Working class criticism of Bolshevik Leadres

[rebelworker]

So yah,

I currious what supporters of Bolshevism think of the working class opposition within the Bolshevik party, from trade Unionists and factory workers, against the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky and the rest, appitimised by, but not limited to, the WorkersWorkers Opposition (http://libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition) .

Also what do you think of in party silencing of dissent? (http://libcom.org/library/lenins-terror-bolshevik-party-maximov)

For me this is at the crux of the debate around the legitanmacy of the bolshevik leadership, the inherent tendency towards beurocratisation in a centralised party vision of revolution , the nessesity of wokers controll and party democracy.

[Random Precision]

Well, I don't know much about them outside of what I've picked up from anarchist/libertarian sources, who tend to lionize them. I do know that unlike the future United Opposition led by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev (which many of them joined later) they were not expelled from the Party, in fact Shlyapnikov was even elected to the Central Committee at the Xth Party Congress. Some of their proposals were also adopted at that Congress, including conducting a purge of bureaucratic elements and also organizing the supply of workers to improve theor living conditions, although it's true that Lenin advocated their condemnation for factionalism. This was a mistake that he later regretted, and during his own struggle with the growing bureaucracy represented by Stalin, one of his primary plans was to revive the group. Unfortunately he did not live long enough to carry it out.

As for the other link, I'll try to work out a response later...


For me this is at the crux of the debate around the legitanmacy of the bolshevik leadership, the inherent tendency towards beurocratisation in a centralised party vision of revolution , the nessesity of wokers controll and party democracy.

The bureaucratization of the party and lack of workers' control is something, in my view, speaks of the blows it was dealt by the Civil War and the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries rather than an inherent flaw in the Leninist paradigm.

[rebelworker]

Well they were banned as a group and all their eforts to encourage grass roots participation were sabotaged by party hacks.

This o me really represents the inner party epression of the working class loosing power.

First the workers councils were detroyed, in the name of union controll of the economy, then the unions were destroyed (the workers oposition group represented the union leadership, who didnt really give a shit about the workers loosing power in the workplaces because they got it).

When Trotsky tried to resist, noone ame to his help because the working class had already been disarmed, disempowered and marginalized... by him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:41 am
When Trotsky tried to resist, noone ame to his help because the working class had already been disarmed, disempowered and marginalized... by him.
Good point. It was he who called for the militarization of the trade unions and their integration into the state machinery.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:55 pm
I currious what supporters of Bolshevism think of the working class opposition within the Bolshevik party, from trade Unionists and factory workers, against the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky and the rest, appitimised by, but not limited to, the WorkersWorkers Opposition (http://libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition) .

Actually, the worker's opposition were seen by many on the left of the RCP(B) as being a bureaucratic opposition based on the trade union bureaucracy.

Gavril Myasnikov (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavril_Myasnikov) certainly had this view, he refused to support the suppression of the Krondstadt uprising, unlike the leadership of the Worker's Opposition, and was expelled form the party in 1922. An interesting article about him can be found here (http://libcom.org/library/bolshevik-opposition-lenin-paul-avrich).

Devrim

[Labor Shall Rule]

Trotsky's position was utterly reactionary, and fundamentally incorrect. Even though the Workers' Opposition's criticisms were certainly grounded in the reality of that time, they offered no viable alternative, and their program was fanciful; a conglomerate of radical phraseology that could never be materialized due to the weakness of the Soviet state at that time. They did, however, have a following in the rank-in-file. Though the union bureaucracy would not offer a lesser evil to lode of managers and specialists, they were a precursor to a growth in militant consciousness towards the capitalist tide. It gave the Left Opposition some of the more radical characters.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 06, 2007 06:26 pm
Trotsky's position was utterly reactionary, and fundamentally incorrect. Even though their criticisms were certainly grounded in the reality of that time, they offered no viable alternative, and their program was fanciful; a conglomerate of radical phraseology that could never be materialized due to the weakness of the Soviet state at that time. They did, however, have a following in the rank-in-file. Though the union bureaucracy would not offer a lesser evil to lode of managers and specialists, they were a precursor to a growth in militant consciousness towards the capitalist tide. It gave the Left Opposition some of the more radical characters.
LOL, yeah. I was talking to a Spartacist about this issue one time, and he started quoting Trotsky's position at me verbatim. I believe he had trouble responding because of the shock after I told him "Well, Trotsky was wrong".