'Anarcho-Bolshevism', Dual Power, and 'Communist Pluralism'

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Nov 30 2014 11:38
'Anarcho-Bolshevism', Dual Power, and 'Communist Pluralism'

looking for information/ critique of such notions

also wondering if there is such a thing as 'post-leninism'?

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Nov 30 2014 14:43
confusionboats wrote:

also wondering if there is such a thing as 'post-leninism'?

probably some post-68 stuff by members of the "Mandelist" Fourth International like stuff by Bensaid, Loewy, Aguirre, Wolter and a few text by Mandel himself would fit into it

Karetelnik's picture
Karetelnik
Offline
Joined: 19-12-07
Nov 30 2014 17:19

"Anarcho-Bolshevism" was mainly a term of abuse used to refer to anarcho-syndicalists who mistakenly believed that Bolshevism was a transition stage on the road to full communism.

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
Nov 30 2014 22:12
Quote:
"Anarcho-Bolshevism" was mainly a term of abuse used to refer to anarcho-syndicalists who mistakenly believed that Bolshevism was a transition stage on the road to full communism.

used by who?

Which anarcho-syndicalists?

Karetelnik's picture
Karetelnik
Offline
Joined: 19-12-07
Dec 1 2014 03:03

According to the contemporary anarchist historian Anatoly Dubovik:

“Anarcho-Bolshevism” has no ideology. Anarcho-Bolshevism was a group of former activists, accepting Soviet rule in 1918–1919 and the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, but through inertia calling themselves anarchists.

The term “anarcho-Bolshevik” was used notably by the anarcho-syndicalist Anatoly Gorelik in his 1922 pamphlet Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. Gorelik was bitter about the leaders of Russian anarchism who had supported the Bolsheviks, and divided them into three groups: (1) those who joined the Bolshevik Party; (2) those who occupied important posts in the Bolshevik system but continued to call themselves anarchists; (3) those who supported the Bolsheviks for a time but sooner or later recanted but not before inflicting considerable damage on the anarchist movement both in Russia and abroad.

The anarcho-syndicalists named by Gorelik included Novomirsky, Grossman-Roshchin, Shatov, Maximov, and Shapiro, although the last two soon turned against Bolshevism. He could have named many more, for example, Peter Rybin, Stepan Dybets, and Peter Bianki, all of whom had been leading figures in the Union of Russian Workers of the United States and Canada. Dybets and Bianki joined the Party, while Rybin held important posts in the Bolshevik government while continuing to consider himself an anarchist.

The only one of these turncoats to actually refer to themselves as an anarcho-Bolshevik was Grossman-Roshchin, but he fancied himself more of a literary person than an ideologue.

The term “anarcho-Bolshevik” has apparently also been used by contemporary Ukrainian anarcho-syndicalists to refer to Platformists, again, not in a complimentary way.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Dec 1 2014 03:54

I think the term "anarcho-Bolshevik" was also used pejoratively to describe CNTistas who supposedly favored a CNT dictatorship rather than the class collaboration that the CNT ended up going for--I'm unclear on whether these supposed anarcho-Bolsheviks actually did advocate a CNT dictatorship or just wanted to push for communism to the fullest extent possible.

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Dec 2 2014 06:21

I would actually prefer a preferfigured dielo truda pour les temps
(et mon place) tbh

although I do like vannegaurdist aesthetic

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Dec 8 2014 05:30

yea i've mostly heard it as slur for platformists

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Dec 8 2014 13:39

When platformists start yammering about "dual power," what else are we supposed to call them?

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lawrence-jarach-anarcho-communist...

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 28 2014 18:43
Quote:
these turncoats... (1) those who joined the Bolshevik Party; (2) those who occupied important posts in the Bolshevik system but continued to call themselves anarchists; (3) those who supported the Bolsheviks for a time but sooner or later recanted but not before inflicting considerable damage on the anarchist movement both in Russia and abroad.

I think it is quite problematic to see all these people as traitors, especially just for the reasons stated above.

Those who joined the Bolshevik party, obviously, were anarchists no longer: their politics changed, this can happen. Unless you become a traitor to anarchism once you stop being an anarchist regardless of what you do (or in other words unless anarchism is an ideology like any other), joining the Bolshevik Party in itself does not indicate any betrayal to revolutionary positions: Many members of the same party, the left communists and others, resisted the counter-revolution in Russia, engaged in solidarity with the persecuted anarchists and died for this just like the anarchists did. Among the anarchists who joined the Bolshevik Party were people like Victor Serge who, in the end, confronted Trotsky himself about the crimes of the Russian government in Kronstadt.

As for those who occupied important posts in the Bolshevik system but continued to call themselves anarchists, again I don't think this is indicative of whether those people betrayed anything. Take Anatoli Zhelezniakov, for example, the anarchist revolutionary who shut down the Constituent Assembly and fought in the Red Army against the Whites, and still wrote "Whatever may happen to me, and whatever they may say of me, know well that I am an anarchist, that I fight as one, and that whatever my fate, I will die an anarchist." He very strongly opposed Trotsky's reorganization of the Red Army, putting tsarist officers in positions of high authority and abolishing the system of self-government among the rank and file and was outlawed for it for a period. Of course a hypothetical "anarchist" member of the Red Army who participated in the Kronstadt massacre would be a traitor, not just to anarchism but to revolutionary principles in general. I don't think Zhelezniakov was one though.

As for those who supported the Bolsheviks for a while before changing their minds, yes, well I'll go ahead and say I prefer the likes of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman to the likes of Kropotkin who supported the Provisional Government to the extent of serving as an advisor and being offered a ministry. There had been a proletarian revolution in Russa, there were soviets and the anarchists were quite understandably interested and excited. This doesn't make them traitors. Another example is Grigori Maximov, cited in this very thread. He had joined the Red Army but when the Bolsheviks used it for police work and to disarm the workers, he refused to obey orders and was sentenced to death. Only the solidarity actions of the metalworkers union saved his life and led to his release. Even Makhno himself would fall into this category to be honest.

Mlsm
Offline
Joined: 22-02-14
Dec 28 2014 18:10
Leo wrote:
As for those who supported the Bolsheviks for a while before changing their minds, yes, well I'll go ahead and say I prefer the likes of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman to the likes of Kropotkin who supported the Provisional Government to the extent of accepting a ministry

Are you sure about the likes of Kropotkin and his intention to accept a ministry?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 28 2014 18:42

Actually you're right. He was offered a post but he seems to have refused. He acted as an advisor to the government instead*, I think. I'll edit my original post, thanks.

