NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello!

What are your views on the Kronstadt Rebellion? Could the rebellion have been a huge turning point in the Russian revolution? Does the rebellion illustrate flaws inherent in the Marxist system? What are the different viewpoints of this uprising? I am not entirely sure why, but I find that the Kronstadt Rebellion is of great interest to me. I would appreciate any opinions. Any argument from a Marxist or Anarchist view is also welcomed.

http://www.sulinet.hu/ikep/2002/12/matroz.jpg

*wonders how many people on this forum know anything at all about kronstadt*

in any case, its one of those turning points after which there was no going back - after crushing a rebellion of your own revolutionaries, you pretty much were assured of getting stalinism. in my opinion at least. though the bolsheviks had been progressing down that road rather quickly from the get-go (already rounding up anarchists in 1918, etc).

You're talking a pretty esoteric piece of history here, and I doubt anyone who hasn't also for some reason become fascinated by the counter-revolution (?what else to call it?) could answer your questions about it, even those from the former Soviet Union who are doubtless more aware of it than the rest of the world. A few points I can give opinions on from my rather sketchy memory of the counter-revolution; it was a turning point in the Soviet Revolution but I think mostly because it hardened the Bolshivik position and the positions of the Bolshiviks; it certainly had an effect on Trotsky (not I believe good); and without it Stalin would probably not have risen to power (or at least not as quickly).

short version: krondstadters say "hey, remember workers' democracy and people controlling the means of production? those things are nice. we love revolution! we hate capitalism!"

emma goldman says "aw, that's so awesome! surely lenin and trotsky will give em all cookies once they realize what wonderful revolutionaries these people are!"

lenin says "ready, aim"

trotsky says "fire!"

lenin and trotsky, addressing the newly formed pile of bodies, say "oh, by "workers" and "the people" we meant our party bureaucrats in moscow."


and if you ask present-day spartacists, ("We are the party of the russian revolution! we hate capitalism! buy our newspaper!") they'll not hesitate to explain to you how some of the krondstadters were from the ukraine, and some of the peasants in the ukraine (like makhno and other anarchist revolutionary militia types) were opposed to the bolsheviks, and therefore
counterrevolutionary = tool of capitalist oppression = ukranian = krondstadter = allies of the white army.

makes sense to me.

but then again i'm illiterate, blind, and extremely gullible

The Kronstadt rebellion demonstrates clearly that the rot set in with Lenin and Trotsky, not just with Stalin. With the crushing of the Krondstadt sailors, the last hope that Russia was going to be genuinely Marxist was also crushed. Bandanna's summary is excellent. I want to marry you and have your children. (Whatever your sex).

The Kronstadt rebellion demonstrates clearly that the rot set in with Lenin and Trotsky, not just with Stalin. With the crushing of the Krondstadt sailors, the last hope that Russia was going to be genuinely Marxist was also crushed.

Yeah. At the time though, the Bolsheviks were extremely paranoid, having enemies coming at them from all directions. Unfortunately, this impaired their judgement and they totally screwed up...

Yeah. At the time though, the Bolsheviks were extremely paranoid, having enemies coming at them from all directions. Unfortunately, this impaired their judgement and they totally screwed up...I don't think it was a misjudgment. IMNAAHO it was entirely deliberate- the genuine communism being called for by the Krondstadt populace was a threat to the Bolshevik autocracy.

I don't think it was a misjudgment. IMNAAHO it was entirely deliberate- the genuine communism being called for by the Krondstadt populace was a threat to the Bolshevik autocracy.

Possibly. It could also be simply pure ineptitude.

I have to admit that I´m not familiar with this historic event. But I have some memory that the Kronstadt sailors were actually one of the first groups that supported the October revolution by denying to go to war missions.
There was actually a Soviet propaganda film of the Kronstadt sailors which was quite popular in the 1920s.
It involved Trotzky who gave speeches to the god sailors.
Well: must have been before that rebellion.
The Soviets were good at propaganda anyway.

I don't think it was a misjudgment. IMNAAHO it was entirely deliberate- the genuine communism being called for by the Krondstadt populace was a threat to the Bolshevik autocracy.
I think it was a genuine decision. There is one big difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin didn´t order executions of party functioniers. Stalin was consequent enough not to exclude him from terror.
It is the nature of collectivism to ignore the rights and the freedom of the individual.
That was the case in any collectivist order: Authoritarian rule of one man or a group. That you find in human history from the old Egyptians, to the Roman Ceasars, the medieval order of Europe, the communists and the nazis and many more.
Some where more bad some less. But it is always collectivism - the claim of the supremacy of the group over the individual which is leading to such developments. By the way: not just an European problem. Japan in the past, China, and the muslim world of today.
Any order that is based on collectivism is a potentially dangerous order: especially for the freedom and the life of an individual.

