Kronstadt

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 5 2006 22:12
OliverTwister wrote:

One of my problems with left-communist politics is that while they often have positions that I agree with, they perform gymnastics to say that the Bolshevik Party was not entirely dead until 1926 (or even 1921) but that the the CNT had betrayed the working class definitively by May '37 at the latest, or else that that was just a reflection of the betrayal the week after the revolution began, or that the CNT had been counter-revolutionary all along.

I think that a lot of the points that you were raising in your last post have come up on the back up thread: http://www.punkt.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272 if anyone is interested.

This point didn't though, so I will try to answer it here.

I will start by quoting yourself:

OliverTwister wrote:
Kronstadt signalled the absolute death of the Russian Revolution, or at least it made it clear that the Bolsheviks had nothing left to offer to the proletariat

I agree with this, as does our group. Different people in our group have different opinions. I remember discussing it with Mikael (who I think you have exchanged some messages with), and him saying that he thought that the Brest-Litovsk treaty in 1918 was a betrayal of internationalism, and for him the time to break with the party would have come there. The discussion continued along the lines of me asking him whether he thought that revolutionaries should have left the party at that time, and he was less sure about this. When to leave organisations that have passed over to the other side is actually a very difficult question. I think that the time is when it clearly sides with capital, as you yourself say in the quote above. Now when we say that the Bolshevik party was dead to the working class after Kronstadt, it does not mean that we believe that they turned against the working class at that point. The Bolshevik party had not only made mistakes but also attacked the working class prior to 1921. However up until that point we believe that there was still a place for revolutionaries, as a minority, within the Bolshevik party. After that there wasn't.

Now, you say that:

OliverTwister wrote:
[The left communists] perform gymnastics to say that the Bolshevik Party was not entirely dead until 1926 (or even 1921)

I don't think that we are performing any gymnastics here. Obviously I don't answer for the ICC, but when we say 1921, we are saying as you said:

OliverTwister wrote:
Kronstadt signalled the absolute death of the Russian Revolution, or at least it made it clear that the Bolsheviks had nothing left to offer to the proletariat

It is the point where they took up arms en mass against the working class. What our group says is that by 1921 the Bolshevik party had taken the side of capital. Now, maybe you feel that this is a bit of a copout. I feel that it allows us to discuss more important points of relevance today whilst at the same time having a rough point of agreement. These things are sometimes necessary.

I do feel that it is important to stress that the Russian revolution was a workers' revolution, and not some bourgeois coup. I would like to quote from a article we received from a group of Russian left communists (please excuse their English, but I think that their point is clear enough):

International Union of Proletarian Revolutionaries - Collectivists wrote:
Before summer 1918 don’t existed “bolshevist dictatorship”, existed Soviet power and power of “Soviet bloc” (i.e. bloc of revolutionary internationalist currents – RKP(b), PLSR, SSRM and anarchism.

You then write that:

OliverTwister wrote:
[The left communists say] the CNT had betrayed the working class definitively by May '37 at the latest, or else that that was just a reflection of the betrayal the week after the revolution began, or that the CNT had been counter-revolutionary all along.

In reply to this I would like to pose a question to you; At what point was it impossible for revolutionaries to still work within the CNT during the Spanish civil war?

Admittedly the RCP(B), and the CNT are two completely different organisations, one a political party, and one a workers' union. The question still remains though. I would say that during the events of May 1937 was the latest time for revolutionaries to break with the CNT. I could understand an argument that said that 1936 was too, but we will leave it at May 1937 for the sake of argument. I think at the point when the CNT ordered the workers to leave the barricades, and call of the strike, it was the last point for revolutionaries to call for a break, and to call on the workers to leave the CNT.

This does not mean that I think that Balius, and Miasnikov were counter revolutionaries because they didn't break with their respective organisations, but I do think that they made mistakes.

Best wishes,

Dev

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jul 5 2006 22:27

It is interesting that nearly all the examples of the Bolsheviks' anti-working class actions put forward on this thread - and I am not disputing that most of the examples given are anti-working class, since they involved using state violence against parts of the class - are entirely focused on the problem of the management of the state and the economy in Russia. They do not pose the question of internationalism.