* Peter participated in the formation of government policy. He encouraged the adoption of a system similar to that of the United States, where local autonomy was encouraged. His ideas met some resistance though due to the war. Once the Bolsheviks came to power, Peter ended much of his activity with the government. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/chronology.html)

d33r's picture
d33r
Offline
Joined: 26-05-14
Dec 28 2014 20:51

Kropotkin refused the ministerial position he was offered in the provicinal government, however he did support France at the outbreak of WW1.

d33r's picture
d33r
Offline
Joined: 26-05-14
Dec 28 2014 20:52

Oh didn't see your subsequent post.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Dec 29 2014 04:28

in the Spanish case I believe Jose Peirats claimed he coined the term "anarcho-Bolshevik" to refer to Nosotros, who advocated the unions taking power, to build libertarian communism, in July 1936. The term was a factional insult. The term was also used in the same way, as a factional insult, by Cesar Lorenzo, in his Los anarquistas y el poder (Lorenzo was a Treintista). When Montseny accused Garcia Oliver & the go for power people as advocating an "anarchist dictatorship", Garcia Oliver responded, according to his memoir, by saying that power in the hands of a highly democratic worker organization supported by the majority of workers in Catalonia could not reasonably be called a "dictatorship". So, no, he did not advocate "dictatorship".

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 29 2014 11:13
Leo wrote:
[joining the Bolshevik Party in itself does not indicate any betrayal to revolutionary positions: Many members of the same party, the left communists and others, resisted the counter-revolution in Russia, engaged in solidarity with the persecuted anarchists and died for this just like the anarchists did.

Oh, really? How they "enagaged in solidarity with the persecuted anarchists" exactly?
Bukharin, leader of left communists in 1918 said "That is why we, communists, are fighting against the teaching spread by the anarchists." It was written when bolscheviks (left communists included) started their full scale assault on anarchist movement in Russia. Bukharin as editor of Pravda was chief of anti-anarchist propaganda campaign during destruction of this movement.
"fightning" he speaked of doesn't mean discussion it means summary executions by Cheka.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 29 2014 11:48
Quote:
Oh, really? How they "enagaged in solidarity with the persecuted anarchists" exactly? Bukharin, leader of left communists in 1918 said "That is why we, communists, are fighting against the teaching spread by the anarchists." It was written when bolscheviks (left communists included) started their full scale assault on anarchist movement in Russia. Bukharin as editor of Pravda was chief of anti-anarchist propaganda campaign during destruction of this movement. "fightning" he speaked of doesn't mean discussion it means summary executions by Cheka.

Was Bukharin in the Cheka? Are you accusing him of organizing summary executions by the Cheka? Not that he's the figure you can judge the Russian left communists by.

Gabriel Myasnikov, for example, called for freedom of press for the anarchists and was kicked off from the Bolshevik Party for it.

Then of course are the majority of the Kronstadt communists who sided with the insurrection, but that was more like a common naval uprising of the saliors. Nevertheless, the communists and anarchists of Kronstadt did stand together against the repression of the Red Army.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 29 2014 16:24
Leo wrote:
Was Bukharin in the Cheka? Are you accusing him of organizing summary executions by the Cheka? Not that he's the figure you can judge the Russian left communists by.

Gabriel Myasnikov, for example, called for freedom of press for the anarchists and was kicked off from the Bolshevik Party for it.

Then of course are the majority of the Kronstadt communists who sided with the insurrection, but that was more like a common naval uprising of the saliors. Nevertheless, the communists and anarchists of Kronstadt did stand together against the repression of the Red Army.

Bukharin was the leader of Russian left communists, so I think they can be judge by him in the same way bolsheviks by Lenin trockyists by Trotsky etc. I'm not "accusing", I'm reminding Russian left communists were participants in bolsheviks' counter-revolution in pretty much the same way trotskyist were and as trotskyists they themselves were later persecuted by the same apparatus they created. And I was rather specific what role Bukharin played in this (like say, Goebbels in Third Reich. No, I'm not accusing Goebbels of organizing executions personally...) Bukharin have had other appaling views like militarization of labour, criminalization of workers' protests, usual bolshevik stuff.

On the other hand Myasnikov actually was in Cheka, what's more he was commander of Cheka in Perm Province. He was appointed at this position month after assault on anarchists started.
I don't know any details (I'll try to check) but I suspect there were probably some anarchists in that whole province, and if they were he was responsible for repressions.

Probably as many other people he changed his mind when terror machine started to swallow more and more people, this time not only anarchists, revolutionary socialists but also bolsheviks themselves in the end. So he started to call to freedom of press, but not for anarchists specifically, but for White reactionaries too, for everyone.
But this doesn't change the fact left communists actively partcipated in creation of this (counter-revolutionary) regime. The same goes for trotskyists.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 29 2014 22:16
Quote:
Bukharin was the leader of Russian left communists, so I think they can be judge by him in the same way bolsheviks by Lenin trockyists by Trotsky etc.

Bukharin was one left communist among many, and he was far from being the best of them.

Quote:
I'm not "accusing",

Really? I thought you said "Bukharin as editor of Pravda was chief of anti-anarchist propaganda campaign during destruction of this movement. "fightning" he speaked of doesn't mean discussion it means summary executions by Cheka.". In response to this I asked: "Was Bukharin in the Cheka? Are you accusing him of organizing summary executions by the Cheka?" because you seemed to be accusing Bukharin of organizing summary executions by the Cheka, something he didn't do.

Quote:
I'm reminding Russian left communists were participants in bolsheviks' counter-revolution in pretty much the same way trotskyist were and as trotskyists they themselves were later persecuted by the same apparatus they created.

Your technique of guilt by association resembles stalinism more than it does anarchism.

Quote:
And I was rather specific what role Bukharin played in this (like say, Goebbels in Third Reich. No, I'm not accusing Goebbels of organizing executions personally...)

And now you're equating Bukharin with Goebbels? Did you use to be a stalinist?

Quote:
Bukharin have had other appaling views like militarization of labour, criminalization of workers' protests

Yet he was not a left communist when he had those appaling views and he didn't claim to be one.

Prince Kropotkin, on the other hand, claimed to be an anarchist till the end.

Quote:
On the other hand Myasnikov actually was in Cheka, what's more he was commander of Cheka in Perm Province. He was appointed at this position month after assault on anarchists started. I don't know any details

You wouldn't, because there aren't any. Myasnikov was not in the Cheka, nor was he a commander of the Cheka in Perm. Nor was he, at any point in his life, involved in an assault against the anarchists, though he did assault monarchists.

