Red terror

[allix]

I apologise if this has already been discussed.
I have not seen many marxist actually discuss it.
Of course the white terror was just as bad and the enemies of socialism but did it justify the atrocity that happened when Lenin was alive?
Can it be positively argued that it was a necessity at the time ?

Today , I don't think anyone would accept if we go out and murder the capitalist, its a crude way to hold on to power at best.

That and Lenin's decisions to ban opposition temporarily that lead to Stalin consolidating power is one reason I like to separate marxists from marxist-lenist.

Of course we can praise Lenin for his writings that did continue from marx but should we be praising him as much as some people do?

[Black Sheep]

Can it be positively argued that it was a necessity at the time ?I assume you are refering to the 'great purge'
Yes and no.It was necessary to smoke out the saboteurs,spies, and bourgeoisie agents.Thus after the murder of Kirov (a CPSU member) the CPSU central comittee issued a campaign of cleaning up the party from anti-soviet elements.

However this was developed in a murdering nationalist-like madness with lots of innocents ending up being shot.Stalin himself mentioned that the party members were over-reacting and exaggerating ( lol ) at this procedure.

The murder itself as punishment is related to the USSR's constitution and the laws and general ethics of the time.Capital punishment was popular amongst the world (although you could expect a socialist society to separate itself from it...)


That and Lenin's decisions to ban opposition temporarily that lead to Stalin consolidating power is one reason I like to separate marxists from marxist-lenist.The key issue of leninism is that of the institutionalized vanguard at the form of a democratic centralist party,which i think has some fundamental flaws in democracy.
I had made a thread on democratic centralism some time ago but noone replied

The CPSU theoretically,according to Leninism, has no relation to authority,it just serves as an ideological guide, in order to 'vanguardize' the whole of the working class.
However, (assuming that the SU was a electoral democracy,with delegates of the workers' councils) party members would have a syndicalist-prestige, and would inevitably have a higher chance of being elected.
That,in addition to 'isolate the opportunists' and the democratic-centralist organization of it, leads to a halt on ideological progress of the party and as a result, of the working class.:(

[ComradeOm]

Of course the white terror was just as bad and the enemies of socialism but did it justify the atrocity that happened when Lenin was alive?The whole question is flawed in that it assumes that there was a clearly defined "Lenin era" and "Stalin era". Reality is never that simple

As for the Red Terror, I'll quote myself from a post I recently made:

"The whole issue with the Cheka is not the turmoil of the times but the fact that it was a largely grassroots organisation that developed erratically and independently throughout the country. This was not some monolithic organisation, as the KGB is often portrayed, and during the Civil War years the Party only had very loose control over the country branches. Even the Petrograd headquarters was semi-independent until mid-1918. So instead of Lenin passing down orders from on high you have local organisations developing (to fight counter-revolutionaries) acting relatively independently. This is where much of the regrettable nature of the Cheka comes in with its violence often being used to further/settle local feuds and drawing upon traditional peasant punishments and cruelties"


Can it be positively argued that it was a necessity at the time ?The Cheka itself was an invaluable tool and was critical in securing the 'internal front'. That this was accompanied by extreme cruelties and much unnecessary violence is unfortunate but unavoidable when given the nature of the organisation's origins and evolution


Of course we can praise Lenin for his writings that did continue from marx but should we be praising him as much as some people do?Lenin was human and he made mistakes. That much is obvious. He was however labouring under unimaginably difficult circumstances and did not have the luxury of hindsight. We can sit back and argue as to whether the Cheka was overly enthusiastic in its task, Lenin had no choice but to accept the tools and paths open to him

[Kassad]

Well, there were many counterrevolutionary uprisings during the time, many of which were fueled by the bourgeoisie and those who lost control of the means of production due to the revolution. Lenin led a revolution that emancipated the working class and he was forced to make very difficult decisions. Would it have been better to have allowed counterrevolutionary forces to gain political ground and overthrow the revolutionary government the Bolsheviks had established? I would hope not.

