[Mikolaj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE CREWS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND SQUADRONS OF THE BALTIC FLEET HELD MARCH 1, 1921

Having heard the report of the representatives sent by the General Meeting of the Ship Crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there, Resolved:



"1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.

2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.

3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.

4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.

5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.

6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.

7. 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.

8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.

9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.

13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.

14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.

15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour." [Ida Mett, The Kronstadt Revolt, pp. 37-8]


Resolution passed unanimously by a brigade in meeting, two persons refraining from voting.

PETRICHENKO

Chairman Brigade Meeting

PEREPELKIN

Secretary

Resolution passed by an overwhelming majority of the Kronstadt garrison.

I was watching a Trot video the other day and they were going on and on about how Communism was have been fine if only Stalin had not taken power. Of course, they do not see (or refuse to see) that the authoritarian seeds were planted by the Bolsheviks themselves during 1917. And in fact, it was Trotsky who crushed Kronstadt - those sailors who wanted what was originally promised during 1917: all power to the soviets - genuine socialism.

Trotsky on Kronstadt
Emma Goldman's response

[Quercus Robur]

greatest respect to them

although I have to say having Russia descend into anarchy for a few more years would probably mean I'd be speaking German today

[fris_ke]

although I have to say having Russia descend into anarchy for a few more years would probably mean I'd be speaking German today

Perhaps, but if a true revoloution had occured in russia then it would have been more inspiring to those in Germany fighting for the same, as it was they saw the lies of the bolsheviks.

[Mikolaj]

It certainly wasn't a white guard plot. And most of the sailors were there at the beginning of 1917. Just take a look at the actual daily newspaper they put out during the uprising and judge for yourselves how counter-revolutionary they were.

[Red Star]

counter-revolutionary

In the context of a revolution such as the Russian one, the Kronstadt rebellion was counter-revolutionary as it ran contrary to the Bolshevik program. Counter-revolutionary does not just mean rightist movements such as those emergent in Germany after the cycle of 1918/9 failed uprisings.

From a Bolshvik point of view, the sailors were definately counter-revolutionary, as the Bolsheviks saw themselves are the revolutionaries. The language of the 1956 Hungarian Communist Party is the same - as they are the embodiment of revolution, any attempt to reverse any part of their program and actions is counter-revolutionary. What your stance on the issue of who was right or not doesn't change that.

[Abood]

How can they be counter-revolutionary if they wanted to progress more than the Bolsheviks? A counter-revolutionary would be opposed to the concept of the revolution and want to go back to the "good ol' days". The Kronstadt sailors in fact wanted more revolutionary change than the Bolsheviks were offering, which was why they rebelled against them in the first place. They, therefore, were more revolutionary than the Bolsheviks.

[Red Star]

Nope, a counter-revolutionary is someone who would wish to deviate from the concept of the revolution in part or whole. Key word: "Deviate". This is not loaded with value judgement like "Progress" is. Here you are appealing to a whole metaphysical idea of revolution when revolution is actually created by the people themselves - Bolsheviks or otherwise. Creating a different form of organisation, such as in Kronstadt, means that whether it was a more revolutionary change to the Bolsheviks or not, they were acting counter-revolutionary from the Bolsheviks' point of view.

The Kronstadt sailors wished to return more power to the Soviets and espoused democracy - a tenet of the February Revolution. The Bolsheviks carried out the October Revolution - they had a different set of ideas, after all.

Abood, you know full well whose side I am on. However, the claims of counter-revolution and revolution are subjective, depending on which group is doing the talking, as a revolution is also fundamentally a subjective thing, created by people, rather than a metaphysical entity.

[pikachu]

I could sum up my opinion on Kronstadt in one line, however one line posting is not allowed in this forum section, that's why you are reading this useless sentence right now.

Now on to my sophisticated opinion: Krondstadt rebels = idealistic immature losers.


"You refused to evolve, like the rest of us"

[Mikolaj]

In other words,

"I am revolutionary"

"No, I am!"

But seriously, the Kronstadt sailors called them out out on all the promises of 1917.

But the Bolsheviks were more about doing it the parties way.

Which of course, as 75 years of history shows, doesn't work.

Decentralization pwns centralization.

Just look at any bureaucracy. Inefficient. It's the nature of such entities.

[pikachu]

In other words,

"I am revolutionary"

"No, I am!"

I'm not sure if you were replying to me or not, but just to let you know, I'm not a revolutionary. The Bolsheviks carried out a successful revolution and kept power for some 70 years. The anarchists were... losers, couldn't take or hold power anywhere for shit.

Oh yes there was like one guy calling himself an anarchist and running a personal military dictatorship in south-east Ukraine for about a year, the big boys were using him against each other for a while, but once they finished killing each other, he became useless and immidiately disappearend into the dustbin of history.

[Mikolaj]

It's one thing to be successful filling a power vacuum, but if that group in the process can't fulfill the promises that pushed all the effort, then what do you have?

[pikachu]

It's one thing to be successful filling a power vacuum, but if that group in the process can't fulfill the promises that pushed all the effort, then what do you have?

#1. They fulfilled their immidiate promises (peace, land distribution, higher wages, 8 hour work day, nationalization of industries, debt cancellation, etc)
#2. Still better than not being able to take power at all.

[Mikolaj]

#1. They fulfilled their immidiate promises (peace, land distribution, higher wages, 8 hour work day, nationalization of industries, debt cancellation, etc)

They would requisition grain - often not only the surplus, but also that needed to feed the peasant farming.

There was also the Tchecka.

And the soviets were co opted.

