Lenin's alleged crimes

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 11 2005 04:24
Lenin's alleged crimes

Apart from Kronstadt, what were Lenin's crimes? I'm not talking about human fallibility. I'm talking about any pogroms, massacres, purges, mass deportations, etc.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 11 2005 11:00

Why use the word 'crimes', and why restrict it to Lenin?

Let's not forget Trotsky's involvement in Kronstadt either.

I'll match your Kronstadt and raise you a Makhnovschina.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 11 2005 11:36

Hows about the destruction of a free press?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 11 2005 12:06

I would refer the court to Exhibit A:

http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 11 2005 12:45

the 1918 uprising by SR's and anarchists.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 11 2005 17:01

Glad to see you call Kronstradt a crime Alibadani. Not many left communists would do that.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Dec 12 2005 00:23

There's some good stuff here, look at 'Unit 12, Russia 1917-30',

http://libcom.org/hosted/sf/selfed/units.htm

including some excellent quotes from Lenin showing that not only was he a mass murdering tyrant, he was also avowedly pro-capitalist when it suited him, saying that they had to copy German state-capitalism, re-introduce private ownership, and even call in foreign capitalists to run industry. Maybe we should pool together all such Lenin & Trotsky quotes - the SWP etc. will usually accuse us of misrepresenting them, more difficult if it comes straight from the horse's mouth. Isn't there some quote about shooting anarchists like partridges or something?

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 12 2005 00:41
magnifico wrote:
Isn't there some quote about shooting anarchists like partridges or something?

Yeah not about anarchists. He sent a telegram to trotsky on the kronstadt affair saying 'shoot them down like partridges'.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Dec 12 2005 14:49
nastyned wrote:
Glad to see you call Kronstradt a crime Alibadani. Not many left communists would do that.

That's only fair relative to modern Bordigists. The German-Dutch Left Communists were some of the first critics of the Bolsheviks and Kronstadt played a major role in that.

As for ending free press, that, nor any 'democratic principle', is sacrosanct in a revolution. I can well imagine suppressing the freedom of the bourgeois press completely and totally, after all we are going to be suppressing their very right to exist!

Actually, Lenin and the Bolsheviks best moments were anti-democratic (overriding the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin faction in Sept. 1917 to prepare for the overthrow of the provisional government; dispersing the Constituent Assembly). The problem is not one of democratic versus undemocratic, but with what content.

The problem with Lenin and the Bolsheviks was exactly their suppression of the first steps towards communisation, their betrayals of the international revolution through making the Third International an extension of the Second politically (parliamentarism, trade unionism, the 21 conditions, 'national' parties) and turning it into a tool of Russian foreign policy. That would rapidly lead to its counter-revolutionary role outside Russia as well as inside.

chris

ronan
Offline
Joined: 26-06-05
Dec 12 2005 15:08

him and trotsky were both well into importing 'the most advanced scientific models of production', i.e. taylorism and one man management from the capitalist west. cos it'd be more efficient that way, and sure as long as it's for the revolution it's not oppression right? smile

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Dec 12 2005 15:30

Whahhh, I agree. eek

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 12 2005 15:57
redtwister wrote:
nastyned wrote:
Glad to see you call Kronstradt a crime Alibadani. Not many left communists would do that.

That's only fair relative to modern Bordigists. The German-Dutch Left Communists were some of the first critics of the Bolsheviks and Kronstadt played a major role in that

As far as I'm aware it's fair to everyone who's a left communst today.

The historical left communists that went on to become council communists are something else.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Dec 12 2005 17:34
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
Actually, Lenin and the Bolsheviks best moments were anti-democratic (overriding the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin faction in Sept. 1917 to prepare for the overthrow of the provisional government; dispersing the Constituent Assembly). The problem is not one of democratic versus undemocratic, but with what content.

Thats a very simplistic attitude to take, especially since it fails to see the Bolsheviks actions in the context of oppurtunism nor the fact that many more people than the Bolsheviks were involved in dispersing the constituent assembly. Plus the internal democracy of the working class should never be conflated with the bourgeois democracy of the constituent assembly.

I think it's a tad daft o think that structure is somehow unimportant to content, you can have the finest glasses in the world but it you ship them in plastic bags they're fucked.

