Log in

View Full Version : Workers movements behind thr Iron Curtain



Forward Union
28th September 2006, 20:43
What did the Proletarian movement look like behind the iron curtain? What did working class organisations look like? Well, having looked into it, it seems most were repressed out of existence by the late 1920s, Using some of Selfeds essays and other articles (mostly from libcom), I've sort of put some significant historical events that lead to the destruction of the anarchist-communist and Libertarian marxist syndicalist movements in some chronological order. But they're weren't completely obliterated, some survived in the USSRs satalight nations...

Despite slogans like "all power to the soviets" and a variety of Libertarian-Marxist and Anarchist communist groups such as the Chernoe Znamia (TheBlack Banner) and Beznachalie (Without Authority), fighting in the russian revolution. The smoke cleared and left a single party dictatorship. Bor’ba in Bialoystok, stated; anarchists groups “sprang up like mushrooms after a rain.” and yet, after the civil war, no proletarian organisations existed in Russia.

The first signs of repression hit in november 1917, the Bolshevik party began searching and arresting all citizens it suspected of being counter revolutionary.

“You protest at this mild terror...you should know later the terror will
assume very violent forms after the example of the French Revolution.
The guillotine will be ready for our enemies and not merely jail”. - trotsky

Weeks later what would become the CheKa was established to infiltrate, spy on and ultimately obliterate counter revolutionary organisations. Up until now such an organisation had not been needed, as the Revolution had been so successful... With no constitutional checks it began targeting workers movements, such as the Syndicalist groups that had fought against the Bourgeoisie in the revolution, and helped achieve workers control in Petrograd. The penalty for being a libertarian Communist, Marxist, Anarchist, or as the CheKa put it “those who pass out or stick up anti-government leaflets” by now only months into Lenins rule, was death. To be caught with Anarchist-Syndiclist or Libertarian-Marxist literature, meant facing the firing squad. Even by Tsarist standards, the use of capital punishment by the CheKa was unusually high. The Bolsheviks effectively used the CheKa as a tool for party rule. In December 1917, at the All Russian Congress of Peasants, one peasant stated:

“Comrade Lenin knows that if you disagree with him, he will scatter
you with bayonets ...You speak of the power of the soviets and, in the
meantime, the actions of the commissars undermine the power of the
soviets. In place of soviet power, we have the power of Lenin, who is
now in the place occupied by Tsar Nicholas.”

The Bolshevik party, by now, had began down a path of destroying all opposition. Not just the capitalists, but the Anarchists, Libertarian Marxists, the sailors at Kronsdat and the revolutionaries in Ukraine. Furthermore, the Bolsheviks began dealing with the capitalists, giving land over to the germans, despite troskys claims that they could destroy any invading army, through use of Guerrilla war. Essentially the bolsheviks sold off a large section of the Russian working class, as it was in the national interest. The Socialists and Anarchists argued for the formation of Revolutionary militias to fight off any german invasion, and workers responded by forming military detachments to go to white russia and the Ukraine.

The Bolsheviks responded to this working class mobilisation against German imperialism, by saying that Russia should honour the treaty with Germany. Trotsky dispatched troops to massacre the Working class militias. As a result, many began calling for the overthrow of the Bolshevik dictatorship, and for the formation of free soviets under direct workers control. These sentiments had begun to gain popularity- Lenin acknowledged this saying, "The nearer we come to the suppression of the Bourgeoisie, the more dangerous becomes to us the high flood of anarchism...this must be met with force and compulsion"

On april 12th troops were deployed against the Syndicalist and communist movements. Their centres were closed, activists shot and imprisoned. And by January 1918 the VSNKh was attached to the CPC to introduce the Bolsheviks industrial programme. By January 1918 the VSNKh began taking on the managers of Capitalist firms as advisors. By may it has bureaucratic control of the industry - and made laws prohibiting expropriation of industry without its authority.

When the civil war broke out, there was something of a loosening of state repression, and many began to feel a revived faith in the ideals of the revolution. By 1919 the White army was on the retreat, the Makhnovstschina playing a large part in their defeat. Immediately, the bolsheviks set about destroying the Makhnovstschina. With the war nearing it's end, the Bolshevik state actually increased it's repression. This was also the period during which the sailors of Kronstadt were slaughtered by the red army.