The story you're misremembering is from Paul Avrich, an anarchist. He writes: "Miasnikov ... gained a measure of notoriety for his role in the liquidation of the imperial family. He was personally responsible for the murder of Grand Duke Michael, the tsar's younger brother, who had been deported to Perm'. On the night of July 12-13, 1918, a group of workmen, led by Miasnikov, arrived at Michael's apartment with forged papers of the provincial Cheka. They awakened the Grand Duke, took him and his English secretary, Nicholas Johnson, to the Motovilikha factory, and there shot them to death. Whether Miasnikov undertook the assassination on his own initiative or was acting on orders from higher authority is unclear. ... Yet the fact that, as soon as the assassination was carried out, Miasnikov left for Moscow and reported directly to Lenin, suggests that he had acted under instructions. Four days later, it might be added, the tsar and his family were shot, on Bolshevik orders, in the Urals city of Ekaterinburg. For the remainder of the Civil War Miasnikov remained a loyal Bolshevik. By 1920 he was chairman of the Perm' Provincial Party Committee, having headed its agitprop section."

Notice that Avrich is neither saying the Myasnikov was a member of the Cheka nor that he lead it. He, with a group of workmen, apparently pretended to be in the Cheka and possibly worked with it at one point. He was the chairman of the local Bolshevik Party committee, which was a completely different organ than the local Cheka. For example, the provisional Bolshevik committee in Kronstadt sided with the rebellion in 1921.

A sincere and decent anarchist, Avrich concluded his text about Myasnikov saying: "Whatever his faults, and they were many, his heroic career, his refusal to compromise his principles under both tsarism and Bolshevism, are sufficient proof of his revolutionary integrity. Such men are seldom forgotten." http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/bol_opp_lenin_avrich.html

Karetelnik's picture
Karetelnik
Offline
Joined: 19-12-07
Dec 30 2014 03:41

Leo wrote:

Quote:
I think it is quite problematic to see all these people as traitors . . .

I did not use the word “traitors”, rather, the less emotionally charged term “turncoats”, which also has the advantage of implying a need to conceal or rewrite the past. Not that there weren’t genuine traitors. Gorelik mentions one in particular: T. P. Samsonov, an anarcho-communist from 1907, who joined the Cheka and specialized in hunting down anarchists. One could also mention the Red Army commanders Mokrousov and Kotovsky, who used their expertise in partisan tactics to help suppress the Makhnovist movement in 1921.

Quote:
Those who joined the Bolshevik party, obviously, were anarchists no longer: their politics changed, this can happen. Unless you become a traitor to anarchism once you stop being an anarchist regardless of what you do (or in other words unless anarchism is an ideology like any other), joining the Bolshevik Party in itself does not indicate any betrayal to revolutionary positions. . .

Certainly it is an abuse of language to call people who make principled changes of position traitors. After all, many of the Russian anarchists started out in other parties: Voline and Karelin were SRs, Arshinov was an Social-Democrat, etc. But after the October Revolution the phenomenon of careerism rears its ugly head. The Bolshevik party card carried with it access to jobs and higher education, better food and accommodation, etc. not just for party members but for their families. The 1920s saw a succession of purges of Party members (bloodless for the moment) involving the “verification of Party documents” with the goal of weeding out various undesirables, especially those who had taken a different political line in the past. Hence you find Bianki claiming to have joined the Bolshevik Party in 1913 (he was an anarchist at least until 1920) and Dybets trying to move back his date of joining the Party just a few months to avoid being implicated in the Makhnovist movement.

Concerning anarchists like Zhelezniakov and Makhno (and also Nikiforova) who served in the Red Army for a time, they always insisted on a measure of autonomy (in Makhno’s case, territorial autonomy) which was totally inimical to the Bolshevik authorities. This resulted in Zhelezniakov being declared an outlaw, Makhno being declared an outlaw three times, and Nikiforova being put on trial for her life twice by the Bolshevik regime. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks were willing to canonize Zhelezniakov, as well as the anarchist commanders Chapaev and Kalandarashvili, because they had conveniently died before they became a liability to the regime. But there were other anarchists with similar accomplishments who found no place in Soviet historiography, for example, Smorodinov, from the Samara Federation of Anarchists, who stormed the White stronghold of Orenberg in 1918; or the Yekaterinburg anarchist Zhebunev, who defended the Urals in the spring of 1918.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 30 2014 06:04
Leo wrote:
Quote:
Bukharin was the leader of Russian left communists, so I think they can be judge by him in the same way bolsheviks by Lenin trockyists by Trotsky etc.

Bukharin was one left communist among many, and he was far from being the best of them.

Well, Stalin was also only one stalinist among many.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
I'm not "accusing",

Really? I thought you said "Bukharin as editor of Pravda was chief of anti-anarchist propaganda campaign during destruction of this movement. "fightning" he speaked of doesn't mean discussion it means summary executions by Cheka.". In response to this I asked: "Was Bukharin in the Cheka? Are you accusing him of organizing summary executions by the Cheka?" because you seemed to be accusing Bukharin of organizing summary executions by the Cheka, something he didn't do.

You have obviously some problems with reading properly.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
I'm reminding Russian left communists were participants in bolsheviks' counter-revolution in pretty much the same way trotskyist were and as trotskyists they themselves were later persecuted by the same apparatus they created.

Your technique of guilt by association resembles stalinism more than it does anarchism.

Participation of Trotsky and left communists in bolschevik counter-revolution is a fact. I mean Bukharin was not only editor of Pravda, he was also important bolshevik theoretican when soviet economy is concerned.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
And I was rather specific what role Bukharin played in this (like say, Goebbels in Third Reich. No, I'm not accusing Goebbels of organizing executions personally...)

And now you're equating Bukharin with Goebbels? Did you use to be a stalinist?

Yeah, stalinists always seek resemblances between III Reich and Soviet Russia. In some alternative reality that is.
Bukharin was chief propagandist of bolshevik regime (Pravda was central organ of communist party and whole this regime) in the same way Goebbels was chief propagandist of nazism.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Bukharin have had other appaling views like militarization of labour, criminalization of workers' protests

Yet he was not a left communist when he had those appaling views and he didn't claim to be one.

And again its not true. He was left communist then. It was written in 1918 and with time his views change to worse than that. He didn't even change his mind later as other left communists (ie Kronstadt etc)
Miasnikov didn't considered himself "left communist" either. No one considered himself "left communist". This is the name given to them by others.

Leo wrote:
Prince Kropotkin, on the other hand, claimed to be an anarchist till the end.

Well that's good. But what are you getting at?

Leo wrote:
Quote:
On the other hand Myasnikov actually was in Cheka, what's more he was commander of Cheka in Perm Province. He was appointed at this position month after assault on anarchists started. I don't know any details

You wouldn't, because there aren't any. Myasnikov was not in the Cheka, nor was he a commander of the Cheka in Perm. Nor was he, at any point in his life, involved in an assault against the anarchists, though he did assault monarchists.

