guzzipat wrote: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.