Well, you know we disagree on whether or not the Bosheviks were just corrupt counter-revolutionaries or whether they became that in their inability to overcome their heritage in social democracy. IMO, their refusals to pander to democratism were not all bad. It was exactly a question of with what content, on which side. Lenin asked that question and quite rightly so. Democratic fetishism is a grave for the revolution.

While the Bolsheviks and Lenin came down on the wrong side most often, not breaking with social democracy along many lines (yes, the introduction of Taylorism, one man management, etc. which I indicated by the comment about their suppression of the first steps towards communisation.)

The problem is that you can't be formalistic and assume some defense of democracy, freedom and rights, as WeTheYouth did in his statement.

I was not trying to present a defense of Bolshevism, in this, but a recognition that any revolution will involve the suppression of 'democratic freedoms' because the form and content of democracy is the political side of capital. One has to ask of course who is suppressing, for what ends? In the case of the Bolsheviks, they suppressed the working class. (This ties into the TC discussion, since according to them, that is all that could have happened because the working class could only realize itself as a class, not as the negation of itself as a class, ie it could not carry through communisation.)

I completely agree with the posts citing the Bolshevik's counter-revolutionary defense and extension of wage-labor, value production, capital, etc. However, I am not sure that anyone in that period properly understood the need for immediate communisation, not even the anti-Bolshevik communists. I think the KAI in Germany in the early 1930's came closest, but were a tiny fraction in the face of impending fascism. Maybe some of the anarchists as well, but I am not sure. Could someone who knows the Russian and European anarchists speak to that better?

As for Left Communists, I think we could put Aufheben, Wildcat, Theorie Communiste, the ICG/GCI, Riff-Raff, maybe a few other groups (Internationalist Perspective, I think) and individuals (Dauve and Nesic, widdle ole me) onto the roster, alongside the councilists (who either ceased to be or never were Left Communists.) I don't know the history of the Bordigist Left Coms to know where groups like Bilan fell on that, but I suspect Bilan was not defending the suppression of Kronstadt. In fact, I guess that by Left Communists, you mostly mean the ICC and IBRP (I BRPed)?

After all, I think the anti-Leninist groups I mentioned are all pretty much Left Communists, if by that we mean heavily indebted to the Italian Left Communists (Bordiga, Bilan, Cammatte, Dauve) and German-Dutch Left Communists before councilism, even with their indebetdness to the councilists, operaists and autonomists (who were largely Leninists until the formation of autonomia into 'Autonomist Marxism'), Johnson-Forrest Tendency (CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, both of whom were also defenders of Lenin to their dying days, even as they argued that Bolshevism had been surpassed) and anarchists.

I don't mean to pick, but I don't want the ICC and IBRP being treated as the inheritors of the legacy of the Left Communists. What a shame that would be, and how untrue.

Chris

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 12 2005 18:06

When I refer to 'left communists' i mean those that call themselves 'left communists' today. So yes, mainly the ICC and the IBRP.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Dec 12 2005 18:25
redtwister wrote:
Democratic fetishism is a grave for the revolution.

What do you mean by;

I Democracy

II and its fesishisation?

Quote:
The problem is that you can't be formalistic and assume some defense of democracy, freedom and rights, as WeTheYouth did in his statement.

I've read into a lot of Wildcat's refuting of 'Democracy', and in places I partly agree, but this statement is decidely dodgy...

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 14 2005 19:25
redtwister wrote:

The problem is that you can't be formalistic and assume some defense of democracy, freedom and rights, as WeTheYouth did in his statement.

I was not trying to present a defense of Bolshevism, in this, but a recognition that any revolution will involve the suppression of 'democratic freedoms' because the form and content of democracy is the political side of capital.

I agree that "democratic freedoms" should not be defended. But freedom and rights should always be defended, otherwise you end up with vanguardist decision-making which will always destroy a communist revolution. The suppression of counter-revolution is always going to be difficult, but taking authoritarian steps will negate any value of the revolution. The ends can only justify the means if the means do not fundamentally challenge the ends.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Dec 14 2005 19:53
Volin wrote:
redtwister wrote:
Democratic fetishism is a grave for the revolution.

What do you mean by;

I Democracy

II and its fesishisation?

Quote:
The problem is that you can't be formalistic and assume some defense of democracy, freedom and rights, as WeTheYouth did in his statement.