Yes he was. This is rather well know fact grin

Был избран делегатом III съезда Советов, на котором был избран во ВЦИК. Направлен на советскую работу к себе на родину — на Урал. Председатель Мотовилихинского совета. С 27 мая 1918 года переведён по решению Мотовилихинского совета на работу в Пермскую ГубЧерКом, став заместителем её председателя. По собственным заявлениям, инициатор расстрела Великого князя Михаила Александровича. В своих последующих воспоминаниях описал свои сомнения периода планирования этого убийства[2]:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE...

He was appointed to of Cheka in Perm Province on 27 May 1918 where he became vice-commander" etc.
I was mistaken only in this he was vice-commander in Perm Province not commander.

Leo wrote:
The story you're misremembering is from Paul Avrich, an anarchist. He writes: "Miasnikov ... gained a measure of notoriety for his role in the liquidation of the imperial family. He was personally responsible for the murder of Grand Duke Michael, the tsar's younger brother, who had been deported to Perm'. On the night of July 12-13, 1918, a group of workmen, led by Miasnikov, arrived at Michael's apartment with forged papers of the provincial Cheka. They awakened the Grand Duke, took him and his English secretary, Nicholas Johnson, to the Motovilikha factory, and there shot them to death. Whether Miasnikov undertook the assassination on his own initiative or was acting on orders from higher authority is unclear. ... Yet the fact that, as soon as the assassination was carried out, Miasnikov left for Moscow and reported directly to Lenin, suggests that he had acted under instructions. Four days later, it might be added, the tsar and his family were shot, on Bolshevik orders, in the Urals city of Ekaterinburg. For the remainder of the Civil War Miasnikov remained a loyal Bolshevik. By 1920 he was chairman of the Perm' Provincial Party Committee, having headed its agitprop section."

Notice that Avrich is neither saying the Myasnikov was a member of the Cheka nor that he lead it. He, with a group of workmen, apparently pretended to be in the Cheka and possibly worked with it at one point. He was the chairman of the local Bolshevik Party committee, which was a completely different organ than the local Cheka. For example, the provisional Bolshevik committee in Kronstadt sided with the rebellion in 1921.

A sincere and decent anarchist, Avrich concluded his text about Myasnikov saying: "Whatever his faults, and they were many, his heroic career, his refusal to compromise his principles under both tsarism and Bolshevism, are sufficient proof of his revolutionary integrity. Such men are seldom forgotten." http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/bol_opp_lenin_avrich.html

Very interesting really, but Avrich story is incomplete (and rubbish frankly speaking) I'm basing it on Russian sources not English. Every his biography says that wink Like with Kropotkin you misrepresenting some facts. I can quote some other biographies if you want.
So no, I'm not "misremembering" anything but you do and you're basing your claims on incomplete sources - with Bukharin and Myasnikov or other left communists alike.

I don't have time to check right now Russian sources what exactly Cheka in Perm Province did but as vice-commander he was personally responsible for it.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 30 2014 06:02

Now I've checked English translation of his official position: "Deputy Chairman" of Cheka in Perm Province.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 30 2014 10:33

Karetelnik;

Quote:
I did not use the word “traitors”, rather, the less emotionally charged term “turncoats”,

That's true but I don't see a big difference.

Quote:
Not that there weren’t genuine traitors. Gorelik mentions one in particular: T. P. Samsonov, an anarcho-communist from 1907, who joined the Cheka and specialized in hunting down anarchists. One could also mention the Red Army commanders Mokrousov and Kotovsky, who used their expertise in partisan tactics to help suppress the Makhnovist movement in 1921.

And it would be fair to describe these people as turncoats or traitors.

Quote:
Certainly it is an abuse of language to call people who make principled changes of position traitors. After all, many of the Russian anarchists started out in other parties: Voline and Karelin were SRs, Arshinov was an Social-Democrat, etc. But after the October Revolution the phenomenon of careerism rears its ugly head. The Bolshevik party card carried with it access to jobs and higher education, better food and accommodation, etc. not just for party members but for their families. The 1920s saw a succession of purges of Party members (bloodless for the moment) involving the “verification of Party documents” with the goal of weeding out various undesirables, especially those who had taken a different political line in the past. Hence you find Bianki claiming to have joined the Bolshevik Party in 1913 (he was an anarchist at least until 1920) and Dybets trying to move back his date of joining the Party just a few months to avoid being implicated in the Makhnovist movement.

Fair enough, this is indeed a valid point.

Quote:
Concerning anarchists like Zhelezniakov and Makhno (and also Nikiforova) who served in the Red Army for a time, they always insisted on a measure of autonomy (in Makhno’s case, territorial autonomy) which was totally inimical to the Bolshevik authorities. This resulted in Zhelezniakov being declared an outlaw, Makhno being declared an outlaw three times, and Nikiforova being put on trial for her life twice by the Bolshevik regime. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks were willing to canonize Zhelezniakov, as well as the anarchist commanders Chapaev and Kalandarashvili, because they had conveniently died before they became a liability to the regime.

Well, Makhno didn't but yeah, exactly. So my point is just because anarchists worked in the Red Army didn't mean they ceased to be anarchists or they supported everything the Bolsheviks did.

Yes, I knew the Soviet regime claimed Zhelezniakov (I hadn't heard about Nikiforova, Chapaev and Kalandarashvili though I don't doubt it). The leftists where I live claim the Haymarket martyrs to be socialist labor leaders, without making any referance to the fact that they were anarchists. Obviously, opposing such petty propaganda is something genuine communists have to do along with the anarchists.

Quote:
But there were other anarchists with similar accomplishments who found no place in Soviet historiography, for example, Smorodinov, from the Samara Federation of Anarchists, who stormed the White stronghold of Orenberg in 1918; or the Yekaterinburg anarchist Zhebunev, who defended the Urals in the spring of 1918.

Of course, there would be.

Anyway, good post Karetelnik.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 30 2014 11:05
Quote:
Well, Stalin was also only one stalinist among many.

No, he wasn't. He was the one Stalinist who was presented as the great leader of the nation. Are you claiming now that there was a cult of personality of Bukharin among the left communists?

Also, incidentally, he was one Stalinist who murdered quite a lot of other Stalinists as well, though he wasn't the only one at that.

He was the head of the regime which purged a hundred thousand communists. I don't see anything like that in Bukharin's record. He was among the purged though.

Quote:
Participation of Trotsky and left communists in bolschevik counter-revolution is a fact.

No, for the left communists it is not. It is guilt by association.

Quote:
I mean Bukharin was not only editor of Pravda, he was also important bolshevik theoretican when soviet economy is concerned.

Only after he ceased to be a left communist.

Left communists are no more responsible for any positions held or crimes committed by Bukharin that anarchism is for Samsonov, Mokrousov and Kotovsky mentioned by Karetelnik.

Quote:
Yeah, stalinists always seek resemblances between III Reich and Soviet Russia.

Yeah, actually they did so that they could murder people on charges of treason and being Nazi sympathizers.