After Kronsdat Lenin argued that the death sentence should be the official punishment for all forms of activity linked to the Mensheviks, social revolutionaries, syndicalists and anarchists. In the next few years no coherent Syndicalist or Anarchist-communist organisation existed (that I know of) within Russia. Though I've heard of the odd 'riot" and "strike" that resulted in the same arrests, and other forms of punishment.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/eastern.html

During perestroika there was also a group called "Obshchina in Moscow State University who had been independent socialists/trotskyists, started publishing "Commune" they were made up of Trotskyist and Anarchist activists.

However, skipping back to Hungary in 1944. The Hungarian Fascist Admiral Horthy had begun attacking Communist and Anarchist movements with some success. It had seemed the anarchist movement was completely quashed, though many Libertarians began to organise around an anarchist named Torockoi. They waged war against the state, managing many victories, including the detonation of a munitions dump and destruction of two units of the Hungarian River fleet. They took part in the battle of Budapest with allied forces. The Russians then banned the movement, shortly after, on Csepel Island, the workers went on strike. Thirty workers, including 24 anarchists, were subsequently executed. And Torockoi died after being arrested. The movement was liquidated. Hungarian anarchists failed to organise under the repression of the state, until 1956.

In 1956 workers councils formed, and the 'communists' cracked down. In the same year there was a General strike. The strike was called by the Revolutionary Council of Workers and Students spread through the whole country. The council called for civil liberty, the withdrawal of Russian troops and workers management of the workplace. The state managers were in many cases driven out of their positions. The workers managed to keep essential services going, however.

On observer said "Although the general strike is in being and there is no centrally organised industry, the workers are nevertheless taking it upon themselves to keep essential services going for purposes which they determine and support. Workers councils in industrial districts have undertaken the distribution of essential goods and food to the population, in order to keep them alive... It is self help in a setting of Anarchy"

The russian troops withdrew, but only to surround the cities until reinforcements arrived. The soviets went into the towns massacring the resistance. They used conventional and incendiary rounds, tanks and artillery. Many proletarian activists were hanged. The resistance was eradicated. Although there was still resistance it was small and sporadic. There are no official statistics for the losses in these battles.

I haven't really found any more examples of Anarchist Syndicalist or any other proletarian organisations that existed within the USSR, post 1920, if you could send me some appropriate links, to history essays on the issue, or other archives of information it'd be greatly appreciated.

Severian
28th September 2006, 23:47
This really isn't a decent explanation of "why there weren't many" as the thread title promises.

There were some, of course -besides what you've mentioned, there were movements in Germany IIRC Poland in the 50s. An interesting and basically progressive student movement in Yugoslavia in the 60s.

But less than one might expect, and why?

The world is full of repressive regimes - many of them much bloodier than the USSR was (with the exception of the worst part of the Stalin period.) But few of them can successfully suppress workers' organizing for decades.

And then, repressive regimes are a social phenomenon which needs explaining like any other. How did the political, social and economic context make it easier to set up and maintain them?

So you gotta look at some of the particular features of the regimes and economic setups of the former Soviet bloc....

I can throw out a couple things which may be factors - I'm not claiming this is anywhere near a complete answer:

1. Workers were cut off from the rest of the world, more than capitalist regimes typically can do. Because of capitalism is necessarily part of the world market.

The problem of internationalism remains a major problem of working-class politics in the former Soviet Bloc and China. I think even more than a lot of places.

2. Uncertainty and economic change are great producers of revolt and resisters. Much more than simple poverty and misery. While life in the former USSR was no bowl of cherries, workers were insulated from a lot of uncertainty typical in market-based economies. Their social benefit systems, the lack of unemployment, etc....

3. Exhaustion from revolution, counterrevolution, and war. Russia was last in economic development and culture but first politically - and paid a penalty. Revolutions wear people out....this exhaustion of the working class, after years of incredibly difficult struggle against the whole capitalist world, was a major cause of the bureaucratic counterrevolution led by Stalin.