The Bolsheviks demonstrated in 1914 that they were a proletarian organisation by upholding internationalism in the most difficult of circumstances. They advocated the seizure of power in 1917 as the first step in the world revolution, and this confirmed that they were internationalists. They supported the formation of the Communist International in 1919 because they were internationalists. Therefore any discussion about the degeneration of the Bolshevik party must bring in the question of when they began to betray their internationalist principles. The significance of events like the Rappallo treaty in 1922 - when the Bolsheviks made their first secret alliance with an imperialist power (Germany) - and above all the significance of the struggle against the ideology of socialism in one country is completely lost if you concentrate only on the Bolsheviks' errors in trying to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat within Russia - a task which, as a minority of the class, was anyway not theirs to perform.

This also has a great deal of relevance to the discussion about the CNT and why the left communists say it betrayed the class in 1936-7. For Bilan the key question was again internationalism. They defined the war in Spain as an imperialist war, as a preparation for an even bigger massacre of the working class. And unlike the Bolsheviks in 1914 (though some of the Bolsheviks of course succumbed to opportunism and worse at the time), the CNT as an organisation was found wanting. At this level, even the FOD was extremely weak - it saw the Spanish revolution in an almost entirely national context, as Guillamon shows in his very perceptive book. That doesn't alter the fact that the FOD was a proletarian reaction to the CNT's betrayal, but it does show that the 'culture' of the CNT was not one in which problems facing the working class were posed above all in their international framework. This was the great strength of the marxist left in the Second International and the reason why it was able to take up the clearest positions on the world war and the world revolution.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 5 2006 22:39
Alf wrote:
It is interesting that nearly all the examples of the Bolsheviks' anti-working class actions put forward on this thread - and I am not disputing that most of the examples given are anti-working class, since they involved using state violence against parts of the class - are entirely focused on the problem of the management of the state and the economy in Russia. They do not pose the question of internationalism.

We did:

Devrim wrote:
I remember discussing it with Mikael (who I think you have exchanged some messages with), and him saying that he thought that the Brest-Litovsk treaty in 1918 was a betrayal of internationalism, and for him the time to break with the party would have come there.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jul 6 2006 08:11

Point taken, although I think it's wrong to compare any of the positions around Brest Litovsk as being on the same level as the Rapallo treaty. The three positions - Lenin's, Trotsky's, and Bukharin's - were all approached from the standpoint of the interests of the world revolution. They were also debated openly in front of the class. Whereas Rapallo was signed in secret and the interests of the Russian state, the Russian national economy, were the primary considerations. Again I don't think this was definitive. The Bolsheviks still hoped that there would be a revolution in Germany in 1923. During this phase, there was a growing conflict between their internationalism and the pressure to defend Russian national capital. The Stalinist faction and its 'theory' of socialism in one country resolved this contradiction by abandoning internationalism once and for all.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 6 2006 08:56
Alf wrote:
Point taken, although I think it's wrong to compare any of the positions around Brest Litovsk as being on the same level as the Rapallo treaty. The three positions - Lenin's, Trotsky's, and Bukharin's - were all approached from the standpoint of the interests of the world revolution. They were also debated openly in front of the class. Whereas Rapallo was signed in secret and the interests of the Russian state, the Russian national economy, were the primary considerations. Again I don't think this was definitive. The Bolsheviks still hoped that there would be a revolution in Germany in 1923. During this phase, there was a growing conflict between their internationalism and the pressure to defend Russian national capital. The Stalinist faction and its 'theory' of socialism in one country resolved this contradiction by abandoning internationalism once and for all.

I agree Alf. It is wrong to compare Brest-Litovsk, and Rapallo they are completely different. Rapallo is the action of a capitalist state. I think that this is definitive. If 'The Bolsheviks still hoped that there would be a revolution in Germany in 1923', then it was pretty foolish to be selling them guns to use against the working class, wasn't it?

Dev

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jul 6 2006 11:09

Precisely - the behaviour of the Bolsheviks like Lenin and Trotsky at that point was totally contradictory, self-defeating. Only Stalin and his faction had the consistency to see that world revolution was actually contrary to the interests of the Russian state, which were by now essentially national and capitalist.