[Killfacer]

Well, there were many counterrevolutionary uprisings during the time, many of which were fueled by the bourgeoisie and those who lost control of the means of production due to the revolution. Lenin led a revolution that emancipated the working class and he was forced to make very difficult decisions. Would it have been better to have allowed counterrevolutionary forces to gain political ground and overthrow the revolutionary government the Bolsheviks had established? I would hope not.

There were also many uprisings not led by the bourgeoisie which were brutally supressed.

[allix]

As for the Red Terror, I'll quote myself from a post I recently made:

"The whole issue with the Cheka is not the turmoil of the times but the fact that it was a largely grassroots organisation that developed erratically and independently throughout the country. This was not some monolithic organisation, as the KGB is often portrayed, and during the Civil War years the Party only had very loose control over the country branches. Even the Petrograd headquarters was semi-independent until mid-1918. So instead of Lenin passing down orders from on high you have local organisations developing (to fight counter-revolutionaries) acting relatively independently. This is where much of the regrettable nature of the Cheka comes in with its violence often being used to further/settle local feuds and drawing upon traditional peasant punishments and cruelties"


Where did you hear or read this from?
I am asking in earnest not because I don't believe you .

[ComradeOm]

Where did you hear or read this from?
I am asking in earnest not because I don't believe you .Most decent modern histories of the Revolution should mention it. Fitzpatrick (The Russian Revolution) mentions it in passing, Marples (Lenin's Revolution) goes so far to say that "the [government] had little say in how the Cheka operated. It became an organisation out of control, feeding a frenzy of retribution and gross tortures". Even Figes (certainly no Bolshevik sympathiser!) explicitly spells out the peasant and ad hoc origins of the Cheka in his A People's Tragedy

Unfortunately I don't know of a recent and comprehensive study of the Cheka (I doubt these archives are fully open yet) but the broad outline of its early years is relatively straightforward. Having evolved from a section of the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) in late 1917, the immediate aims of the Cheka was combating rioters, wreckers, etc. It was far from a Bolshevik dominated organisation, containing as it did many Left SRs at all ranks, and was largely limited to Petrograd and Moscow. However the intensification of the Civil War, coupled with the attempted assassination of Lenin, saw it become the agency of choice for securing the 'internal front' and it rapidly spread throughout Russia as local soviets established their own branches. It was far beyond the capabilities of the early Bolshevik government to impose a centralised organisational structure on this grassroots organisation, especially in the midst of Civil War, and the various branches operated with minimal oversight, although not complete independence, from Moscow

It was only with the reorganisation of the Cheka into the GPU in 1922 that some form of monolithic organisation was arrived at. This, combined with a general weariness, led to a corresponding drop in the levels of violence and death employed by the security apparatus. Conversely of course, the GPU was a secret police in the more traditional sense and would be employed extensively by Stalin in later years

[Kassad]

There were also many uprisings not led by the bourgeoisie which were brutally supressed.

Well, it's very difficult to tell. I mean, if there's conclusive evidence on who led, fueled and participated in said uprisings, I'd be glad to comment on them. Unfortunately, it's very hard to discern. Again, I must ask, would overthrowing Lenin's revolution have been good for the nation or would it have allowed the bourgeoisie to retake power? Ask yourself that. Still, each situation should be observed individually, since I'm sure there are many times you can say such a thing. I do not believe, however, that overthrowing Lenin would've been good for the working class.

[Killfacer]

Well, it's very difficult to tell. I mean, if there's conclusive evidence on who led, fueled and participated in said uprisings, I'd be glad to comment on them. Unfortunately, it's very hard to discern. Again, I must ask, would overthrowing Lenin's revolution have been good for the nation or would it have allowed the bourgeoisie to retake power? Ask yourself that. Still, each situation should be observed individually, since I'm sure there are many times you can say such a thing. I do not believe, however, that overthrowing Lenin would've been good for the working class.

How about Kronstadt, was that led by the whites?