The regime emerging out of this exhaustion and defeat was especially repressive. Then there was the apparatchiks' Terror, the famines caused by forced collectivization, and on top of everything the tremendous death and destruction of WWII. (And WWII affected eastern Europe too, not just the USSR.)

All of those set back the objective conditions for ending bureaucratic rule. It took a while for workers to recover. When they began to, there occurred Khruschev's reforms and other attempts to partially accomodate pressure from below.

4. The regimes' claim to be communist, and the million hypocrisies involved in maintaining this false claim - contributed to a lot of cynicism and despair over any kind of political change. The idea of workers' struggle itself was discredited by association.

Leo
29th September 2006, 06:46
That was a good post Love Underground...


Originally posted by Severian
Exhaustion from revolution, counterrevolution, and war. Russia was last in economic development and culture but first politically - and paid a penalty. Revolutions wear people out....this exhaustion of the working class, after years of incredibly difficult struggle against the whole capitalist world, was a major cause of the bureaucratic counterrevolution led by Stalin.

I just wanted to comment on this "bureaucratic counterrevolution led by Stalin" thing. Of course we both know that the bureaucratic-capitalist class took power with Stalin, but we have to note why such class came in to existance in the first place. When Lenin and other big names of the Bolshevik "aristocracy" sat on top of the state, they noticed that they needed middle cadres, bureaucrats and army officers, to get things done. So the degeneration of Russian Revolution had started from day one, and ended in 1921 when thew Bolsheviks turned their guns at striking workers.

Severian
29th September 2006, 08:21
Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 28 2006, 09:47 PM
I Of course we both know that the bureaucratic-capitalist class took power with Stalin......So the degeneration of Russian Revolution had started from day one, and ended in 1921 when thew Bolsheviks turned their guns at striking workers.
Self-contradictory. The degeneration of the Russian Revolution was complete by 1921...but then the "bureaucratic-capitalist" class took power with Stalin. That kinda sounds like a further degeneration, dontcha think?

(Then there's the mindless name-calling of saying the USSR was capitalist, despite its numerous unique features. To maintain this position, you gotta define capitalism so broadly that all of human civilization could be described as capitalist. I mention a few of its particular features in my earlier post.....)


but we have to note why such class came in to existance in the first place. When Lenin and other big names of the Bolshevik "aristocracy" sat on top of the state, they noticed that they needed middle cadres, bureaucrats and army officers, to get things done.

Whereas if it wasn't for the devil, Lenin, nobody woulda noticed that administrators were needed? Some other (anarcho-communist?) approach woulda instantly eliminated the need for specialized administrators of production (and war), despite the economic and educational backwardness of Russia?

You're hardly the first to say the growth of bureaucracy began early. Lenin, among others, wrote about it...and fought against it.

Leo
29th September 2006, 14:07
Self-contradictory. The degeneration of the Russian Revolution was complete by 1921...but then the "bureaucratic-capitalist" class took power with Stalin. That kinda sounds like a further degeneration, dontcha think?

No, the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, was complete by 1921. The proletariat had already lost, and the ecoomic policies were now made to help the petty-bourgeoise. When the "bureaucratic-capitalist" class took power with Stalin, they didn't take it from the proletarians, they took it from the petty-bourgeoise and the old bolsheviks.


Whereas if it wasn't for the devil, Lenin, nobody woulda noticed that administrators were needed? Some other (anarcho-communist?) approach woulda instantly eliminated the need for specialized administrators of production (and war), despite the economic and educational backwardness of Russia?

You are attacking a straw-man Severian. I didn't say it was Lenin's personal fault. Nor was it other Bolsheviks personal fault, and I know you want to defend the cult of personality you are attached to so strongly that you can't even take criticisms on him, but you can't deny what I am saying. Bolsheviks acted as if the revolution was a coup from day one, but if someone else took power, no matter who that was, I couldn't say things would have been much different. Historically capitalism had to develop in Russia, material conditions made it necessary.

Besides, it is really amusing to see that this is the point you attack me, as according to you if it wasn't for the devil, Stalin, all would be well :rolleyes:


You're hardly the first to say the growth of bureaucracy began early. Lenin, among others, wrote about it...and fought against it.