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jul 7 2006 20:29

Anyone read this? http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html

Quote:
Yeltsin unwittingly helped drive a nail in the coffin of the Kronstadt myth when, in blessing the mutineers, he also opened the archives for study of the mutiny. This led to the 1999 publication of a huge collection of Russian historical materials by ROSSPEN, the main publishing house associated with the Federal Archival Agency of Russia. The documents in Kronshtadtskaia tragediia 1921 goda, dokumenty v dvukh knigakh (The 1921 Kronstadt Tragedy, Documents in Two Volumes) (Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 1999) confirm beyond doubt the counterrevolutionary nature of the Kronstadt rising.

Maybe the anarchist faq needs updating?

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jul 7 2006 23:14

Maybe it says a lot that trots always take the side of the russian state against the workers?

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jul 8 2006 12:10

Have you read the article? I was just wondering what people thought of it?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jul 8 2006 12:53
mattkidd12 wrote:
Have you read the article? I was just wondering what people thought of it?

I thought the article was the utter cobblers and largely made up of the usual hysterical trot sectarian rants which seem to have very little basis in fact and are compltely unbalanced, however, it is interesting that yeltsin tried to incorporate a myth of kronstadt into a liberal democratic ideology after the failure of the coup, since it became quite clear that such attempts were abandoned in favour of a more crude nationalism after the economic slump in the mid 90's.

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jul 8 2006 14:00
Quote:
very little basis in fact

That's not true though, is it? They claim that a new book proves Israel Getzler's findings wrong, that a substantial change had taken place in the composition of Kronstadt.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Jul 8 2006 14:50
Quote:
That's not true though, is it? They claim that a new book proves Israel Getzler's findings wrong, that a substantial change had taken place in the composition of Kronstadt.

They don't use any of the new documents to do that though. They chase Getzler's references to do it and claim that the original sources imply different things (section titled 'The Anarchist School of Falsification'). The issue is the interpretation of documents already in the public domain, not any new light thrown by stuff that's come out of the archives. I don't read Russian so it comes down to who you trust and who can provide supporting evidence for their interpretation of the documents.

Getzler's key point that, despite White interest and possibly intrigue, the timing of the mutiny (before the ice melted making resupply possible and a raid across the ice impossible) strongly suggests a spontaneous uprising rather than a White plot is not answered by the article. Instead, it offers quotes from Cheka reports which 'prove' white involvement and then supports this with the claims about the change in class composition.

Cheka reports, especially the interrogation reports, would seem to be inherently unreliable. They're going to tell their superiors what they want to hear and extract confessions to that end in ways I'm sure we can all imagine. If this is the only support they can offer for their interpretation of the documents, then I'm going with Getzler.

Couple that with the fact that this is a pretty dishonestly argued essay (starting with the claim that new documents disprove 'anarchist falsifications' and then not using those documents - classic bait and switch) and I feel quite comfortable dismissing it.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 8 2006 15:49

Is it worth reading? It is long, and as it is by the Sparts, I imagine that it would be quite turgid.

Dev

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Jul 8 2006 15:54
Quote:
Is it worth reading?

Not really. It just seems to be a rehash of Lenin and Trotsky's arguments, without any particular flair to make it worth reading for its own sake. The only bit worth looking at is the quotes from the new documents and they seem to be pretty selective and sparse.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jul 8 2006 17:08

Their grasp of the Russian events is perhaps best described when they talk of "Yeltsin, who had led the 1991-92 overturn of the Bolshevik Revolution". So presumably the USSR was still a degenerated workers state until then.

I skimmed it and concluded much the same as Ticking Fool. The fact that some Whites were supportive or even may've participated doesn't discount the facts that the majority of participants were involved for much the same reasons as the Petrograd strikers of the time and making similar demands, which had nothing to do with White goals. Serge's eyewitness testimony confirms this; "the Kronstadt sailors had mutinied, and what we were up against was a naval rebellion led by the Kronstadt Soviet." ... "Leaflets distributed in the suburbs put forward the demands of the Kronstadt Soviet. They added up to a program for renewing the revolution." http://www.libcom.org/library/kronstadt-21-serge
Also the mere fact of White support or even possible involvement doesn't invalidate anything in itself, anymore than German state involvement in supplying a sealed train to Lenin and co. means he was an imperialist agent - or the German govt were Bolsheviks. The true nature of the Kronstadt revolt is expressed in their manifesto.