I've read into a lot of Wildcat's refuting of 'Democracy', and in places I partly agree, but this statement is decidely dodgy...

Democracy: formal means of making decisions by majority vote (where a consensus is merely an absolute majority.) However, this is the organizing principle of commodity society and corresponds to one citizen, one vote. This is democratism.

Turning democracy into a principle is making a fetish of it. I certainly do not agree that we have to vote on everything. I certainly do not agree that anyone has the right to vote on a whole range of my activities. I certainly don't think that democracy or democratic procedures protect us.

A large portion of the most powerful social struggles are formally undemocratic. The civil rights movement, the workers' movement, etc have all advanced through minorities opposing majorities. Especially in the case of racial oppression in the US, every struggle against it has been a minority struggle and if one followed democratic procedures, then we would have to submit to Jim Crow in unions, in public life. Majority opposition to segregation only developed as a result of a minority struggle, at times wholly illegal, against a majority, which if the matter were put to a vote, would have democratically suppressed those struggles.

Hell, Hitler got elected by a majority.

Communists do not change their opinions because they are not in a majority. They do not accept to have their actions restrained because in a demonstration they are a minority. We do not squelch our voice when the majority tells us to. We are anti-democratic on a regular basis.

And in a political fight, if I think you are taking a wrong or reactionary position, no democratic process will keep me from opposing you.

As for it being 'vanguardist' or potentially 'authoritarian', you are correct. but it is not vanguardist in the sense of defending some self-proclaimed sect as the 'brains' of the working class, but recognition that some wings of the working class move in advance in and through some struggle. We don't defend or oppose that movement or struggle because it is supported or opposed by a majority, but because of what we think is its content relative to what we want: the abolition of capital. That almost certainly means very authoritarian inroads against capital, its rights, etc. and authoritarian acts against its defenders, like shooting them, locking them up, etc.

BTW, i don't buy the jargon of rights. Right is always bourgeois right, held by citizens or sellers-buyers of commodities.

Complain all you want that it is dodgy, democracy and calls for it have covered more dodgy shit, historically and in my personal experience, than I can point out in a book, much less in an e-mail. Slavery in the U.S. was defended democratically. Capitalism is today, more and more democratic. Democracy is in fact the generic form of the state, its normal aspect, under capital.

For more meat, from many different angles, on Democracy try:

Democracy, Monsieur DuPoint, Anarchy #60

Democracy as the Community of Capital, Riff-Raff 7

Communism Against Democracy, ICG, Communism #3

Against the Myth of Democratic Rights and Liberties, ICG, Communism #8

The Democratic Principle, Amadeo Bordiga

There is more, of course, from anarchist and Marxist writers, but all of the most consistent of them rejected democracy as a principle, albeit it is on occaission necessary as a means.

chris

ps: here's a quote to chew on, i like it (I won't cite it because it is from one of the articles above)

"Contrary to all those apologists of the system (even, and above all, in its reformed form), marxists tackles democracy not as a form of government more or less properly applied, but as a content, as the activity of management -politics- of the capitalist mode of production. Therefore democracy (whatever its form: parliamentary, bonapartist,...) is nothing but the management of capitalism. As Marx put it, the bourgeoisie has really and definitively achieved freedom (to sell one's labour power or else... to die), fraternity (between atomized citizen) and equality (between purchasers and sellers of commodities). The bourgeoisie has totally democratized the world, since in its own world (that of circulation and exchange of commodities) pure democracy is realized. Chasing the myth of a "good" democracy, as all democrats (even "workers'" democrats) do actually serves to reinforce, as an idea and so in its realization, the best "possible" management of capitalism what ever form it might take -parliamentary, "working-class", fascist, monarchist,...- it reinforces the foundation of the system: wage slavery. Indeed, as this text will show, democracy is not one (or the "best") of the forms of management of capital, but is the foundation, the substance of capitalist management, and this, because the content common to the substance of the capitalist mode of production -twosided character of the commodity labour power- and the substance of£ democracy -make the individuals, and so their labour power appear as a commodity. The capitalist mode of production is therefore the first and also the last mode of production that has to present the individual as a citizen, totally isolated, atomized and alienated in civil society -the community of atomized individuals (that is a des-humanized, non-species community)- because the capitalist mode of production, in order to develop, needs the proletarians (free from all ties to the glebe) to own only their labour power, and so always be ready to sell themselves for a wage (the value of which is determined, like any other commodity's, by the average time socially necessary for its reproduction). This whole process of atomization and subsumption of human beings produces one of the most disgusting symptoms of capitalism: individualism."

