councils of Workers' Deputies.

Obs

11th May 2011, 03:21

Slave-logic. Risking the collapse and defeat of the revolutionary government is a perfectly reasonable alternative when THE WORKERS STATE won't let you send your workers' deputies to it namesake Councils of Workers' Deputies.

Fix'd.

I don't think we'll reach an agreement on this, and I ought to spend my time finishing a paper due tomorrow. Feel free to consider this my surrender to your infinitely superior argumentation and have a celebratory wank.

Jose Gracchus

11th May 2011, 03:27

I am simply asking you to provide us with a sound and plausible mechanism by which the Kronstadters' actions would plausibly cause the immediate collapse of soviet power and the restoration of capitalism. Otherwise, its a pretext, and has nothing to do at all with the actual actions of the Bolshevik leadership.

RGacky3

11th May 2011, 07:04

The Constituent Assembly was a bourgeois institution, its destruction was an integral task of the working-class revolution.

How was that a bourgeois institution???? It was post revolution????

Savage

11th May 2011, 09:49

The most important points I see on the subject of Kronstadt (and its respective epoch) are:
-Kronstadt was not a counter-revolution, it was part of the decomposing proletarian struggle, part of the failing Russian Revolution, a call for soviets which could not be answered simply by Bokshevik policy.
-The state that arose from the revolution was not a Leninist (in the sense of Lenin himself) model of socialism.
-The Bolsheviks as a whole did not 'betray their principles', even if certain factions were no longer (or never were) communist.

manic expression

11th May 2011, 18:04

How was that a bourgeois institution???? It was post revolution????
It was part of the capitalist regime headed by Kerensky. I don't think anyone on the left mourned its dissolution, then or now.

I am simply asking you to provide us with a sound and plausible mechanism by which the Kronstadters' actions would plausibly cause the immediate collapse of soviet power and the restoration of capitalism. Otherwise, its a pretext, and has nothing to do at all with the actual actions of the Bolshevik leadership.
So rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat is OK just as long as you're not all that much of a threat? Doesn't make sense...rebellion against the Soviets is rebellion against the Soviets. But anyway, the fortress at Kronstadt commands the waterways into Petrograd. Had Kronstadt continued in rebellion, it would have contributed to a severe weakness in the ability for Soviet forces to defend the city.

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2011, 18:07

If the worker's state is a corrupt and tyrannical institution focused more on its own survival then any genuine worker empowerment I'll rebel against it too. I thought that was the whole point!

RGacky3

11th May 2011, 18:24

It was part of the capitalist regime headed by Kerensky. I don't think anyone on the left mourned its dissolution, then or now.

The Bolsheviks SUPPORTED the CA post revolution, as a legitimate democratic institution, until they lost, then they shut it down and shot pro CA protesters. Its clear the dissolution was simply because the BOlsheviks lost, not because of some idoelogical push.

So rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat is OK just as long as you're not all that much of a threat?

Yes, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is not actually a dictatorhsip of the proletariat yes, you should rebel against it.

Doesn't make sense...rebellion against the Soviets is rebellion against the Soviets. But anyway, the fortress at Kronstadt commands the waterways into Petrograd. Had Kronstadt continued in rebellion, it would have contributed to a severe weakness in the ability for Soviet forces to defend the city.

THey were rebellign because THERE WAS NO SOVIET DEMOCRACY, so it wa'nst againsta the soviets, it was against the bolsheviks who destroyed the soviet socialisat nature of the revolution.

Why should you defend a revolutoin that is'nt promoting workers empowerment?

Obs

11th May 2011, 22:55

Yes, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is not actually a dictatorhsip of the proletariat yes, you should rebel against it.
So was it a rebellion or not? Would be cool if you guys could get that bit straight

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2011, 23:16

I wasn't saying it, necessarily, was a rebellion. But I am saying if the supposed worker's state is more interested in its own survival than genuine worker empowerment, I would rebel against it. And I hope you would too, or your just as reactionary as you claim they were.

Revolutionair

11th May 2011, 23:47

1. The state either empowers workers or it doesn't. If workers are empowered there would be no need to ask for/try to claim more empowerment.

2. A rebellion is an act to empower yourself, it forces people to not ignore you.

3. If the situation in Kronstadt was a rebellion, then they* were not empowered.

4. If they* were not empowered, the state was NOT a workers state.

*It is unclear to who "they" refers to. My question to the people in this thread is: are the Kronstadt sailors part of the proletariat or were there other people in Kronstadt, who participated in the rebellion, that were part of the proletariat. If yes, then 4 must be true.

PhoenixAsh

12th May 2011, 00:27

So was it a rebellion or not? Would be cool if you guys could get that bit straight

Well...in that case...if you insist...the Kornstadt situation was a revolution against counter revolutionary elements who thought and eventually succeded in actually killing the revolution and lead the country into a bloody dictatorship which led to a complete and utter failure to bring socialism.

Jose Gracchus

12th May 2011, 07:35

So rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat is OK just as long as you're not all that much of a threat? Doesn't make sense...rebellion against the Soviets is rebellion against the Soviets. But anyway, the fortress at Kronstadt commands the waterways into Petrograd. Had Kronstadt continued in rebellion, it would have contributed to a severe weakness in the ability for Soviet forces to defend the city.

There was no unprovoked act of rebellion, unless you classify discussing forming political forums for discussion among the working-class an act of "rebellion" against the "workers' state." The recourse to violent confrontation was made by the so-called workers' state, not the workers of Kronstadt. This was stated and demonstrated here priorly, but naturally you didn't read it.

The book necessary to answer the entire thread title is Israel Getzler's Kronstadt: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy, 1917-1921.

Kiev Communard

12th May 2011, 13:33

I

So rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat is OK just as long as you're not all that much of a threat? Doesn't make sense...rebellion against the Soviets is rebellion against the Soviets. But anyway, the fortress at Kronstadt commands the waterways into Petrograd. Had Kronstadt continued in rebellion, it would have contributed to a severe weakness in the ability for Soviet forces to defend the city.

Well, actually the Bolsheviks manipulated elections to Soviets in 1918, depriving these bodies of any actual power. In fact, the Kronstadters fought for the restoration of full power of Soviets, against a minority political party that usurped their authority. They did not want to ban or dissolve Bolsheviks, many Bolshevik Party members at Kronstadt voluntarily joined the rebellion. Had the rebellion triumphed, neither NEP state capitalism that led to complete and final bureaucratization of RKP(b), nor the further massacre of Old Bolsheviks by Stalinists, would have in all likelihood taken place.