Quote:
Bukharin was chief propagandist of bolshevik regime (Pravda was central organ of communist party and whole this regime) in the same way Goebbels was chief propagandist of nazism.

I'm really having a hard time taking this arugement seriously.

Quote:
And again its not true. He was left communist then. It was written in 1918 and with time his views change to worse than that. He didn't even change his mind later as other left communists (ie Kronstadt etc)

Unless I'm mistaken, the debate on the militarization of labor didn't begin until 1920 - and in any case Bukharin ceased to be a left communist after Brest-Litovsk as the left communist faction of the Bolshevik Party was broken.

Quote:
Miasnikov didn't considered himself "left communist" either. No one considered himself "left communist". This is the name given to them by others.

No, they did consider themselves left communists. Their faction was called the Left Communists. The only paper associated to them was Kommunist where the danger of state-capitalism in Russia was highlighted for the first time. Their faction ceased existance after Brest-Litovsk, some like Bukharin "returned" to the official party line, others kept their positions and engaged in other opposition groups.

Quote:
He was appointed to of Cheka in Perm Province on 27 May 1918 where he became vice-commander" etc. I was mistaken only in this he was vice-commander in Perm Province not commander.

Fair enough, I checked the the source of the Russian wikipedia article and it seems legit. It was Avrich who was mistaken on Myasnikov's involvement with the Cheka in 1918 then. On the other hand, all that can be mentioned on this involvement is the killing of members of the Tsar's family as Avrich says. So no crackdown on anarchists. Just being a member or deputy chairman of a local Cheka for an indefinite though short period (since he soon left Perm to participate in the Civil War against the Whites in the Red Army according to your own Russian source and Perm was captured by the Whites in December 1918 anyway) doesn't mean he's guilt of what other Chekists were doing against the anarchists. This too is an example of guilt by association.

Quote:
Very interesting really, but Avrich story is incomplete (and rubbish frankly speaking) I'm basing it on Russian sources not English. Every his biography says that

Actually, your sources verify an overwhelming majority of the Avrich story - and of course Avrich also based his story on Russian sources.

Quote:
Like with Kropotkin you misrepresenting some facts.

I didn't misrepresent facts with Kropotkin, I made a mistake, I was corrected and I changed my original post. Not that it's a big mistake to confuse being offered and accepting a ministry from the pro-war government he was serving as an advisor and being offered and rejecting a ministry from the pro-war government he was serving as an advisor.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 30 2014 12:35
Leo wrote:
Quote:
Well, Stalin was also only one stalinist among many.

No, he wasn't. He was the one Stalinist who was presented as the great leader of the nation. Are you claiming now that there was a cult of personality of Bukharin among the left communists?

Also, incidentally, he was one Stalinist who murdered quite a lot of other Stalinists as well, though he wasn't the only one at that.

He was the head of the regime which purged a hundred thousand communists. I don't see anything like that in Bukharin's record. He was among the purged though.

Well they treated him as kind of leader of "left communists" and this is how he's treated now. And he was one of leaders of bolshevik regime in general (and future Stalin's ally against Trotsky but we may say it doesn't count, I suppose he abandoned at least in part his "left communist" views then - but its only my benefit of doubt for left communists, nothing more).

As for purged communists Bukharin was one of leaders of the regime who purged thousands of them, not to mention anarchists. as they were purged earlier. If you didn't see anything like that in Bukharin record this means you are totally blind. He was in central Comitte of Communist Party since October 1917.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Participation of Trotsky and left communists in bolschevik counter-revolution is a fact.

No, for the left communists it is not. It is guilt by association.

Yeah, for Trotskyists neither and he being another leader of bolsheviks regime probably means it's only "guilt by association". So what?

Leo wrote:
Quote:
I mean Bukharin was not only editor of Pravda, he was also important bolshevik theoretican when soviet economy is concerned.

Only after he ceased to be a left communist.

Oh really? grin So when exactly he was "left communist" according to you? And why exactly? And who else thinks like you?
He was editor of Pravda (and member of Central Comitte of communist party) since October Revolution. This book I quoted is from April 1918 (half of it is about economy)
as this book, accidentally:

http://leftcommunism.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=302&lang=fr

Most sources talk about him as left communist of "leader of left communists" after that, not before. Its because this opposition against Lenin wasn't even happened yet, so he couldn't be in it.

So seriously, stop writing alternative history of revolution in Russia here.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 30 2014 13:50
Leo wrote:
Left communists are no more responsible for any positions held or crimes committed by Bukharin that anarchism is for Samsonov, Mokrousov and Kotovsky mentioned by Karetelnik.

Left communists were part of this regime up to some point as trotskyists were and for the same reasons, formulated theoretically too (you can read Bukharin if you want to know them). All of them, as political milieu. They diverged from the rest of bolsheviks only later. There is big difference between individual anarchists who joined bolsheviks and were criticized by other anarchists because of that. They weren't anarchists anymore as they abandoned anarchist views and became bolsheviks (and yes, they were responsible. Some of ex-anarchists were well aware of what is going on in Russia, like Victor Serge who admitted that in talk with Emma Goldman)
So, you are mistaken. Analogy with anarchists holds only if someone would try to accuse left communists or trotskyists for Stalinist crimes. Then you would say it's like accusing anarchists for bolsheviks deeds.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, stalinists always seek resemblances between III Reich and Soviet Russia.

Yeah, actually they did so that they could murder people on charges of treason and being Nazi sympathizers.

Stalinists sought resemblances between their own regime and nazi regime to murder people on charges of treason?? Sorry, I don't understand you at all.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
And again its not true. He was left communist then. It was written in 1918 and with time his views change to worse than that. He didn't even change his mind later as other left communists (ie Kronstadt etc)

Unless I'm mistaken, the debate on the militarization of labor didn't begin until 1920 - and in any case Bukharin ceased to be a left communist after Brest-Litovsk as the left communist faction of the Bolshevik Party was broken.

Sorry, I didn't saw that when I've written earlier comment. Well this is really peculiar interpretation of what left communism was and who was actually left communist. And contradictory to what you said about Miasnikov as it was well after that. Anyway Bukharin's remarks on "army of labour" and strikes as counter-revolutionary sabotage are from book I quoted earlier (1918)

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Miasnikov didn't considered himself "left communist" either. No one considered himself "left communist". This is the name given to them by others.

No, they did consider themselves left communists. Their faction was called the Left Communists. The only paper associated to them was Kommunist where the danger of state-capitalism in Russia was highlighted for the first time. Their faction ceased existance after Brest-Litovsk, some like Bukharin "returned" to the official party line, others kept their positions and engaged in other opposition groups.

Again some weird contradictions. For what I know left-communist milieu apperaed after Brest-Litovsk treaty not ceased to exist. I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
He was appointed to of Cheka in Perm Province on 27 May 1918 where he became vice-commander" etc. I was mistaken only in this he was vice-commander in Perm Province not commander.