Pat
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Jul 10 2006 12:27

For more debate about Kronstadt:

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3961

Not just the 'necessary tragic' stuff that us 'Trots' are accused of coming out with.

Pat

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 10 2006 12:44
Pat wrote:
For more debate about Kronstadt:

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3961

Not just the 'necessary tragic' stuff that us 'Trots' are accused of coming out with.

Pat

Workers' Liberty wrote:
The central lie — central to the story told and to the whole second episode — is that there was continuity in the garrison at Kronstadt from the 1917 revolution through to the anti-Bolshevik seizure of the island fortress in March 1921. We see the Kronstadt sailors going from Kronstadt to fight the anti-Bolshevik “Czech Legion” in 1918, but then they are back again in Kronstadt. There is, it seems, nothing more for them to do in the years of the civil war!

In fact, there was no such continuity in the Kronstadt garrison, or anything remotely like it. The heroes of 1917 had been scattered through the centres of the revolution and the fronts of the civil war, to stiffen the defence of the revolution. Many had lost their lives in the civil war. The Kronstadt garrison in 1921 was a garrison of reservists, different people. It was in no way the old garrison of Bolshevik stalwarts, in no way the heroes of 1917.

We discused this on the back up forums last month. I can't be bother ed to rewrite something, so I will just repost this part on the class composition of the Kronsdadt rebels:

Devrim wrote:
The easiest way to do this is by taking up the slanders made against the Kronstadt rebels by Lenin, and Trotsky at the time.

Dom wrote:

To understand what happened we have to look at the background of the sailors there. It 1917 it had been stronghold of the revolution, but by 1920 the compostion of the garison had greatly changed. Large numbers of the orginal garison had died in the civil war. By 1920 there was a much larger peasant component of the garison.

This belief is backed up by the assertions of Lenin, and the RCP(B) at the time, and has very little basis in reality. In fact it seems to fly in the face of all historical evidence:

Israel Getzler, in Kronstadt, 1917-1921: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy, wrote:

... that the politicized Red sailor still predominated at Kronstadt at the end of 1920 is borne out by the hard statistical data available regarding the crews of the two major battleships, the Petropavlosk and the Sevastopol, both reknowned since 1917 for their revolutionary zeal and Bolshevik allegiance. Of 2,028 sailors whose years of enlistment are known, no less than 1,904 or 93.9% were recruited into the navy before and during the 1917 revolution, the largest group, 1,195, having joined in the years 1914-16. Only 137 sailors or 6.8% were recruited in the years 1918-21, including three who were conscripted in 1921, and they were the only ones who had not been there during the 1917 revolution. As for the sailors of the Baltic Fleet in general (and that included the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol), of those serving on 1 January 1921 at least 75.5% are likely to have been drafted from Great Russian areas (mainly central Russia and the Volga area), some 10% from the Ukraine and 9% from Finland, Latvia and Poland.

If we take this information as being representative of the Kronstadt rebels as a whole it would suggest that 59% of the sailors had been there since at least 1916 whilst 93.9% had been there at the time of the October revolution, hardly a great change in the composition of the garrison from when it was the ‘stronghold of the revolution’ in 1917.

Dom wrote:

By 1920 there was a much larger peasant component of the garison.

I don't know if you realise it, Dom, but in a newly developing capital large numbers of the working class tend to come from peasant backgrounds Where else do you think that they come from? In Turkey today for example large proportions of the working class come from peasant backgrounds. The point is that they are proletarianised by their experience as workers.

As for your assertion that the Bolshevik party in Kronstadt contained more workers than the garrision in general, your support for it is plainly laughable.

Dom wrote:

Quote:

We can asume that the Bolshevik party had a higher content of workers than the garison as a whole.

Why? Please give a reason.