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 14 2005 20:27

That was one hell of a post.

I do agree, I just get a bit nervous around people who know that they're right.

I suppose my fear that we legitimise the tactics of the governing classes is a bit nonsensical as they have shown that they will use any tactic to keep control, as long as they think it will work.

I suppose that rights should really be defined, right under the current system have no value.

Just to clarify I never said I supported democracy, I may be naive but I'm not entirely stupid.

Cuttlefish
Offline
Joined: 12-12-05
Dec 14 2005 21:09

Redtwister,

I think all anarchists can agree that having a vote on everything is silly. That would indeed be a fetishisation of democracy.

However, one could make the same case for voluntarism. Anarcho-capitalism is "voluntarism" in a sense, but it doesn't mean we should abandon it as a principal. So long as we use democracy (and here I must stress direct democracy is the only true from) intelligently and not recklessly, it is a useful tool.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 15 2005 02:37

Redtwister is the personification of parasitism. Bashing the IBRP and the ICC is the entire raison d'etre of many of the groupuscules he mentioned. It's amazing really.

Anyway, I've read left communists refer to Krondstadt as a tragic mistake. The moralism of anarchism is infinite though.

The degeneration of the Russian Revolution flowed not from the theoretical errors of Bolshevism or from the 'substitutionism" of Lenin. I doubt the Russian Revolution had much of a chance of success, period. I also think that as horribly as it turned out, it was a necessary experience. If we begin with the premise that ours is the era of wars and revolutions. Then the process of overthrowing capitalism might actually be a decades-long process. I think of it like starting your car when it's negative 20 degrees Celsius outside. The first time you turn your key, chances are the engine won't start, but it still is necessary. It might take several tries, and maybe the car will never start, but you never know ahead of time if the engine will start each time you turn the key.

Likewise each time the working class makes a revolution, it is a necessary and useful attempt. Russia 1917 was attempt number 1(unles you count 1905), and as such almost bound to fail. The entire phenomenon of Bolshevism, its weaknesses and strenghts, as well as the failures of the revolutions elsewhere to hold on to soviet power, were like the quasi-inevitable failure of the first attempt at starting an engine. We learn from the mistakes and the successes of that attempt and maybe the proletariat will try again. Instead of this ageless moralistic essentialism so endemic to anarchism, we need to think about that whole experience as a lesson and an inspiration, so we can give it our all if and when the working class tries to start the engine again.

Good links and references guys.

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Dec 15 2005 03:26
Cuttlefish wrote:
Redtwister,

I think all anarchists can agree that having a vote on everything is silly. That would indeed be a fetishisation of democracy.

However, one could make the same case for voluntarism. Anarcho-capitalism is "voluntarism" in a sense, but it doesn't mean we should abandon it as a principal. So long as we use democracy (and here I must stress direct democracy is the only true from) intelligently and not recklessly, it is a useful tool.

There is no such thing a 'using' it as a 'useful tool' and anarcho-capitalism is for morons. Of course, that is just my opinion. All I csy is thankfully communo-capitalism makes no sense and communism and capitalism are polar opposites.

Chris

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Dec 15 2005 03:36
alibadani wrote:
Redtwister is the personification of parasitism. Bashing the IBRP and the ICC is the entire raison d'etre of many of the groupuscules he mentioned. It's amazing really.

Anyway, I've read left communists refer to Krondstadt as a tragic mistake. The moralism of anarchism is infinite though.

Ah cock-roach, where have you been? Scurrying among the feces of the ICC's droppings?

You added nothing to the discussion but sectarianism, whereas i pointed out a difference as I understood it between the IBRP and ICC on one side and IP and ICG on the other, among current Left Communists. Now if I was wrong, please point me to the correction and I will happily agree.

Instead, we get the 'tragic mistake'. 'Tragic mistake' is reserved for what your mother and father made, but it flowed quite clearly from the practice of the Bolsheviks, at least from one side of their politics, the part which failed to fundamentally break with Social Democracy. It was no mistake, tragic or otherwise.

