Two Questions for Stalinists/Leninists

[Deepest Red]

I was wondering how you explain the crushing of Kronstadt, the sailors stationed there were the most elite unit at the disposal of Red forces during the civil war, why should they be slaughtered for demanding what the bolsheviks had initially promised, that is, "All power to the soviets!".

I am interested as to how you justify this. (Leninists/Stalinists)

For reference, their demands:

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

And also Lenin's will, which stated that Stalin shouldn't be his successor (I can't remember the exact words).

What is your take on this? (Stalinists)

[Redmau5]

The Stalinists seem to dodge the issue of "Lenin's testament", by either claiming that Lenin was in an "unfit state" to make such decisions or by even calling the document a hoax. It was clear Lenin did not want Stalin to take over the party leadership. Although Lenin also had his reserves about Trotsky, he clearly favoured the latter before comrade Koba as his successor.

I can sympathise with what the Kronstadt sailors wanted, that is true democracy in the soviets. However, with all the problems is Russia at the time, such as food and fuel shortages as well as external hostility, was another revolution really the best solution ? Would democracy necessarily have meant "peace, land and bread" ? Personally, i believe it wouldn't have. Although Kronstadt was extremely unfortunate, it led to the introduction of the NEP, which meant greater economic freedoms in Russia, which in turn meant less hostility towards the government.

[RASH chris]

Wasn't it actually Trostsky who had the Kronstadt uprising put down?

[YKTMX]

Kronstadt (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

Read this.

[OleMarxco]

How ironic the title of the document is "Trotsky is right" :rolleyes:
Talk about a unpartial source of documetns, y'gave there, YKTMX :P
There is no answer to that question. Stalinists were anti-Workers...
...although some of the people at Kronstad were counter-revolutionary peasents and petite-burgeouise, ipso factos.....BARF! ;)

[Sa'd al-Bari]

And also Lenin's will, which stated that Stalin shouldn't be his successor (I can't remember the exact words).
For the sake of providing information, this chapter from Ludo Marten’s Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000) contains commonly used arguments put forth to describe what Stalin supporters see as the “historical context” behind the document in question.

[Clarksist]

Stalinists seem to be stalinists for the way that he was in power, and they desperately want to have the power he did.

And I think that the demands of the Kronstadt should have been accepted, because, as many people know, socialism can only work if the leaders are governing on the behalf of the workers.

[El_Revolucionario]

Or if the workers are governing themselves, with no "leaders". ;)

[Poum_1936]

was wondering how you explain the crushing of Kronstadt, the sailors stationed there were the most elite unit at the disposal of Red forces during the civil war, why should they be slaughtered for demanding what the bolsheviks had initially promised, that is, "All power to the soviets!".

At the beginning of the revolution. When did Kronstadt happen? 1921? I think most of the "elite units" or the most militant revolutionaries were long gone. Stationed elsewhere fighting in the red army in various fronts.

Also, Trotsky was the one that supressed the uprising. His defence here...

Hue and Cry Over Krontstadt (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-kronstadt.htm)

The Stalinists used this event as a way to further smear the image of Trotsy.

[D_Bokk]

Like other have said, more internal turmoil will lead to the destruction of all chances of Socialism. Giving power to the people wouldn't have been a good idea, at the time. Since much of the people were uneducated - I doubt that their choices would've led to a Socialist State. Deception is a characteristic of all Capitalists, and the uneducated masses may elect one of them.

[Holocaustpulp]

Kronstadt was put down by Trotsky, but we are not viewing the broader circumstance here. It was in fact Lenin and the Bolshevik elites that forced the destruction of Kronstadt due to the soldiers' disagreement and protest of Lenin's New Economic Policy. Not only did Lenin betray the laborers in this instance (among many others), but he also justified it by means of issuing propaganda via Pravada that those at Kronstadt were Socialist-Revolutionaries who were allied with capitalists.

As a doctinaire Leninist myself, I say this ruefully. However, it should be recognized by all socialists, by all anarchists, and - in general - by all leftists, that Lenin's post-revolutionary actions were anti-Marxist and indeed the prelude to an even worse descration of Marxism: Stalinism. However, Lenin's written comtribution to communist theory and his active implementation of revolution will never be forgot, nor can brushed aside by any knowledgeable man.