The Bolsheviks were a party that organised the working class. It believed the working class had to organise seperately than the peasantry so it follows that they had more support in the working class than the peasantry.

So, the 'Bolsheviks were a party that organised the working class' therefore they must have had a higher percentage of workers than the garrison as a whole'. However, according to information released by Sorine, Commissar for Petrograd, 5,000 sailors left the Party in January 1921 alone.

the Second Conference of Communist Sailors of the Baltic Fleet, on 15th Feb 1921 wrote:

Poubalt, having totally detached itself from the Party masses, has destroyed all local initiative. It has transformed all political work into paper work. This has had harmful repercussions on the organisation of the masses in the Fleet. Between June and November last year, 20 per cent of the (sailor Party members have left the Party. This can be explained by the wrong methods of the work of Poubalt.

Are we to assume then that all of these sailors were actually peasants, and that those who stayed were workers? Is it not slightly conceivable that some of those who left were workers disgusted with the way that the regime had taken to attacking the working class?

After all take a look at the situation in Petrograd at the time:Ida Mett wrote:

The first strike broke out at the Troubotchny factory, on 23rd February 1921. On the 24th, the strikers organised a mass demonstration in the street. Zinovlev sent detachments of 'Koursanty' (student officers) against them. The strikers tried to contact the Finnish Barracks. Meanwhile, the strikes were spreading. The Baltisky factory stopped work. Then the Laferma factory and a number of others: the Skorokhod shoe factory, the Admiralteiski factory, the Bormann and Metalischeski plants, and finally, on 28th February, the great Putilov works itself.

Is it not possible that this could have led to the Bolshevik party in Kronstadt actually having a lower percentage of workers than the garrison as a whole? Neither of us have any figures to prove it either way, but the assertion that Dom wrote:

'Bolsheviks were a party that organised the working class' therefore they must have had a higher percentage of workers than the garrison as a whole.

is little more than idealist, subjectivist nonsense, and not worthy of a so-called Marxist.

Just to finish on the class nature of the rebels lets look at the class composition of the Provisional Revolutionary committe of the Kronstadt soviet:

* Petritchenko, chief quartermaster of the battleship 'Petropavlovsk',

* Yakovenko, liaison telephonist to the Kronstadt section,

* Ossossov, boiler man in the battleship 'Sebastopol',

* Arkhipov, chief engineer,

* Perepelkin, electrician in the battleship 'Sebastopol',

* Patrouchev, chief electrician in the 'Petropavlovsk',

* Koupolov, head male nurse,

* Verchinin, sailor in the 'Sebastopol',

* Toukin, worker in the 'Electrotechnical' factory,

* Romanenko, docks maintenance worker,

* Orechin, headmaster of the Third labour School,

* Valk, sawmill worker,

* Pavlov, worker in a marine mining shop,

* Boikev, head of the building section of the Kronstadt fortress,

* Kilgast, harbour pilot.

It seems like it was composed of workers, and sailors to me. Unlike the Bolshevik party Politburo at the time, which was composed of full members - Kamenev, Krestinsky, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky; candidate members - Bukharin, Zinovyev and Kalinin, only one of whom, Kalinin, had ever been a worker, and two of whom, Trotsky, and Zinovyev, actually came from rich peasant backgrounds.

Anyway enough of class composition, lets look at the programme of the Kronstadt rebels:Kronstadt Izvestiia #1 wrote:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

Again it doesn't look that petty bourgeois to me. Admitidly points 13, and 15 do offer concessions to the poor peasantry, and can not be described in any way as Socialist measures. However, it does stress without using hired labor, and by personal labor. If we compare this to the NEP: Wiki wrote:

promulgated by decree on March 21, 1921, "On the Replacement of Foodstuff and Natural Resource Assessment by a Natural Tax." In essence, the decree required the khulacks, middle-class farmers, to give the government a specified amount of any surplus agricultural, raw product, and fodder, and allowed them to keep the remaining surplus to use as capital or to trade for industrial goods. Further decrees refined the policy and expanded it to include some industries.