As for the raison d'etre of anyone, neither IP nor ICG makes a focus of bashing the ICC, and if one looks through their journals, posted online, the amount of discussion of the ICC is rather small, especially given that both groups left the ICC.

Well, as I am now a parasite, the ultimate sectarian category developed by the ICC to attack everyone not them, I am free to continue to be as I was before: hostile to the ICC's idiot Leftism as much as I am hostile to Trots, Stalinists, and every other form of idiot.

Chris

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 15 2005 05:56

Chris, I'll let the ICC defend itself and its theory of parasitism, which Marx himself used to describe your kind back in his day. I had my doubts about the theory myself, but then you came along.

All I added was sectarianism? You redtwister, are the one who lauds every lousy parasitic groupuscule, and you dare to claim that the ICC and the IBRP are not the inheritors of the Communist left. COme on.

I did in fact say that I'd read from certain texts about the term :"tragic mistake." My engine analogy( the bulk of the post; not from the ICC) has nothing to do with the tragic mistake idea. How is that sectarianism?

My post was an attempt to counter the ahistorical, moralistic anti-Leninism that pervades this discussion.

Speaking of living in shit, you roll around with the excrement the communist left discarded decades ago. You shouldn't take your hostility to the ICC too far you know. Without them to bash what would your fellow parasites do with their time?

At least you revel in your blatant parasitism. If you want to go there, calling me an insect, it's good to see that the proud maggot doesn't think he's a butterfly. Good for you Chris.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 15 2005 12:13
alibadani wrote:
you dare to claim that the ICC and the IBRP are not the inheritors of the Communist left. COme on.

Crikey. That is pretty shocking behaviour.

louis_b
Offline
Joined: 15-12-05
Dec 15 2005 13:53

I am doing this post on behalf of the ICC.

Near the beginning of this thread nastyned said:

“Glad to see you call Kronstradt a crime Alibadani. Not many left communists would do that” Nastyned and Redtwister says that he does not know what the position of Bilan was on this.

The position of the Italian Communist Left on Kronstadt was:


Quote:
It would have been better to have lost Kronstadt than to have kept it from the geographic point of view when substantially this victory could only have one result: altering the very basis and substance of the action carried out by the proletariat...it would have been a thousand times better to have taken on the state with the certitude of being beaten than to have stayed in power by inflicting a defeat on proletarian principles

” (Octobre, no 2, quoted in The Italian Communist Left 1926-45, chapter Balance sheet of the Russian revolution -as are all the quotes below).

For the Italian Communist Left the fundamental proletarian principle was:


Quote:
The emancipation of the workers will be the task of the workers themselves, said Marx, and this central formulation of socialism has for us nothing to do with a conception used to justify denigrating those workers who follow other conceptions: IT REPRESENTS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE PROLETARIAT

” (Octobre, no 2, ibid, emphasis in the original)

This fundamental principle means that:


Quote:
YOU CANNOT IMPOSE SOCIALISM ON THE PROLETARIAT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE!

(Octobre no 2, ibid).

They underlined that this principle of the rejection of violence within the class and its organisations is integral to the “central proletarian position ( the fraternisation of workers against the extermination of the workers” (Octobre no 5).

This is a principle that has profound implications for the working class and its political minorities.

The ICC has defend this principle since its creation in 1975: see the article on Kronstadt of the website which we wrote in [url]1975[http://en.internationalism.org/inter/123_kronstadt.html]

Hopefully, this will have helped nastyned and redtwister (and all those reading this thread) to gain a better understanding of Bilan and the ICC's position. What do they think of it?

The method used by the Italian Communist Left fraction in the 30's to draw a balance sheet of the lessons of the defeat of the Russian Revolution is fundamental to any discussion of this vital question today, such as is taking place on this thread. The concern of discussion is to learn such lessons. As Alibadani says:


Quote:
We learn from the mistakes and the successes of that attempt and maybe the proletariat will try again. Instead of this ageless moralistic essentialism so endemic to anarchism, we need to think about that whole experience as a lesson and an inspiration, so we can give it our all if and when the working class tries to start the engine again

”.

