The Red Terror

[Revy]

What are the *real* facts regarding this subject? Did Lenin really commit atrocities?

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Atrocities? That's the type of word used in imperialist propaganda my friend. In every revolution blood must be spilt, it is necesary in the evolution of society. How else can the taxing chains of the past be shook off? There will always be greedy control addicts who wish to preserve the old order.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Atrocities? That's the type of word used in imperialist propaganda my friend. In every revolution blood must be spilt, it is necesary in the evolution of society. How else can the taxing chains of the past be shook off? There will always be greedy control addicts who wish to preserve the old order.


Agreed. If you don't stand and fight, then you have put on yourself the winding-sheet.

[Chapter 24]

Yes, the Red Terror is a shock word (not unlike "totalitarian") used by the bourgeoisie in order to discredit the revolution. The fact of the matter is that the counterrevolutionary Whites (backed by foreign imperialist powers) started the Civil War with the Bolsheviks. The latter used tactics in order to gain victory and for the revolution to survive.

[Sasha]

and using the opertunity for whiping out any revolutionary oposition against them like the soviets in kronstadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_Rebellion)and the makhnovists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) in ukraine so yeah lenin/trotsky/the bolshevics did comit atroceties imo

[Soviet]

Well,there was a civil war and fighting parts used terror against each other,that is naturally.So,the proletariat used the Red Terror against the bourgeoasie and the bourgeoasie used the White Terror against the proletariat.Don t you think that White Terror was more humane?
Those dissembles who cries about the atrocities of the Red Terror and keeps silence about the White Terror.Really they are not against the terror in abstracto.They simply elect the White one.

[Sasha]

dont resort to strawman tactics, the OP asked wheter or not lenin (which i translate as "the bolshevics", i dont like blaming individuals) comitted atroceties.
Wich i repleid yes to.
wich only means that IMO the bolshevics commited atroceties during this period, not that i didn't think there was an civel war going on, or that i think every action by the red army was an atrocetie or that i would support the "white's".
I dont, if you read between the lines you could guess my symphaty lies with the Mahknovists who fought the "whites" tooth and nail and of and on also the "reds" (after the constant backstabing of these suposed allies)

with simplistic statements that imply that the civilwar was purely an conflict between the proletariat =/= the reds on one side and the bourgoisie =/= the white on the other you insult everybody's inteligence.
or do you honestly think that the people in kronstadt or with Mahkno where part of the bourgeoasie?

[Sasha]

There will always be greedy control addicts who wish to preserve the old order.


:laugh: irony overload.....

[Soviet]

And do you honestly think that the people in kronstadt or with Mahkno expressed interests of the proletariat?If it is so then whose interests expressed the Soviet power?And why if bolsheviks during the war kill you call it but if makhnovists kills bolsheviks it is not "atrocities"?

[Sasha]

And do you honestly think that the people in kronstadt or with Mahkno expressed interests of the proletariat?

yes....


If it is so then whose interests expressed the Soviet power?

after the bolshevic counter revolution only the intrests of the bolshevic elite/ buerocratic dictatorship


And why if bolsheviks during the war kill you call it but if makhnovists kills bolsheviks it is not "atrocities"?


because the red army invaded their (by lack of an beter word) country and tried to kill and overtrow their popular goverment,
if tables would have been turned and makhno ivaded russia where the boshevics had the popular suport (which they didn't even have in most place in russia but for the sake of the argument lets asume they did) and the makhnovists would kill masses of people in st. petersburg or moskou or would have tried to assasinate lenin or trotsky i would call that atroceties as well.
but they didn't

[Vendetta]

And do you honestly think that the people in kronstadt or with Mahkno expressed interests of the proletariat?

I haven't seen any real evidence that would say otherwise.

[Killfacer]

dont resort to strawman tactics, the OP asked wheter or not lenin (which i translate as "the bolshevics", i dont like blaming individuals) comitted atroceties.
Wich i repleid yes to.
wich only means that IMO the bolshevics commited atroceties during this period, not that i didn't think there was an civel war going on, or that i think every action by the red army was an atrocetie or that i would support the "white's".
I dont, if you read between the lines you could guess my symphaty lies with the Mahknovists who fought the "whites" tooth and nail and of and on also the "reds" (after the constant backstabing of these suposed allies)

with simplistic statements that imply that the civilwar was purely an conflict between the proletariat =/= the reds on one side and the bourgoisie =/= the white on the other you insult everybody's inteligence.
or do you honestly think that the people in kronstadt or with Mahkno where part of the bourgeoasie?