Of course he did. Lenin was sincere, he had good intentions, but as Marx said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Individuals can't fight against classes, bureaucratic capitalist class, or another form of a capitalist class was going to take power, sooner or later.


Then there's the mindless name-calling of saying the USSR was capitalist, despite its numerous unique features. To maintain this position, you gotta define capitalism so broadly that all of human civilization could be described as capitalist.

If you can't recognize the development of a capitalist industry, you really don't know muh about economics. What Stalinist Russia, among with Germany in the 19th and Japan in the early 20th century, showed us was that a strong command economy was the best way of developing capitalism.

Forward Union
29th September 2006, 14:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:48 PM
This really isn't a decent explanation of "why there weren't many" as the thread title promises.


I read through your post, and generally speaking, I agree. I do however feel that the state massacring of syndicalist and other libertarian workers groups was probably the biggest factor.


There were some, of course -besides what you've mentioned, there were movements in Germany IIRC Poland in the 50s. An interesting and basically progressive student movement in Yugoslavia in the 60s.

Do you have any articles on these two movements? I'd be interested in reading through them.

Enragé
29th September 2006, 14:59
You are attacking a straw-man Severian. I didn't say it was Lenin's personal fault. Nor was it other Bolsheviks personal fault, and I know you want to defend the cult of personality you are attached to so strongly that you can't even take criticisms on him, but you can't deny what I am saying. Bolsheviks acted as if the revolution was a coup from day one, but if someone else took power, no matter who that was, I couldn't say things would have been much different. Historically capitalism had to develop in Russia, material conditions made it necessary.

I dont know, and i dont think anyone can know if it would have been different if say anarchocommunism would've been predominant...in any case it sure would have been hard.

Though, in my opinion, the leninist idea of the hierarchically organised vanguard coupled with the taking of state power of that vanguard party (which by its very nature is elitist) leads to, or at least greatly increases the chances of the revolution going the way it went in the USSR (since it paves the way for, already incorporates hierarchy, elitism etc and the consciousness to match)

Severian
30th September 2006, 00:26
Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Sep 29 2006, 05:08 AM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Sep 29 2006, 05:08 AM) you can't even take criticisms on him, but you can't deny what I am saying. Bolsheviks acted as if the revolution was a coup from day one, but if someone else took power, no matter who that was, I couldn't say things would have been much different. Historically capitalism had to develop in Russia, material conditions made it necessary. [/b]
So obviously that "criticism" of the Bolshevik party or the Bolshevik-led government is not valid.


Besides, it is really amusing to see that this is the point you attack me, as according to you if it wasn't for the devil, Stalin, all would be well :rolleyes:

I wrote earlier: "Exhaustion from revolution, counterrevolution, and war. Russia was last in economic development and culture but first politically - and paid a penalty. Revolutions wear people out....this exhaustion of the working class, after years of incredibly difficult struggle against the whole capitalist world, was a major cause of the bureaucratic counterrevolution led by Stalin."

Right, so obviously I'm saying Stalin caused the whole thing. In reality, I'm just mentioning him as a convenient tag or label for when the counterrevolution occurred.....


Originally posted by [email protected]
Then there's the mindless name-calling of saying the USSR was capitalist, despite its numerous unique features. To maintain this position, you gotta define capitalism so broadly that all of human civilization could be described as capitalist.

Leo
If you can't recognize the development of a capitalist industry, you really don't know muh about economics. What Stalinist Russia, among with Germany in the 19th and Japan in the early 20th century, showed us was that a strong command economy was the best way of developing capitalism.

Oh. So it's capitalism because there was industry. Makes sense.

Severian
30th September 2006, 00:43
Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 29 2006, 05:57 AM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 29 2006, 05:57 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 08:48 PM
This really isn't a decent explanation of "why there weren't many" as the thread title promises.


I read through your post, and generally speaking, I agree. [/b]
OK, good. I do think there's probably a lot more that could be said about the subject....stuff that maybe hasn't been said before. (Which'd be more interesting than the old, old debate Leo and I have been having.)


I do however feel that the state massacring of syndicalist and other libertarian workers groups was probably the biggest factor.

