[albionfagan]

Was this the negation of all the Sailors had been promised, the end of the soviet-demoratic dream?

Or a necessary step to secure the revolution?

Obviously there's an in between too

[Okonkwo]

Obviously there's an in between too

Exactly. It was revolutionary idealism meets worst-case scenario. From a Marxist's point of view, suppressing Kronstadt was necessary.

[albionfagan]

Why? Genuine question?

I've heard arguments that they were a different bunch of sailors, from the orignial ones but there's also evidence that disproves that. These were people involved in the original revolution, initial supporters of the Bolsheviks, rising up against what they saw as the oppression of popular feeling, exactly what the Tsar had been guilty of, how is that Marxist?

[Okonkwo]

Why? (...) how is that Marxist?

They were counter-revolutionary. A Marxist wouldn't care whether they were part of the initial revolution(s), that's idealism. The moment they turned against the dictatorship of the proletariat, they have become enemies of the working class. They should be dealt with accordingly.
The Kronstadt sailors were a possible threat to the Bolshevik revolution and takeover of the state, left-communists, much like the anarchists and other leftists with an "infantile disorder" as Lenin used to call them.

"Left-wing communism is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than the mistakes of Right doctrinairism."
(V.I. Lenin)

[guzzipat]

They were counter-revolutionary. A Marxist wouldn't care whether they were part of the initial revolution(s), that's idealism. The moment they turned against the dictatorship of the proletariat, they have become enemies of the working class. They should be dealt with accordingly.
The Kronstadt sailors were a possible threat to the Bolshevik revolution and takeover of the state, left-communists, much like the anarchists and other leftists with an "infantile disorder" as Lenin used to call them.

Only if you consider that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the the dictatorship of one party.
Kronstat led to the Bolshevics surplanting the dictatorship of the proletariat with that of a single party and eventually a one person dictatorship.
That was the counter revolutionary act, Kronstat was a betrayal of the revolution.

[Okonkwo]

Only if you consider that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the the dictatorship of one party.

Essentially, it does:

Marx: "(...) When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship (...) to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie (...) the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form (...)

Engels: "(...) And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? (...)
As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people’s state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist (...)"

The Kronstadt sailors were, from the perspective of the Bolsheviks, very much reactionaries against the party that represented the vanguard of the proletariat. Hence by attacking the rule of the Communist Party, they were counter-revolutionary and enemies of the working class.

[albionfagan]

That persepctive was incorrect though, they were in no way reactionary, they were working-class revolutionaries.

What is anti-communist about this;

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.
Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
The right of assembly, and freedom for 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 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.
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

[Okonkwo]

they were in no way reactionary, they were working-class revolutionaries.

So what? There were also working-class Nazis staging a revolution in the Germany of the 30s and Russian anarchists trying to change the Bolsheviks' revolution. They were all working class, that doesn't mean they can't be reactionary. That's pure idealism.

What is anti-communist about this;

• Elections
• Freedom of speech
• Right of assembly
• Liberation of political prisoners
• End of one-party state control
• Right for peasants to own soil

Do you even understand what dictatorship of the proletariat meant for the Bolsheviks?

[albionfagan]

Attempting to patronise me, doesn't make you right.

I am well aware what dictatorship of the proletariat means to the Bolsheviks. That's not what this is about that, it's about soviet democracy, not the Bolshevik's aims. Bolshevism doesn't equate to communism either, there's plenty of left communists who see the Kronstadt sailors as the true vanguard of the revolution, I'm inclined to agree.

They were not reactionary in any way, they were a progressive force. Reactionaries look backward and seek to restore the old order.

[Okonkwo]

there's plenty of left communists who see the Kronstadt sailors as the true vanguard of the revolution

You asked, how suppressing the Kronstadt uprising was Marxist and I gave you an answer to it.
The fact that non-Marxist leftists may not support this act does not matter in that context. However, if you see the Kronstadt sailors as true revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks as traitors, then I am afraid it is you how are rejecting Marxism and espousing left communism, the infantile disorder Lenin used to speak of so warningly.

They were not reactionary in any way, they were a progressive force.

So are anarchists and other left communists. Liberals and social democrats are also progressive, that does not exempt you from being counter-revolutionary. Once again, this idealism doesn't get you anywhere in a real revolution, the Bolsheviks had to suppress any threat to their dictatorship, from the left or from the right.

[guzzipat]

Okonkwo;

You are wasting your time in trying to jusfiy your opions by quoting Marx, Engles or Lenin, to me.
I regard the slavish adherence to what people said many years ago as profoundly un-Marxist.

The evidence that it was in part, the substitution of the Bolshevics for the genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, that led to the cult of personality is overwhelming. Working class democarcy is esential in a revolution. None of that was apparant when Marx and Engles made those remarks. I could easily bring up remarks that there was no possibilty of a revolution in Russia because the proletariat was too small, they were wrong too. It is where we are and what we have learned that should decide action. Pretending that Marx or Lenin stated eternal truths for every future circumstance and we can ignore all current and past facts is ridiculous.

[jaakko]

Okonkwo's being an ass on purpose.

they were working-class

Source?

If they were "revolutionaries", I wonder how they could escape to Finland out of all places. Workers' and tenant-farmers' revolution had just been defeated in 1918 and the white regime relied on open terror and was a base of counter-revolutionary interventions against Soviet Russia.