I'm with this guy. The Makhnovists fought bravely against both the whites and the ukrainian elite yet they were eventually annihilated by the red army. The same with the sailors at Kronstadt, they were revolutionaries to the core, but where wiped out and then their names smeared by leninists.

The red terror is very real. Alot of people on this site will tell you that it's all capitalist lies and then direct you to some horribly biased site called either www.stalinisagodandneverdidnothingwrongtonobody.co m (http://www.stalinisagodandneverdidnothingwrongtonobody.co m) or www.welovelenin.com (http://www.welovelenin.com)

I did an essay on the red terror and the civil war in general and i believe that the red terror was a very real atrocity.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Though I certainly would consider myself a supporter of the Bolsheviks, I haven't really been totally satisfied by the arguments here...on the pro-Bolshevik side. Essentially, they seem to be arguments in favor of a double-standard: terror is wrong for the counterrevolutionaries, but fine and okay for the revolutionary forces. Now if we consider the "Red Terror", so-called, to be a concentration of the excesses of the war on the Bolshevik side, that's one thing. To argue that these excesses were a good thing is another.

[Dimentio]

I'm not so much worried by excesses - such things happens in civil wars - as the ideas that we should use as much force as possible, instead of the necessary amount of force. Not mentioning Kronstadt, I will instead say that the collectivisation attempts ten years later were examples of really clumsy and contra-productive policies which could have been take care of much more psychologically.

[Pogue]

Look at the history of the USSR and you'll see how the Kronstadt rebels were right.

Fuck fake workers power and the 'socialist state'.

[PRC-UTE]

re the question in the OP, as I understand it was ordered after Lenin was gunned down and quite ill, so I don't know that Lenin was actually the one who planned it.

[Potemkin]

I'm with psycho, Vendetta, Killfacer, Red Dragon Rider, H-L-V-S, and others who are (rightly) skeptical of the "innocence" of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Some basic research yields these facts:

1) The Kronstadt Rebellion happened in 1921, as did the exile of Makhno.
2) "My Disillusionment in Russia" by Emma Goldman, is about her disillusionment with the Bolsheviks between 1920-1921 (I believe Berkman also wrote a book about his disillusionment with the Bolshevik revolution).
3) Peter Kropotkin, a famous and respected anarchist and scientist, was under house arrest from 1917 until his death in 1921 in Dimitrov, Russia. His funeral was the last anarchist demonstration allowed in the Soviet Union -- ever. It was only after the fall of the USSR that anarchists were able to gather and organize.
4) Lenin died in 1924.
5) Trotsky was the head of the Red Army during this time.

These facts demonstrate that early on, and under Lenin's control, the Bolsheviks didn't just target counterrevolutionaries, but ANY opposition to the Bolshevik agenda.

For more information, see:
"My Disillusionment in Russia" by Emma Goldman
"Kronstadt Rebellion" on Wikipedia
"Letter to Lenin, December 21, 1920" by Peter Kropotkin
"Letter to Lenin, March 04, 1920" by Peter Kropotkin
"The Russian Revolution and the Soviet Government: Letter to the Workers of Western Europe" by Peter Kropotkin

Sorry, I can't post links yet. PM me if you'd like the links.

[turquino]

If the Kronstadt rebels really believed the Petrograd Bolsheviks (remember most of the Kronstadt leaders were former Bolsheviks themselves) had betrayed the revolution and were against the interests of the workers, then they were right to rebel.

But did the rebels have a plan themselves? From what i've read they demanded more rations, but what would they have done if put in Lenin's position? Like i said, if the rebels really thought Russia was abandoning the socialist cause, then they were justified in their actions. However, if they were fighting because they disliked some of the things the Bolsheviks did to win, then their position was at least diversionary, and possibly counterrevolutionary if it opposed the broad interests of the Russian workers.

I'm not trying to defend how the Kronstadt rebels were dealt with, but figuring whether their position was pro-socialist, or something diversionary.

