Felix Dzerzhinsky

  1. Искра
    I have question regarding Felix Dzerzhinsky. He joined Bolsheviks in 1917 (?). During Brest-Litvski case he was on Bolshevik Left, but later he abstain from voting. There were also some situations where he followed "left line". In the end, he ended up same as Bukharin - supporting Stalin.

    So, what kind of relationship did he had with Left Communists?

    I don't know much about him. I just found these infromations while I was reading Bukharin's biography (and on Wiki).
  2. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Originally he was a member of the sectarian Social Democracy in the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania.
  3. Alf
    Alf
    He was close to Rosa Luxemburg in the above 'sectarian' organisation which quite rightly challenged the line about the right of nations to self-determination, most specifically with regard to the Polish question.. During the war he was one of the foremost in rejecting the slogan of national independence, when it had acquired a more global significance. Seen as 'incorruptible', he was put at the head of the Cheka in 1918, precisely because the Bolsheviks recognised the dangers of creating such an organ to fight the counter-revolution. But he was nevertheless drawn into the whole dynamic of Cheka terror which more and more undermined soviet power from within. Somewhere or other Rosa commented that 'Felix has become so cruel'....the road to Stalinism wasn't so surprising after that.
  4. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    The national self-determination debate wasn't the sectarianism I was referring to. HINT: It has to do with political hypocrisy.
  5. Leo
    Leo
    I'm sorry DNZ but what the fuck are you doing in the left communist group? No one is interested in discussing your ridiculous troll theories here.
  6. Android
    Android
    Yeah exactly, Leo. Can DNZ be excluded from the group? He obviously is not a left communist and in fact his politics are directly opposed to it. It would be good to have somewhere on here where you did not have to read his nonsense.
  7. Leo
    Leo
    I have excluded him before but he keeps coming in. I don't know if there is a way to permanently exclude someone from a tendency group although technically it should be possible.
  8. Искра
    I have excluded him before but he keeps coming in. I don't know if there is a way to permanently exclude someone from a tendency group although technically it should be possible.
    Well, he wasn't excluded because of his tendency (liberalism?) but because of his behaviour and because his posts would obstruct discussion. So, I don't see any problem with that.

    Anyhow, regarding Cheka... Do Left Communists today see such organ necessary to fight contra-revolution? During Russian revolution they didn't have any problems with it. They only protested when Cheka was used to fight revolutionary forces of different tenecies. For example Bukharin was talking against murdering anarchists and then anarchists blow up congress building in which he was talking in their favour (oh, irony). Also, even anarchists created such organisations in Ukraine (Kontrrazvedka) and in Spain.
  9. Alf
    Alf
    Given the experience with the Cheka I would say that we should do everything possible to avoid the need for such organs. Any organ, even a temporary one, set up to combat plots and underground terrorist actions against the power of the councils (which will certainly be a threat) will tend to take on some of the very same characteristics. But i don't think we can exclude such organs on principle. This is part of the wider problem of the state in the transitional period, and a key reason why it presents a 'danger' to the proletariat.
  10. Искра
    I would now click "thank you" button if you could
  11. mikail firtinaci
    This is a bit irrelevant perhaps but: I may have one comment about how "combating sabotage" became so centrally important for the Bolsheviks.

    As Alf pointed out, it was a bit inconceivable for the Bolsheviks to set up an independent police organization. How come could they built it up then?

    If you remember the slogans of the bolsheviks before October apart from all power to the soviets there was an other slogan which was as popular as much: bread and peace. In fact hunger was as nearly dreadful as war and especially in cities it was felt deeply. Since all the transportation was directed for military needs and because of the forced requisitioning policies the cities started to be ever more hungry.

    In fact, for certain Russian liberals the revolutinary radicalism of the workers was soon to be crushed by hunger. Bolsheviks and especially Lenin started to argue that if the bourgeois and speculator sabotage would be stopped, the cities could be fed again. Actually the problem was perhaps stemming less from sabotage but peasants unwillingness to give food without getting nothing in exchange. Bolsheviks thought that the rich peasants were actually hiding food from workers and if the poor peasants could be mobilized then the problem would be more or less solved.

    However, the peasants were more or less unified and apathetic towards the fate of workers. So actually there were not much class conflict going on in the village. Bolsheviks soon realized this during the civil war.

    I think if one wants to understand how a state police organization like Cheka could be build and how a revolutionary like Dzerzsnky could head it, it is elemental to understand the food question.