I'm not gonna deny the role of repression generally....but "syndicalist and other libertarian workers groups" were never a major factor in most of these countries, so it's unlikely their suppression was either.


Do you have any articles on these two movements? I'd be interested in reading through them.

You could probably google something up without too much trouble...'53 East Germany, '56 Poland, '68 Belgrade. The '68 Prague Spring is also kinda interesting, though I'm not saying it was a worker revolt.

And of course there was a lot of worker participation in the final collapse of the CP-led regimes.

There's a trend there: as time goes on, there's less and less socialism in the conscious goals of these movements. The old socialist consciousness was dying away under the Stalinist boot. Even now it'll probably take the example of a revolution elsewhere before it revives in a major way.

Leo
30th September 2006, 00:48
So obviously that "criticism" of the Bolshevik party or the Bolshevik-led government is not valid.

Wow, I&#39;m convinced :rolleyes: <_<


I wrote earlier: "Exhaustion from revolution, counterrevolution, and war. Russia was last in economic development and culture but first politically - and paid a penalty. Revolutions wear people out....this exhaustion of the working class, after years of incredibly difficult struggle against the whole capitalist world, was a major cause of the bureaucratic counterrevolution led by Stalin."

Right, so obviously I&#39;m saying Stalin caused the whole thing. In reality, I&#39;m just mentioning him as a convenient tag or label for when the counterrevolution occurred.....


Severian, I was giving an example to show you how it feels when the other person debated used a straw-man, calm down.


Oh. So it&#39;s capitalism because there was industry. Makes sense.

No, it&#39;s capitalism because the USSR state acted as a huge cartel trying to make profit by exploiting Russian workers. And what do you think industrial development is caused by? People having good intentions? It is caused by capitalism, and only capitalist development can cause the abolishion of feudalism and the start of capitalism.

Severian
30th September 2006, 01:16
Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 03:49 PM
No, it&#39;s capitalism because the USSR state acted as a huge cartel trying to make profit by exploiting Russian workers.
Hm. Was that the definition of capitalism before people started trying to prove the USSR was capitalist? I don&#39;t think so.


And what do you think industrial development is caused by? People having good intentions? It is caused by capitalism, and only capitalist development can cause the abolishion of feudalism and the start of capitalism.

So:
You assume only capitalism can cause industrial development and the abolition of feudalism.
The Russian Revolution abolished feudalism, and there was industrial development in the USSR.
Therefore the USSR was capitalist. Q.E.D.

Like I said, mindless.

Also gives capitalism far too much credit. In reality, the era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions is over; only anticapitalist revolutions can smash the remaining elements of feudalism.

Leo
30th September 2006, 01:39
Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian) Hm. Was that the definition of capitalism before people started trying to prove the USSR was capitalist? I don&#39;t think so.[/b]

Yeah, cause capitalism is where all are free to trade man, and that&#39;s just what freedom means :rolleyes: You really have a Shachtmanite somewhere inside.


You assume only capitalism can cause industrial development and the abolition of feudalism.

No, I say that only capitalism causes industrial development.


In reality, the era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions is over; only anticapitalist revolutions can smash the remaining elements of feudalism.

Oh, so that must be why Russia and China are still anticapitalist after smashing feudalism... wait a second :rolleyes:

Well, Severian, you are saying what you want to hear, but that&#39;s just not how material conditions have been.


NewKindOfSoldier
Though, in my opinion, the leninist idea of the hierarchically organised vanguard coupled with the taking of state power of that vanguard party (which by its very nature is elitist) leads to, or at least greatly increases the chances of the revolution going the way it went in the USSR (since it paves the way for, already incorporates hierarchy, elitism etc and the consciousness to match)

The problem in the Russian Revolution wasn&#39;t the "Leninist idea". It would not have been much different in the end if Kornillov or Makhno took power, or Kerensky kept it. Kornillov would rush to develop capitalism, and Kerensky would also do that. It was the most efficent way for Lenin, and Russia&#39;s development worked out perfectly, even tough Lenin did not want it to be so. As for Makhno, it might have took a longer time, but by looking at his organizational methods, it is impossible to say otherwise.