[Kiroff]

News Flash: Rebelling against authority gets you killed.

[Okonkwo]

You are wasting your time in trying to jusfiy your opions by quoting Marx, Engles or Lenin, to me.
I regard the slavish adherence to what people said many years ago as profoundly un-Marxist.

Fact of the matter is, I don't really care how you interpret what Marx and Engels obviously said. It's an old faux-Marxist trick to simply pick and choose whatever you like and say that some parts of Marxism aren't as valid as others.
If you want to be a Marxist, then accept that Lenin had everything right about Marxism, he understood it very much and his philosophical contributions on the subject are built on that understanding. Anti-Leninist "Marxism" is just ridiculous.

Okonkwo's being an ass on purpose.

Why? You're a Marxist-Leninist, don't you agree with what I said?

[jaakko]

Why?

Because you're in fact very much opposed to Marxism-Leninism.

You're a Marxist-Leninist, don't you agree with what I said?

On the whole you represent a rather accurate picture of Marxism-Leninism but mix in your caricature of it. Kind of what I just did here. An example of caricature representation is your implication that "elections", freedom of speech and right of assembly were categorically anti-communist in the eyes of the bolshevik regime. Or maybe that was your genuine perception of the bolshevik doctrine.

The progressive or reactionary nature of some political movement, like anarchism in revolutionary Russia, is not determined by its ideological principles alone. It's determined more by how those principles relate to the objective stage of the revolution and other concrete-historical conditions. In Russia the limited progressive potential of anarchism was consumed by the revolutionary process itself, finally becoming counter-revolutionary with the maturing of the conditions for the consolidation of the soviet state and the initiation of the transition to socialism. This is the general point which I see you more or less succeeded in communicating, with which I'm in agreement.

[Okonkwo]

Because you're in fact very much opposed to Marxism-Leninism.

From your point of view certainly. I do accept the Marxist analysis of history, society and economics though. You can't deny that, no matter what ideology you belong to.

An example of caricature representation is your implication that "elections", freedom of speech and right of assembly were categorically anti-communist in the eyes of the bolshevik regime.

What I wanted to show with that, is that the Bolsheviks took the dictatorship of the proletariat very seriously, something the notoriously despised (remember: infantile disorder) left communists didn't do at all. In the view of the Bolsheviks (and the only appropriate view that is expressed by Marx and Engels, especially in Kritik des Gothaer Programms), the dictatorship means ruthless use of authority to repress every counter-revolutionary activity. That includes opposition to multi-party elections (in the Western sense of the word) and restriction of free speech (e.g. disallowing reactionary sentiment from being expressed) with the purpose of preventing a counter-revolution. Marx and Engels cite, as I noted above, the Paris Commune as evidence for the fact that if a revolution does not do its utmost to stop counter-revolutionaries from taking over, it will be crushed. I am sure Lenin's opinion on the matter was the same as Marx's.

In Russia the limited progressive potential of anarchism was consumed by the revolutionary process itself, finally becoming counter-revolutionary with the maturing of the conditions for the consolidation of the soviet state and the initiation of the transition to socialism.

Precisely. That is what albionfagan does not want to admit. He wants to paint the anarchists and left communists as the "good guys", fighting against authority and injustice just like they did when the Czar or the interim government was ruling. That's a much too starry-eyed view of the prevalent situation at that particular time of the revolution.

[guzzipat]

If you want to be a Marxist, then accept that Lenin had everything right about Marxism, he understood it very much and his philosophical contributions on the subject are built on that understanding. Anti-Leninist "Marxism" is just ridiculous.

So all Marxist thought and progress ended with Lenin, all working class experience and action after Lenin, unless in strict conformity with Lenin's ideas, are invalid.


People that hidebound and dogmatic are not worth arguing with, any fool can learn Lenin and act like a parrot.
Who the fuck are you to tell me whether or not I am a Marxist ?
There is no human being anywhere at any time that has had "everything right" about anything, yet you say that and then accuse me of being "ridiculous".

[Okonkwo]

So all Marxist thought and progress ended with Lenin, all working class experience and action after Lenin, unless in strict conformity with Lenin's ideas, are invalid.

In a way: yes.
After Lenin, there were essentially no one like him, no one whose grasp of Marxism was full enough to warrant a completely new Marxist school, a completely new interpretation of Marxist thought.

yet you say that and then accuse me of being "ridiculous".

Where did I accuse you in particular of being ridiculous?
I said: Anti-Leninist Marxism is ridiculous.

[ingliz]

Who the fuck are you to tell me whether or not I am a Marxist?

Nobody is saying you are not a marxist, some post-Marxist "marxists" are liberals by any definition but their own, but you are not a Marxist-Leninist. *I would classify you as a Fabian, a reformist, but "Right Socialism" is hardly socialist in the Leninist tradition.

Edit*

[guzzipat]

Who the fuck are you to tell me whether or not I am a Marxist?

Nobody is saying you are not a marxist , some post-Marxist "marxists" are liberals by any definition but their own, but you are not a Marxist-Leninist.

By the quote below Okonkwo was.

If you want to be a Marxist, then accept that Lenin had everything right about Marxism

No problem with your interpetation. Most of the "marxists" turned liberals were petty bourgeios intelectuals. My fight has always been among working class communities and as an elected workplace representative for 40 years. I am happy to be classed as not a Marxist-Leninist, I beleive in dialectical materialism not hero worship.