[Kassad]

How about Kronstadt, was that led by the whites?

If I remember correctly, the famine that led to the rebellion was due to Allied and Western intervention in the Civil War. Also, after the rebellion, Lenin acknowledged some of the mistakes in his 'War Communism' and he made reforms to alter it.


Kronstadt differed from a long series of other petty-bourgeois movements and uprisings only by its greater external effect. The problem here involved a maritime fortress under Petrograd itself. During the uprising proclamations were issued and radio broadcasts were made. The Social Revolutionaries and the Anarchists, hurrying from Petrograd, adorned the uprising with “noble” phrases and gestures. All this left traces in print.


A revolution is “made” directly by a minority. The success of a revolution is possible, however, only where this minority finds more or less support, or at least friendly neutrality, on the part of the majority. The shift in different stages of the revolution, like the transition from revolution to counterrevolution, is directly determined by changing political relations between the minority and the majority, between the vanguard and the class.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm

Leon Trotsky does a fair job of addressing the issue. Of course the Revolution was not going to be supported by everyone in the new Soviet Union. Bourgeoisie propaganda and Western interventionism did a fine job in convincing a fair share of the masses that the Revolution would fail. Again, we must observe a lot of these issues with a grain of salt, because I promise you that bourgeoisie sources are quick to manipulate and alter events in time to make communists and their regimes appear more oppressive than is really true. That's why the death toll of communism varies by millions and millions of deaths.

[Killfacer]

"Leon Trotsky does a fair job of addressing the issue. Of course the Revolution was not going to be supported by everyone in the new Soviet Union. Bourgeoisie propaganda and Western interventionism did a fine job in convincing a fair share of the masses that the Revolution would fail. Again, we must observe a lot of these issues with a grain of salt, because I promise you that bourgeoisie sources are quick to manipulate and alter events in time to make communists and their regimes appear more oppressive than is really true. That's why the death toll of communism varies by millions and millions of deaths."

So now the Kronstadt sailors were actually petty-bourgeois who were just fooled by western propaganda?

[Invincible Summer]

So now the Kronstadt sailors were actually petty-bourgeois who were just fooled by western propaganda?


Some Trots say that the Kronstadt uprisng was funded and supported by the Mensheviks and other counter-revolutionary forces. They make it sound like an Alex Jones conspiracy, minus the Zionists.

[Kassad]

What I'm saying is that it's very difficult to tell who was influences by counterrevolutionary forces and bourgeoisie propaganda during that time. Plus, history is written by the winners, so of course the ruling class are going to attempt to paint any socialist regime as brutal. People who think the revolution is just going to be a tea party where all issues are resolved at the snapping of a finger never fail to amuse me.

[Killfacer]

You can't just say that the Kronstadt sailors were petty-bourgeois under the influence western propaganda then not explain it.

[Kassad]

What is to explain? Between the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Social-Democrats, conservatives and the bourgeoisie who had been thrown out of power, there was a massive vacuum of power vacated by the Tsar. When Lenin's Bolsheviks rose to power, they weren't even in the majority. They led a revolutionary struggle to emancipate the working class and they did very well in the face of massive poverty, lack of industrialization, debt from World War I and counterrevolutionary/reactionary forces attempting to overthrow them. What I am asking is that you take each event with a grain of salt and realize that Lenin was faced with many tough decisions that, had he not had partaken in them, he might have lost control and sent the Soviet Union spiraling back into a reactionary state.

[Killfacer]

Yes okay. But i am just curious to know if you think what you said is correct, that the Kronstadt sailors were: petty-bourgeois under the influence western propaganda.

[Kassad]

Yes okay. But i am just curious to know if you think what you said is correct, that the Kronstadt sailors were: petty-bourgeois under the influence western propaganda.

Well, the uprising was led by Petrichenko, who was an Anarchist. It's obvious that he would be opposed to Bolshevik policies. I'm saying it's completely possible that the sailors were influenced by bourgeoisie propaganda and uprising. There's no real way to be totally sure.