I find it hard to believe that anybody comparing the two programmes could see the Kronstadt one as the petty bourgeois one. Yes, it was brought in after the Kronstadt uprising, but was actually proposed by Trotsky one year earlier.

Devrim

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jul 10 2006 13:23

Devrim, have you read that link I posted up there ^^^

What do you think?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 10 2006 13:27

No, I haven't. I looked at it, and saw it was the Sparts, which sort of put me off. I will print it off, and try, and read it tonight or tomorrow.

Dev

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 10 2006 13:33

There are fourteen fucking pages of it. eek

Dev

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jul 10 2006 14:02
Jack wrote:
It's by the Sparts. Therefore, is going to be full of out and out lies. Why would you encourage anyone to waste a second of their time reading it? If it said anything worthwhile about the new archives, then surely it would've been reported by some non-mentally ill sect?

the only bit i am interested in is there questioning of Getzler's claims, and the new archive stuff.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jul 10 2006 14:40
mattkidd12 wrote:
Anyone read this? http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html

Maybe the anarchist faq needs updating?

Looking at it now and I'd say not really. It's the Sparts 'summary' of the documents a 'summary' that is short on figures but long on opinion.

Some of it is weird ie

"Delegations of sailors from the warships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol went to Petrograd and saw that these rumors were false. When they returned to Kronstadt on February 27, they did not, however, dispel the lies."

Other bits are disengenous, there is no mystery as to why the PRC existed before the mass meeting as the previous evening is had been set up at a mass meeting of the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol crews

And then there is the bit about the red army moving across the ice faster than bullets from a machine gun - quite an achivement

The stuff on the whites actually proves there was no white involvement until the rising had already broken out - and then the boasted involvement is form a handful who were pretending to be Red Cross or who had infiltrated the Red Cross!! General Kozlovsky had of course been put in Kronsdadt by Trotsky himself! So the best they can claim is that under threat of food and medicine running our they were willing to take both from the Red Cross (which was infiltrated by the whites). That standard of 'proof' reveals Lenin to be a German agent as he was willing to accept significantly more help from German imperialism.

As to presenting confessions extracted by the Cheka as proof - well this is just stupid. Are the sparts unaware of all the trots who confessed to the Cheka of plans to posion wells and derail trains?

Their apprach to Getzler is weird (apart from anything else he is hardly an anarchist so what's with the headline of that section). He gives definite figures in relation to year on enlistment, they reply with various opinions that simply repeat what the trots have always claimed.

This pretty much typifies the whole article, a claim of new material but in reality just a re-heating of old opinon.

It's also pretty irrelevant, the defeat of kronstadt 'saved' the revolution for what exactly.

Stalin?

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 11 2006 09:12

Agree totally with Joe, it's just the same old, same old. Does anyone take seriously something that has been put out by the Sparts? Stick with Getzler and Avrich

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 5 2010 18:13

yes, while this whole thing was clearly not very nice, if it was 90 years ago and half the participants are dead might it not be better to just let bygones be bygones?

Lexxi's picture
Lexxi
Offline
Joined: 25-09-09
Feb 5 2010 18:25
Devrim wrote:
There are fourteen fucking pages of it. eek

Dev

Devrim = The Outlaw.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Feb 11 2010 20:39

Did you know that Stalin opposed Trotsky in Politburo on Kronstadt. Though Trotsky at the time defended suppression Stalin defended a more concilliatory tactic!!!

However I should warn you; The source is trotsky himself writing to his son Sedov. I found this in an article called; "Ante-Ciliga, Trotskii and State Capitalism" by Micheal S. Fox.

Interesting is not it?

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Feb 14 2010 13:31

Yea. Playing politics probably.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Feb 14 2010 21:40
Quote:
Playing politics probably.

It might have been interesting to find the discussion documents or minutes of Politbureau on that...

x359594's picture
x359594
Offline
Joined: 16-08-08
Feb 15 2010 22:45

Well, this is a history forum after all. What would you expect to find on a history forum other then revisiting the past?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 15 2010 23:12

i was parodying the linked post. i'm not even entirely sure now. probably just because Steven. thinks things are making fun of him.

probably shouldn't have bumped an old thread for that purpose though.