Also, concerning Lenin's deviation from socialism, one must remember it was the imperialists who instigated war on soviet Russia after the revolutionary nation quit the excess of World War I; this in turn lead to the death of a dream in the USSR.

- Holocaustpulp

[Deepest Red]

Thanks for your replies :)
I feel much better informed as to the different viewpoints now, thankyou.

To over-simplify I personally think that the main error in terms of the USSR was that Lenin et al forced through revolution when they did not have support from the majority of the Russian people. This in turn meant that they had a lot of opposition and were somewhat forced down an authoritarian route, regardless of their own leanings. For the Bolsheviks, accepting the demands of Kronstadt would have meant loosening their grip on power somewhat 'unacceptably' and may well have compromised the revolution. What point is there in a revolution unsupported by the people though? It should be the will of the people that we support, we need to persuade, not force, them to communism!

(VERY!) Speculatively, not surpressing Kronstadt may indeed have meant that Russia instead followed a path similar to western european countries (politically and economically) but would also have meant Stalin may have never happened.
(Don't take that last paragraph particularly seriously :P)



No Stalinists??

[YKTMX]

To over-simplify I personally think that the main error in terms of the USSR was that Lenin et al forced through revolution when they did not have support from the majority of the Russian people. This in turn meant that they had a lot of opposition and were somewhat forced down an authoritarian route

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

The Bolsheviks had a majority in the Soviets and had the backing of most of the peasants, who wanted land and an end to the war.

The only people who didn't support the revolution were the old monarchists, army people and rich landowners. They are far from a "majority".

I reccomend you try and get 'Ten Days That Shook The World' by Jack Reed, one my my favourite books. Read that and you'll get a real idea of what Russia was like after October.

[Deepest Red]

The SRs had the most support from the people did they not? The Bolsheviks prevented the national assembly from meeting with force, they were not elected in this body.

The SRs, Mensheviks etc. refused to participate in the Congress of Soviets in protest to the Bolsheviks, they believed they would fail just as the provisional government did, though were obviously very wrong!

They did have majorities in the two most important soviets, Moscow and Petrograd, but in general they did not have majority support. The peasents saw the reds merely as the lesser of two evils when faced with choice of Red or White.

I shall try and read the book, though currently I have a pile of stuff to read.

I'm not trying to argue against you, morseo increase my understanding, feel free to point out any blatant errors! :)

[YKTMX]

The SRs had the most support from the people did they not? The Bolsheviks prevented the national assembly from meeting with force, they were not elected in this body.


The SR's received more votes in the Constituent assembly, yes. But the vote was flawed. The question in Russia at the time was Soviet Power or Bourgeois reaction. Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw that the Assembly could become a haven for counter revolutionists. When they did close the Constituent Assembly, nobody in Russia even noticed (even bourgeois historians admit this), it was not an issue for most Russians.


The peasents saw the reds merely as the lesser of two evils when faced with choice of Red or White.


The main concern of the poor peasantry was:

1) The war, which the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out from.
2) Land reform, which the Bolsheviks also enacted.

[Deepest Red]

Actually I agree on that point, how was the vote flawed though? I have not heard about that.


The main concern of the poor peasantry was:

1) The war, which the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out from.
2) Land reform, which the Bolsheviks also enacted.

This is true, however when war communism came into action many peasants were unable to grow even subsistent crops, this happened as the people from the cities sent out to requisition grain (which had been hoarded by the peasantry due to inflation) took everything, including that which was needed to grow next years crops. This was perhaps neccessary to keep the Red war effort ticking over, but it certainly didn't raise support.

Although this was pretty bad they still preferred it to the Whites' policies (or lack thereof) which mainly meant restoring lands to the nobility, of course the White cause was not helped by the fact that what propaganda it did produce was often overtly racist, the poor discipline of its troops didn't help either. They often pillaged villiages, corruption was rife and many were working for personal profit.

Neither situation was good, though the Reds were preferred.