[Killfacer]

Well, the uprising was led by Petrichenko, who was an Anarchist. It's obvious that he would be opposed to Bolshevik policies. I'm saying it's completely possible that the sailors were influenced by bourgeoisie propaganda and uprising. There's no real way to be totally sure.

That's fucking pathetic. There is no way we can be sure that Lenin wasn't really an evil fascist cunningly using the revolution as a plot to get a dictator like Stalin into power. We all know that's not true however.



Immediate new elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections) to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_campaign).
Freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), and for the Left Socialist parties.
The right of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly), and freedom for trade union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and peasant organisations.
The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison) workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp).
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.
The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
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.
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.
We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

What exactly is bourgeoise about these demands? In fact they seem decidedly revolutionary. These demands seem pretty spot on to me. Why didn't the Bolsheviks do any of them? Because the wanted to brutally hang on to power come what may. Why do you think they opened an assembly, then shut it down as soon as the realised they didn't have the majority?

[ComradeOm]

What exactly is bourgeoise about these demands?Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to own land, privatisation, secret ballots, de-politicisation of the military... would any of these look out of place on a liberal manifesto? I don't credit the traditional 'petite-bourgeois' claims but let's not pretend that there was anything particularly revolutionary about the rising

Ultimately the entire discussion of Kronstadt - which I fail to see how it is relevant to a thread on the Cheka, given that it was a military rising quashed primarily by the Red Army - did not inspire a national revolt. Just as during the July Days, the sailors were out of step and out of touch with the Russian proletariat. Stewing in isolation they arrived at a course of action that was radically different and far more extreme than was acceptable to the factory workers. The Civil War was exceptionally difficult on the Russian proletariat and the Bolsheviks understandably became less popular as famine persisted - hence the brief Menshevik renaissance in Petrograd, of far more importance than disgruntled sailors - but taking armed action to forcibly overthrow the Soviet government would have been unthinkable


Why do you think they opened an assembly, then shut it down as soon as the realised they didn't have the majority?Hmmm? The CA proved that Bolsheviks had an absolute and unchallenged majority amongst the only class that counts - the proletariat. The peasantry were divided between the Left SRs (who at this point had not yet reverted to terrorism) and the Right SRs

[Kassad]

What exactly is bourgeoise about these demands? In fact they seem decidedly revolutionary. These demands seem pretty spot on to me. Why didn't the Bolsheviks do any of them? Because the wanted to brutally hang on to power come what may. Why do you think they opened an assembly, then shut it down as soon as the realised they didn't have the majority?

You aren't listening to me. I'm not saying they were bourgeoisie. I am merely suggesting that it isn't outlandish to suggest that the bourgeoisie, conservatives and reactionaries would support uprisings against Lenin, since it would be divisive and would likely separate the revolutionary forces. I definitely support advocacy for freedom of speech and assembly, but I think that working together with the Bolshevik regime would have established these things, as opposed to revolting and potentially destroying the revolutionary gains of the October Revolution. I'm not saying that they were bourgeoisie, but I want you to see it from the bourgeoisie point of view. Would they support uprisings to bring Lenin down? Of course.

[Killfacer]

You aren't listening to me. I'm not saying they were bourgeoisie. I am merely suggesting that it isn't outlandish to suggest that the bourgeoisie, conservatives and reactionaries would support uprisings against Lenin, since it would be divisive and would likely separate the revolutionary forces. I definitely support advocacy for freedom of speech and assembly, but I think that working together with the Bolshevik regime would have established these things, as opposed to revolting and potentially destroying the revolutionary gains of the October Revolution. I'm not saying that they were bourgeoisie, but I want you to see it from the bourgeoisie point of view. Would they support uprisings to bring Lenin down? Of course.

How would working with the bolsheviks have acheived these things when they were the ones who took them away :confused: Considering they're the ones who closed the assembly, i think we can assume the would be unwilling to open it at the behest of some dissidents.