[pikachu]

They would requisition grain

That came later, during the civil war. See, the Bolsheviks were initially sort of idealist as well, but unlike the anarchists, they quickly got their acts straight and saved themselves from ruin.

often not only the surplus, but also that needed to feed the peasant farming.

There was also the Tchecka.

And the soviets were co opted.

Everything for victory! Or you prefer to lose?

[Abood]

Abood, you know full well whose side I am on. However, the claims of counter-revolution and revolution are subjective, depending on which group is doing the talking, as a revolution is also fundamentally a subjective thing, created by people, rather than a metaphysical entity.

I definitely know who's side you're on, and I understand your point. But the Bolsheviks took power claiming that they will give power to the Soviets. So the Kronstadt sailors reacting against them to actually give power to the Soviets was not a counter-revolution. It was actually doing what the Bolsheviks had promised to do. Had it been the Nazis (z0mg, Godwin's Law!!!), then yeh, the Kronstradt sailors could've very well been considered counter-revolutionary. But the Bolsheviks and the sailors had the same goal.

[pikachu]

Abood, saying "all power to the soviets!" is no different than "all power to the parliament!" or something to that extent.
The soviets and the parliament have no ideology of their own to pursue, they are just State organs in which high-profile people with different ideologies, typically grouped in political parties (in the absense of which - into congressional fractions) are supposed to assemble and vote on laws and the cabinet.

Lenin DID give all legal power to the Soviets. All major decisions in the USSR from the very beginning till the very end were carried out through the Congress of Soviets. You cannot accuse him of having failed to deliver on this promise.

He did, of course, also establish the monopoly on participation in the Congress for the Bolsheviks party and non-partisans chosen by the party, but I don't see how this is supposed to negate the fact that all the Congress of Soviets was still the supreme governing body of the State.

And anyway, what the hell do you prefer him having done instead? Transfer power to the Soviets, then get the fuck out and resign? And maybe also outlaw the Bolshevik party while he's at it, so not to bother SRs, Cadets, and Mensheviks? How much fucking sense would that make? I don't know what your dreams say about that situation, but I need to look no further than Germany, or why - Georgia during the same exact goddamn time period. And I can predict 100% chance of Russia evolving into a typical Liberal State, and staying that way at least until the Great Depression.

I'm not a Marxist or a Communist in any real sense of the word, but I'm proud of having been born in USSR and not "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" or some shit like that.

[Abood]

And anyway, what the hell do you prefer him having done instead?

This has nothing to do with what I would've preferred anyone did. I did not mention anything about what I would've liked to see. Please don't change this topic to "What would you have liked happening in Russia?," because that's really useless and a waste of time.

My point above is clear: That the Kronstadts and the Bolsheviks had the same goals. The Kronstadts, therefore, were not counter-revolutionary.

There's nothing ideological in my point.

[Mikolaj]

Abood, saying "all power to the soviets!" is no different than "all power to the parliament!" or something to that extent.

Well, the distinction must be made between parliaments (centralized representative bourgeois democracy), and soviets (decentralized direct democracy).

And anyway, what the hell do you prefer him having done instead? Transfer power to the Soviets, then get the fuck out and resign?

Well, not necessarily resign, but participate alongside the other left socialists instead to just trying to wipe them out.

[Red Star]

Abood - the Bolsheviks were saying "All Powers To The Soviets" and did carry out their policy through the Soviets - because they had monopolized them through the elections. Basically, the Kronstadt rebels wanted new elections, which was point no.1 in their manifesto:

1. Immediate new 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.

For the Bolsheviks they were counter-revolutionary, as the Bolsheviks had already taken power in the Soviets, whether legally or illegally. The point was at bottom ideological - "we believe that the Soviets need to have a different ideology than Bolshevism: a Bolshevism that was elected in the Soviets".

What you are basically saying is: "the sailors were more revolutionary as they truly wanted to give power to the Soviets". These Soviets however had already elected the Bolsheviks and Left Social Revolutionaries (before 1918) to their seats - what the sailors wanted were new elections because they didn't agree with the Bolshevik program. Without ascribing value judgements on who was right and wrong, from a Bolshevik point of view they had already given power to the Soviets, who had elected their representatives to their Soviet seats already, thus the sailors wanting new elections because they didn't agree with the course of the revolution (being carried out with the help of these Soviets) was counter-revolutionary.

[pikachu]

My point above is clear: That the Kronstadts and the Bolsheviks had the same goals. The Kronstadts, therefore, were not counter-revolutionary.

I'm not going to get into some semantic discussion about what classifies as counter-revolutionary and what not, because that would be the most useless discussion ever, I already specified my opinion about them. I was just trying to point out that the slogan "all power to the soviets" makes little sense to use in opposition to bolshevik rule.

Well, the distinction must be made between parliaments (centralized representative bourgeois democracy), and soviets (decentralized direct democracy).

Since when are soviets - direct democracy?
Since when are soviets - decentralized?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

The soviets were just as representative and centrazlied as liberal parliaments, the distinction was that the representation and centralization was done in multiple stages (city soviet->area soviet->republic soviet->congress of soviets, or something of that sort) and elections were carried out differently (for example more electoral representation was given to city soviets and urban areas than rural soviets). Due to these differences and some other factors, the Soviet Congress was typically somewhat more left-wing than the overall population, but the principles of representation and centralization were the same.

Well, not necessarily resign, but participate alongside the other left socialists instead to just trying to wipe them out.

Welcome to Weimar Germany or Menshevik Georgia or Ukrainian National Republic or Democratic Armenia or whatever... That's what happens when left socialists "cooperate".