Fair enough, I checked the the source of the Russian wikipedia article and it seems legit. It was Avrich who was mistaken on Myasnikov's involvement with the Cheka in 1918 then. On the other hand, all that can be mentioned on this involvement is the killing of members of the Tsar's family as Avrich says. So no crackdown on anarchists. Just being a member or deputy chairman of a local Cheka for an indefinite though short period (since he soon left Perm to participate in the Civil War against the Whites in the Red Army according to your own Russian source and Perm was captured by the Whites in December 1918 anyway) doesn't mean he's guilt of what other Chekists were doing against the anarchists. This too is an example of guilt by association.

I have no idea what he was doing, this story is almost everything what I could find. Probably the same what other chekists did. As for being voluntary functionary or member of some counter-revolutionary organization and not being responsible for its actions, well chekists were responsible for it of course. As members of Communist Party were responsible (or Kropotkin if he would became minister in Kierenski's government) etc.
The only reason for them not being responsible would be compulsory draft into it.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Very interesting really, but Avrich story is incomplete (and rubbish frankly speaking) I'm basing it on Russian sources not English. Every his biography says that

Actually, your sources verify an overwhelming majority of the Avrich story - and of course Avrich also based his story on Russian sources.

Quote:
Like with Kropotkin you misrepresenting some facts.

I didn't misrepresent facts with Kropotkin, I made a mistake, I was corrected and I changed my original post. Not that it's a big mistake to confuse being offered and accepting a ministry from the pro-war government he was serving as an advisor and being offered and rejecting a ministry from the pro-war government he was serving as an advisor.

He wasn't even an advisor for what I know. There was only a governmental conference in August 1917 in which he participated together with other known persons like Plekhanov.He made a speech in which he "advised" some things in education.
I think participating in conference is a big difference from being a minister.

Not to mention much bigger difference between being, say, a member of Central Comittee of Communist Party wink

But you were saying some left communists supported anarchists when they were murdered and anarchist movement destroyed. This quote from 1921 by one person (when anarchist movement actually didn't existed anymore) about "freedom of speech for everyone from anarchists to monarchists" is everything you can find to support that claim?
(If you don't know that Lenin answered to him that this kind of democratic views are sign of bourgeois socialism which bolsheviks want to get rid of -Ironic, isn't it? This kind of arguments is usually used by left communists yet you claim Myasnikov here was left communist not Lenin)

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 30 2014 16:11
Quote:
Well they treated him as kind of leader of "left communists" and this is how he's treated now.

Historians did, not the left communists. Bukharin was simply the most prominent left communist in the party leadership, he wasn't the most prominent left communist in general. He generally though not always limited his opposition to the question of Brest Litovsk.

Quote:
And he was one of leaders of bolshevik regime in general (and future Stalin's ally against Trotsky but we may say it doesn't count, I suppose he abandoned at least in part his "left communist" views then

At least in part? Are you joking, the man became a "right communist".

Quote:
As for purged communists Bukharin was one of leaders of the regime who purged thousands of them, not to mention anarchists. as they were purged earlier. If you didn't see anything like that in Bukharin record this means you are totally blind. He was in central Comitte of Communist Party since October 1917.

Which doesn't mean he was purging anyone personally since what you're doing is nothing but guilt by association. The central committee of the Bolsheviks wasn't the organ directing the purges and its entire membership ended up purged itself.

Is Bukharin guilty of purging anyone? No, he is not, there are records showing that he was quite terrified of the purge he thought Stalin would organize beforehand.

Is Bukharin, nevertheless, guilty of politically supporting the regime which organized these purges at certain times? Undoubtedly he is, but that doesn't make him an equivilant of the likes of Stalin and Beria, or Goebbels for that matter as you absurdly claim.

Quote:
Yeah, for Trotskyists neither and he being another leader of bolsheviks regime probably means it's only "guilt by association". So what?

Well, Trotsky did threathen to shoot the Kronstadt rebels like rabbits. Myasnikov on the other hand, was sympathetic to the rebellion. You are associating the crime of the former to all who thought like the latter "because they were all part of the evil Bolshevik regime". This is guilt by association.

This is not to say that Trotsky was personally involved with the supression of the Kronstadt rebellion, he wasn't, but he did take political responsibility for it. I'd say that responsibility was shared by Bukharin as well as Lenin, neither of whom were involved with the supression personally either. The likes of Kalinin and Kouzmin, on the other hand, who generated the lies about Kronsdadt have a different and further responsibility though.

Quote:
Oh really? grin So when exactly he was "left communist" according to you? And why exactly? And who else thinks like you?

Uh... like, literally, everyone? Bukharin was a left communist until the Brest-Litovsk agreement, and the main axis of his left communism was his opposition to the treaty. He ceased to be one after the left communists lost and then he made his peace with party leadership.

Later on, until his rightist turn, he did occasionally take left-wing positions, most notably on the Georgian issue as well as right-wing positions, most notably on the trade-union debate and the militarization of labor. He also served as the mounthpiece of the official positions often. For example, during the 2nd Congress of the Comintern (1920), he argued against the Italian left communists who opposed parliamentarianism.

Quote:
This book I quoted is from April 1918 (half of it is about economy)
as this book, accidentally:

http://leftcommunism.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=302&lang=fr

Most sources talk about him as left communist of "leader of left communists" after that, not before. Its because this opposition against Lenin wasn't even happened yet, so he couldn't be in it.

No, this is not true. The high-point of the left communist opposition was before the treaty when they actually had a majority in the party. Afterwards, during the Fourth All - Russian Congress of Soviets, Left communists (Osinsky, Bukharin, Lomov, Smirnov) were ousted from leading positions in Supreme Economic Council - partly because of their attitude to Brest - Litovsk - and replaced by 'moderates' like Milyutin and Rykov.

On april the issue of workers' control was now being widely discussed within the Party. Petrograd District Committee published first issue of Kommunist. This issue contained the editors' "Theses on the Present Situation" (http://libcom.org/library/theses-left-communists-russia-1918). The paper denounced "a labour policy designed to implant discipline among the workers under the flag of 'self - discipline', the introduction of labour service for workers, piece rates, and the lengthening of the working day". It proclaimed that "the introduction of labour discipline in connection with the restoration of capitalist management of industry cannot really increase the productivity of labour". It would "diminish the class initiative, activity and organisation of the proletariat. It threatens to enslave the working class. It will arouse discontent among the backward elements as well as among the vanguard of the proletariat. In order to introduce this system in the face of the hatred prevailing at present among the proletariat against the 'capitalist saboteurs' the Communist Party would have to rely on the petty - bourgeoisie, as against the workers". It would "ruin itself as the party of the proletariat".