[Soviet]

These facts demonstrate that early on, and under Lenin's control, the Bolsheviks didn't just target counterrevolutionaries, but ANY opposition to the Bolshevik agenda.


There was no opposition in Russia at that time,there were armed rebellions.Feel the difference.
Those "revolutionaries" who accuse bolshevics simply don t know the history.They don t uderstund that USSR at 1920-30 lieved in extreme conditions.Not personal natures of soviet leaders but extreme conditions produced extreme policy.

[Sasha]

I'm not trying to defend how the Kronstadt rebels were dealt with, but figuring whether their position was pro-socialist, or something diversionary.

although born out of an cry for rations the main slogan of the kronstadt rebelion was "all power to the soviets" so i would say very pro-socialist.

its a returning occurance in socialist revolutions that where bolshevics try and take power they dismantel the soviets or councels, take away there weapons and replace the rule of the people with an bureocratic dictatorship,
it happend in russia, in germany, in bavaria, in hungaria and later also in spain and asia.
its one of the reasons i refer to (historical) bolshevics as counter-revolutionary's, they either kill the revolution in its cradle because they take control and momentum away from the people but after that they are not able to defend themself against the bourgoisie/fascists (germany, bavaria, hungaria and spain) or they transform the revolution in an non-socialist monstrostius state capitalist dictatorship (russia etc).

[Pogue]

although born out of an cry for rations the main slogan of the kronstadt rebelion was "all power to the soviets" so i would say very pro-socialist.

its a returning occurance in socialist revolutions that where bolshevics try and take power they dismantel the soviets or councels, take away there weapons and replace the rule of the people with an bureocratic dictatorship,
it happend in russia, in germany, in bavaria, in hungaria and later also in spain and asia.
its one of the reasons i refer to (historical) bolshevics as counter-revolutionary's, they either kill the revolution in its cradle because they take control and momentum away from the people but after that they are not able to defend themself against the bourgoisie/fascists (germany, bavaria, hungaria and spain) or they transform the revolution in an non-socialist monstrostius state capitalist dictatorship (russia etc).

Good points, well put

[Tower of Bebel]

Revolutionary marxists thought in terms of either-or. Either the Russian Revolution would trigger a world revolution or they would be defeated like the Paris Commune in 1871. They did not dare to even think of their revolution becoming isolated and surviving militarily.

It is simple marxist ABC that socialism in one country is impossible. Marxist theory was confirmed, except this time counterrevolution also came from the inside! Special circumstances mean exceptional measures. Principles became distorted and theory became narrow. Because the German revolution failed pressure grew greater. Exceptional means became the rule.

[Pogue]

Authoritarian socialism fails, hence the Bolsheviks failed. You need a genuine working class revolution to create a genuine communist society. All power corrupts. Kronstadt was the true working class uprising.

[Tower of Bebel]

Also, after signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk the Bolsheviks became a minority while the civil war decimated a large part of the class conscious layers of the toiling masses. The Bolsheviks remained the only "well" organized part of the workers' movement. The soviet state when it survived the counterrevolution from abroad had to be controlled by a small but conscious minority. This practical situation determined theory from then on, hence the often dogmatic use of the concept of a much needed vanguard, mostly defined as is the most (class) conscious layer of the working class. Even worse: the vanguard became simply a party of the Bolshevik type.

Authoritarian socialism fails, hence the Bolsheviks failed. You need a genuine working class revolution to create a genuine communist society. All power corrupts. Kronstadt was the true working class uprising.
What do you mean by a genuine working class revolution and true working class uprising?

And what would you make of this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm)?

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.

A crude proof of this is provided by the use of terror to so wide an extent by the Soviet government, especially in the most recent period just before the collapse of German imperialism, and just after the attempt on the life of the German ambassador. The commonplace to the effect that revolutions are not pink teas is in itself pretty inadequate.

Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion -- in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.

Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.

What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: "I have dared!"

This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to "Bolshevism."

[revolution inaction]

Some links about kronstadt

http://libcom.org/library/truth-about-kronstadt

http://libcom.org/library/kronstadt-izvestiia - Paper produced by kronstadt rebels, it includes there reasons for rebelling and there demands

Emma Goldman's book about her experiences in russia

http://libcom.org/library/my-disillusionment-in-russia-emma-goldman

the bolsheviks and workers control

http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group