This is the method that Bilan developed and defended:


Quote:
The workers, in the course of the struggle for emancipation, cannot just 'repeat, but must innovate, precisely because they represent the revolutionary class of present-day society. The inevitable defeats they encounter on this road must be seen as stimulants, as precious experiences which will contribute to the ultimate victory of the struggle. On the other hand, if we repeat even one of the errors of the Russian revolution, we will compromise the future of the proletariat for a long time to come...”

(Bilan No 29).

There is one final point that needs taking up: Redtwister in his reply to Alibadani complains that he has been misunderstood and that he was not saying the IBRP and the ICC are not part of the Communist left. He says he sees a difference “

Quote:
between the IBRP and ICC on one side and IP and ICG on the other, among current Left Communists

”: thus, the IBRP and ICC are part of the communist left. This would appear to clarify his earlier statement:


Quote:
I don't mean to pick, but I don't want the ICC and IBRP being treated as the inheritors of the legacy of the Left Communists. What a shame that would be, and how untrue

.”

But in another post he talks about being:


Quote:
hostile to the ICC's idiot Leftism as much as I am hostile to Trots, Stalinists, and every other form of idiot

”.

So the ICC is leftist and no better than the Trots and Stalinists, but also part of the Communist Left! Redtwister appears to want his cake and eat. One thing is clear though, his twists and turns concerning the ICC and the IBRP are simply empty assertions.[/url]

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 15 2005 14:01
louis_b wrote:
I am doing this post on behalf of the ICC.

Were you told to put that at the start of your statement by the ICC high command?

Welcome to the boards, btw 8)

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 15 2005 14:41

Well I have had many a sleepless night fretting over what the Italian Communist Left said about Kronstadt so thanks for that.

I have a slight problem however in that I'm not entirely certain what the quotes you posted mean. Perhaps as i'm not a part of the Proletarian Political Milieu I'm not used to how politicial proletarians communicate.

Just to clarify matters do these quotes mean the historical italian communist left (and by extension the ICC as the true inheritors of that tradition) support the Kronstadt rebels against the bolshevik state?

The thing I can remember the ICC writing about Kronstadt was that it was 'a tradgedy' as if it was a natural disaster or something but they didn't condemn the cause of that tradgedy: the Bolsheviks.

louis_b
Offline
Joined: 15-12-05
Dec 15 2005 16:40

Redtwisters personal insulting of alibadani:

Quote:
Ah cock-roach, where have you been? Scurrying among the feces of the ICC's droppings?
Quote:
Instead, we get the 'tragic mistake'. 'Tragic mistake' is reserved for what your mother and father made

Should have no place in a forum dedicated to discussion and clarification. There is nothing wrong with vigorous discussion but when it decends into personal insults this can only work against discussion. This is not a question of style or personality, but of the principle of discussion.

It was for this reason that libcom banned flaming from this forum and others. Surely the above insults count as flaming? Talk of cockroachs has more to do with gangsters and Stalinists than a forum discussing how to liberate humanity from the nighmare of capitalism.

The ICC wants to express its solidarity for alibadani faced with such an attack.

Admin - edited to fix quoting

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 15 2005 16:44
louis_b wrote:
The ICC wants to express its solidarity for alibadani faced with such an attack.

You guys are amazing! grin

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 15 2005 16:45
louis_b wrote:
The ICC wants to express its solidarity for alibadani faced with such an attack.

Excuse me? Is 'louis b' a renewed attempt to get a group sign-up for the ICC?

louis_b
Offline
Joined: 15-12-05
Dec 15 2005 16:49

The last quote should not be a quote, I have not mastered the post a reply yet.

In response to nastyned, the ICC sees the kronstadt revolt as an expression of the proletariat's effort to struggle against the degeneration of the revolution. Does this mean that we condemn the Bolsheviks? We certainly do not support the crushing and agree with Bilan it would have been better to have lost Kronstadt than repress it. However, the main point is why did the Bolsheviks end up in a position, of goinng from being the vanguard to being sucked into the defence of the state against the workers.

Unfortunately, I have to go now but for a more detailed discussion of the question raised by nastyned see the article Understanding Kronstadt[url]http://en.internationalism.org/ir/104_kronstadt.html, which takes up both the Anarchist and the Bordigist positions on this questionn.[/url]