The first issue of the new paper also contained a serious warning by Radek: "If the Russian Revolution were overthrown by violence on the part of the bourgeois counter - revolution it would rise again like a phoenix; if however it lost its socialist character and thereby disappointed the working masses, the blow would have ten times more terrible consequences for the future of the Russian and the international revolution".

The same issue warned of "bureaucratic centralisation, the rule of various commissars, the loss of independence for local soviets and in practice the rejection of the type of state - commune administered from below".

"It was all very well", Bukharin pointed out, "to say as Lenin had (in State and Revolution) that each cook should learn to manage the State. But what happened when each cook had a commissar appointed to order him about?" The second issue of the paper contained some prophetic comments by Osinsky: "We stand for the construction of the proletarian society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by the ukases of the captains of industry. . . if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour no one can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; but the soviet power will then be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class (e.g. the peasantry) and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all - something else will be set up - state capitalism".

Lenin reacted very sharply. The usual vituperation followed. The views of the 'left' Communists were "a disgrace". "a complete renunciation of communism in practice", "a desertion to the camp of the petty bourgeoisie". The left were being "provoked by the Isuvs (Mensheviks) and other Judases of capitalism". A campaign was whipped up in Leningrad which compelled Kommunist to transfer publication to Moscow, where the paper reappeared first under the auspices of the Moscow Regional Organisation of the Party, later as the 'unofficial' mouthpiece of a group of comrades. After the appearance of the first issue of the paper a hastily convened Petrograd Party Conference produced a majority for Lenin and "demanded that the adherents of Kommunist cease their separate organisational existence".

During the following months the Leninists succeeded in extending their organisational control into areas which had originally backed the lefts. By the end of May the predominantly proletarian Party organisation in the Ural region, led by Preobrazhensky, and the Moscow Regional Bureau of the Party had been won back by the supporters of the Party leadership. The fourth and final issue of Kommunist (May 1918) had to be published as a private factional paper.

(Source: http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918 I've included a large chunk of Brinton's account so that you might get an idea of what the positions of the left communists were since you don't seem to know them very well.)

So two months after Brest-Litovsk, in May 1918, the Left Communist faction which had the majority in the party prior to the agreement ceased to exist.

You can see Bukharin taking a turn towards the official line in the Program of the World Revolution written in May. For example on the national question he says: "we speak not of the rights of nations to independence, but of the right of the labouring classes of every nation to separation if it so desires." (https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/worldrev/ch19.html) This position for example is different from the left communist position against national liberation movements. In general, the tone of this book is speaking for the government, not criticizing it on anything.

So I can quite safely say that from May 1918 onwards, Bukharin was no longer a left communist which basically means that he ceased to be a left communist soon after the left communist faction lost and ceased to exist after (literally, two months after) Brest-Litovsk.

Quote:
Left communists were part of this regime up to some point as trotskyists were and for the same reasons, formulated theoretically too

When? Between March 1918 and May 1918?

Yes, just like the trotskyists.

Quote:
All of them, as political milieu. They diverged from the rest of bolsheviks only later.

No, they'd diverged from the rest of the Bolsheviks before Brest-Litovsk until two months after it. Then their faction was liquidated. Then, some of them ceased to be left communists and returned to the official positions of the party, others were engaged in different oppositions and others remained left communists in heart. I'd say that opposition groups such as the Military Opposition, the Workers' Opposition and until later the Democratic Centralists were not left communists and there wasn't an organized left communist presence in Russia until the emergence of the Workers Group.

Quote:
Anyway Bukharin's remarks on "army of labour" and strikes as counter-revolutionary sabotage are from book I quoted earlier (1918)

Actually you're right, he did say that in May 1918, in the same book I quoted to show how he'd changed his position and aligned himself with the party line. Here's the exact quote: "Whilst organising a labour army, it is at the same time imperative to create a revolutionary labour discipline in this army." (https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/worldrev/ch14.html) Obviously, signalling his shift, this view is completely opposed to the position held by the actual left communists against such measures.

Quote:
For what I know left-communist milieu apperaed after Brest-Litovsk treaty not ceased to exist.

Again, it appeared before in opposition to a separate peace with Germany and ceased to exist two months after the signing of the treaty.

Quote:
I have no idea what he was doing, this story is almost everything what I could find. Probably the same what other chekists did.

No, your story does quite clearly detail what he was doing, which was killing the members of the imperial family. I personally have no objections to such a deed though it seems the methods employed were perhaps rather questionable.

Quote:
As for being voluntary functionary or member of some counter-revolutionary organization and not being responsible for its actions, well chekists were responsible for it of course.

I don't think Cheka was an all-out counter-revolutionary organization in 1918, and being a member of it briefly in this year doesn't mean Myasnikov was responsible for what members of this organ did either during his brief activity within it or its activities afterwards which did, increasingly, assume a counter-revolutionary character.

Certainly saying Myasnikov is responsible for the future crimes of Cheka is guilt by association and quite unfair in my opinion.

Quote:
He wasn't even an advisor for what I know. There was only a governmental conference in August 1917 in which he participated together with other known persons like Plekhanov.He made a speech in which he "advised" some things in education. I think participating in conference is a big difference from being a minister.

Check your sources, I have the impression that it was a continuous thing (as implied by the source I gave) and would be interested in learning if I'm wrong.

Saying Kropotkin had a political responsibility for supporting the war and advising Kerensky's government obviously makes sense. Saying he's guilty of all the crimes of Kerensky's government or he is to blame for the WW1 would be madness... and guilt by association.

Quote:
But you were saying some left communists supported anarchists when they were murdered and anarchist movement destroyed. This quote from 1921 by one person (when anarchist movement actually didn't existed anymore) about "freedom of speech for everyone from anarchists to monarchists" is everything you can find to support that claim?

Uh, actually the anarchist movement did exist in 1921. (https://libcom.org/library/russian-anarchists-civil-war-paul-avrich) I've read claims that it didn't exist afterwards, but some have claimed (you can see the link) that it existed even afterwards.

Another example I gave was when the communists and anarchists of Kronstadt stood together against the Red Army.

There are also other examples but it'll take some time to find them. I'll need to check Serge, Ciliga, Goldman, Avrich and others.

Quote:
If you don't know that Lenin answered to him that this kind of democratic views are sign of bourgeois socialism which bolsheviks want to get rid of -Ironic, isn't it? This kind of arguments is usually used by left communists yet you claim Myasnikov here was left communist not Lenin

Why is it ironic? Lenin was not a left communist: he wrote two books against left communism. He himself did, however, say this in 1917, before left communism had emerged: " For the workers’ and peasants’ government, freedom of the press means liberation of the press from capitalist oppression, and public ownership of paper mills and printing presses; equal right for public groups of a certain size (say, numbering 10,000) to a fair share of newsprint stocks and a corresponding quantity of printers’ labour." (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/04.htm)

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 31 2014 09:17
Leo wrote:
Which doesn't mean he was purging anyone personally since what you're doing is nothing but guilt by association. The central committee of the Bolsheviks wasn't the organ directing the purges and its entire membership ended up purged itself.