[YKTMX]

Actually I agree on that point, how was the vote flawed though? I have not heard about that.


Well, turnout was below 50% and in some areas there was no poll held at all. The SR's had split after some election lists had been taken so the Left SR's, who were extremely close to the Bolsheviks, didn't get on the list, which resulted in a massive majority for the Right SR's (basically counter revolutionaries).

The all-congress of the Soviets gave a more accurate picture, and in October 1917, the Bolsheviks had more than half the delegates.


This was perhaps neccessary to keep the Red war effort ticking over, but it certainly didn't raise support.


That's right but the Bolsheviks had a choice at that moment, they could worry about next year's harvest and leave the grain or they they could feed the starving millions in the cities NOW. I know which I would go for.

[Deepest Red]

That's right but the Bolsheviks had a choice at that moment, they could worry about next year's harvest and leave the grain or they they could feed the starving millions in the cities NOW. I know which I would go for.

Good point, though it still doesn't mean that the peasantry would like them anymore.

I'm certainly learning more on the subject in any case, thanks :)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:27 PM
Also, Trotsky was the one that supressed the uprising. His defence here...

Hue and Cry Over Krontstadt (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-kronstadt.htm)
Actually, no. He wasn't personally involved. Of course he was politically responsible as a member of the government.

Otherwise, what's been said is accurate. Both links are good.

[MParenti]

If the Kronstadt partisans had their way there would have been no Soviet Union and Russia would have been destroyed by the countless number of imperialist countries that had invaded it. The Kronstadt rebels were supported by Tsarists and counterrevolutionaries, and actually the town was liberated by workers of the town before the main Red Army forces attacked.

[Paroxsiticxc]

Sadly enough it seems all uprisings for freedom, equality, and solidarity were put down with force. Let's not forget about the Makhnovtchina in the Ukraine, that was all but wiped out by the Red Army. Nestor Makhno's Black Army was one of the best fighting militias that fought the Whites, on the side of the Reds during the Civil War. Anyone know the reason for eliminating the Makhnovist movement?

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:32 AM
Not only did Lenin betray the laborers in this instance (among many others), but he also justified it by means of issuing propaganda via Pravada that those at Kronstadt were Socialist-Revolutionaries who were allied with capitalists.

Even anarchist historican, Paul Avrich accepts that leaders of the Kronstadt rebellion had links to the White army.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

When I first started to get interested in anarchism and Marxism to see where I stood, the Kronstadt rebellion was one of my main concerns. I've read a lot about the revolution, civil war and rebellions from several viewpoints and I encourage everyone to do the same.

This analysis pretty much settled it for me:
Hue And Cry Over Kronstadt by Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-kronstadt.htm)
A letter and reply on the Kronstadt rebellion - World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org/history/1998/sep1998/bak-s16.shtml)

[TC]

Hmmmmmm


a. Kronstadt mutineers were a pro-White army essentially petty bourgeois movement. Trotsky wasn't attacking the workers, the workers weren't the ones participating in the uprising. The only sense that the Kronstadt uprising was "anarchist" was in that it was anti-Communist. Trotsky's actions were completely justifiable in order to protect Petrograd.

b. I'm not a "stalinist" but i'll reply to it anyways because Lenin's will is so often refered to ncorrectly. If you've read the actual text of Lenin's Testimate you'd see that his main concern was in preventing Stalin and Trotsky from causing a split in the Party, not out of some particular love for Trotsky or hatred for Stalin. When he talks about individual communist leaders such as Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Pyatakov, he is rather mixed and says some positive things and some negative things about each one of them. Lenin for instance said Trotsky was excessive self-assuranced and ironically, had an excessive preoccupation with administrative tasks. The suggestion he repeated the most was that the central committee ought to be expanded by 50 or 100 members in order to stabalize the party and reduce the risk for a split. He never nominates Trotsky as a successor and he never gives any dire warnings about Stalin, he just says that Stalin is rude and he ought to be replaced with someone more polite in order to prevent a split. But he doesn't give any suggestions as to who that should be and, anyways, Lenin wasn't a monarch he doesn't get to appoint a successor.