Is Bukharin guilty of purging anyone? No, he is not, there are records showing that he was quite terrified of the purge he thought Stalin would organize beforehand.

Is Bukharin, nevertheless, guilty of politically supporting the regime which organized these purges at certain times? Undoubtedly he is, but that doesn't make him an equivilant of the likes of Stalin and Beria, or Goebbels for that matter as you absurdly claim.

Central Comittee of Communist Party was an organ directing counter-revolution since 1918, suppression of soviets and commitees as organs of workers' power and control respectively, and destroying anarchist movement for that matter. This is something Russian left communists are personally (i.e. Bukharin or other left communists being prominent functionaries of bolshevik regime) and politically guilty of.
What differs them from Stalin is only a scale of it.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, for Trotskyists neither and he being another leader of bolsheviks regime probably means it's only "guilt by association". So what?

Well, Trotsky did threathen to shoot the Kronstadt rebels like rabbits. Myasnikov on the other hand, was sympathetic to the rebellion. You are associating the crime of the former to all who thought like the latter "because they were all part of the evil Bolshevik regime". This is guilt by association.

And Bukharin & co 3 years earlier did the same against anarchists or others involved in left opposition what Trotsky against Kronstadt.

Leo wrote:
This is not to say that Trotsky was personally involved with the supression of the Kronstadt rebellion, he wasn't, but he did take political responsibility for it.

Again you're mistaken. Trotsky and Tukhachesky were commanders of Red Army forces which suppressed Kronstadt uprising.

Leo wrote:
I'd say that responsibility was shared by Bukharin as well as Lenin, neither of whom were involved with the supression personally either. The likes of Kalinin and Kouzmin, on the other hand, who generated the lies about Kronsdadt have a different and further responsibility though.

Well, I must say in general you are very interested in personal side of the events in Russia as for someone who consider himself communist. Personal this personal that, who personally signed this or that order.
On the other hand, I'm more interested in nature of this regime and all those events.

In other words what is important here is a role which communist party (including left communists) played in revolution or rather suppression of it.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Dec 31 2014 10:23
Leo wrote:
Quote:
Oh really? grin So when exactly he was "left communist" according to you? And why exactly? And who else thinks like you?

Uh... like, literally, everyone? Bukharin was a left communist until the Brest-Litovsk agreement, and the main axis of his left communism was his opposition to the treaty. He ceased to be one after the left communists lost and then he made his peace with party leadership.

"In April 1918 the first issue of the revue Kommunist was published as the organ of a fraction within the bolshevik party that arose in opposition to the separate “peace” treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the soviet government of revolutionary Russia and German imperialism."

http://leftcommunism.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=302&lang=fr

Brest-Litovsk Treaty was signed in March 1918. You earlier said that left communism was fraction centered around Kommunist. Now you're saying there was some earlier "left communism" before March 1918, Treaty etc. You contradict yourself constantly

Leo wrote:
(Source: http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918 I've included a large chunk of Brinton's account so that you might get an idea of what the positions of the left communists were since you don't seem to know them very well.)

Leo wrote:
So two months after Brest-Litovsk, in May 1918, the Left Communist faction which had the majority in the party prior to the agreement ceased to exist.

"left" communist fraction didn't have any majority in communist party prior to Treaty because it didn't existed at all.

Leo wrote:
Quote:
Left communists were part of this regime up to some point as trotskyists were and for the same reasons, formulated theoretically too

When? Between March 1918 and May 1918?

Nope. Check biographies of every person you mention here as left communist and you will see how long they were on high positions in bolshevik regime.

This is very interesting again, because when there is something to take credit for, say, oppositon to suppression of Kronstadt you very easily say about left communism being active, protesting etc. But when the question arise what they were actually doing earlier some miracle happens - there were no left communism at all after April 1918!

Leo wrote:
No, your story does quite clearly detail what he was doing, which was killing the members of the imperial family. I personally have no objections to such a deed though it seems the methods employed were perhaps rather questionable.

Yes, and as I said there's nothing about him except this story with Romanov which you quoted (Avrich)

Leo wrote:
Quote:
He wasn't even an advisor for what I know. Theparticipated together with other known persons like Plekhanov.He made a speech in which he "advised" some things in education. I think participating in conference is a big difference from being a minister.

Check your sources, I have the impression that it was a continuous thing (as implied by the source I gave) and would be interested in learning if I'm wrong.

This is what my sources says (books in Polish, Russian texts on the internet) There is nothing more nowhere, so I suppose that's all.
(or rather he "advised" about some other things like peaceful transition to communism after the revolution, world revolution)

Leo wrote:
Uh, actually the anarchist movement did exist in 1921. (https://libcom.org/library/russian-anarchists-civil-war-paul-avrich) I've read claims that it didn't exist afterwards, but some have claimed (you can see the link) that it existed even afterwards.

It didn't existed in Russia. You're talking about Ukraine.

Leo wrote:
Another example I gave was when the communists and anarchists of Kronstadt stood together against the Red Army.

But they weren't left communists only some ex-members of Communist Party.

Leo wrote:
Why is it ironic? Lenin was not a left communist: he wrote two books against left communism. He himself did, however, say this in 1917, before left communism had emerged: " For the workers’ and peasants’ government, freedom of the press means liberation of the press from capitalist oppression, and public ownership of paper mills and printing presses; equal right for public groups of a certain size (say, numbering 10,000) to a fair share of newsprint stocks and a corresponding quantity of printers’ labour." (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/04.htm)

Its ironic because left communists here on libcom usually say that such democratic views constitute "bourgeois socialism" yet it was someone who according to you was left communist (and in fact only example during Russian Revolution you can find when left communist said something in favor of anarchism).

"”Freedom of the press, from the monarchists to the anarchists, inclusively” . . . . Very good! But just a minute: every Marxist and every worker who ponders over the four years’ experience of our revolution will say, “Let’s look into this-what sort of freedom of the press? What for? For which class?”
We do not believe in “absolutes”. We laugh at “pure democracy “."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm

Well pure democracy is something left communists like to talk about.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 31 2014 10:29

This is really boring. May I draw your attentions to the article at the top right of the screen?

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Jan 1 2015 17:12

well I could add some other boring infos like the commander of Cheka unit which pursued, killed or arrested (later executed) anarchists who bombed Moscow party comitee in 1919 was left communist Mantsev

http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/underground-anarchists-1919-bom...

Mantsev was later purged together with other left communists (Bukharin, Osinsky) by stalinists.