I think it was a genuine decision. There is one big difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin didn´t order executions of party functioniers. Stalin was consequent enough not to exclude him from terror.
It is the nature of collectivism to ignore the rights and the freedom of the individual.
That was the case in any collectivist order: Authoritarian rule of one man or a group. That you find in human history from the old Egyptians, to the Roman Ceasars, the medieval order of Europe, the communists and the nazis and many more.
Some where more bad some less. But it is always collectivism - the claim of the supremacy of the group over the individual which is leading to such developments. By the way: not just an European problem. Japan in the past, China, and the muslim world of today.
Any order that is based on collectivism is a potentially dangerous order: especially for the freedom and the life of an individual.Doesn't the example of Kronstadt (and the Paris Commune) show that individual freedom and collectivism are not mutually exclusive propositions? On Lenin, Lenin was never a Marxist. By Summer 1920 he was saying that 'absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline in the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie.'
This is opposed directly to Marxism which says that 'unconditional' democracy, its 'thoroughly expansive political form' ,expressed in 'really democratic institutions', would be guaranteed by five conditions: universal suffrage; election of all officials whether 'administrative, judicial and educational' (Engels) or, military, administrative, political' (Marx); officials to receive 'workmens' wages'; revocability 'at short term' (Marx) or 'at any time' (Engels); and 'strictly responsible' to the electorate enforced by all delegates being 'bound by the formal instructions of his constituents' (Marx).

Doesn't the example of Kronstadt (and the Paris Commune) show that individual freedom and collectivism are not mutually exclusive propositions? On Lenin, Lenin was never a Marxist. By Summer 1920 he was saying that 'absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline in the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie.'
This is opposed directly to Marxism which says that 'unconditional' democracy, its 'thoroughly expansive political form' ,expressed in 'really democratic institutions', would be guaranteed by five conditions: universal suffrage; election of all officials whether 'administrative, judicial and educational' (Engels) or, military, administrative, political' (Marx); officials to receive 'workmens' wages'; revocability 'at short term' (Marx) or 'at any time' (Engels); and 'strictly responsible' to the electorate enforced by all delegates being 'bound by the formal instructions of his constituents' (Marx).
No, I think you are wrong with that. Individual freedom and collectivism are mutualy exclusive. Statements like: your collective is everything the individual is nothing (Communists) or you are nothing, your peoples are everything (Nazis) are showing the character of totalitarian collectivists ideologies.
Marx theory has interesting aspects - especially when he is describing the class fight of the liberal burgeois against the ruling aritocratic and monarchic class during the 19 th century (The French revolution and the revolution in 1848 were both predominantly burgeois revolution in an Marxists perspective). He is by the way saying that it needs the full development of capitalism and the development and freedom of its technology before the next revolution - the revolution of the proletarians against the burgeois could happen. Given that theory it would have been Britain who would go for this revolution first and not underdeveloped Russia.
But I think that while his analysis has interesting and correct aspects his coclusions are terribly wrong.
First of all he is assuming that the industrial revolution is the last revolution and that the fight proletarian-capitalists would be the last class fight. Question? Why? History is still developing, there is no end of history.
Than he assumes that problems can only be solved through revolution and not through reforms. Why?
And he assumes that only the economic aspects are making people evil, selfish and wicked and that a change of its structure would change it. That is not true. People are selfish. Humans are not perfect beeings. There is never going to be an paradise on earth. Communism was due to fail because it was promising things which couldn´t be realized.
It believed in a system without contradicitions and without social differences. That is impossible. In that point I have to agree with Mao actually - though his solution - the permanent revolution was crap of course.
Marx advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat and state control over everything. But that implies absolute power for the state. And all historic experience says that if power is too much concentrated it is going to be abused. A centralised economy never was and never will be able to competet with a decentralised market economy since it isn´t flexible enough.

No, I think you are wrong with that. Individual freedom and collectivism are mutualy exclusive. Statements like: your collective is everything the individual is nothing (Communists) or you are nothing, your peoples are everything (Nazis) are showing the character of totalitarian collectivists ideologies.

but what about all the anarchists and libertarian marxists and such who always hated such ideas and instead argued that people should be free and equal members of any groups they form?

but what about all the anarchists and libertarian marxists and such who always hated such ideas and instead argued that people should be free and equal members of any groups they form?
Anarchism and Socialism (as proposed by Marx for a "transitional period") are directly contradicting each other. Freedom leds to differences. You need to cut away the freedom to get equality. And that is what Marx at the end proposed. The dictatorship of the proletariat led by an avantgarde -which was by Lenin "correctly" defined as the Communist Party. So, that was inevitable cutting away freedom. Marx is going from the wrong assumption that all problems between people would disappear if economic differences are removed and they are taught - or rather forced - to life in a socialists society. Then suddenly repression wouldn´t be necessary because everybody would understand the wisdom of the ideology and everybody would act selfless and would act good.
That is of course simply nonsense. The same is the case that he failed to see the thread of a dictatorship. His ideas inevitably led to a cruel and totalitarian dictatorship. Individual freedom doesn´t play a role in his theory. He sees economies and the development of social groups as the moving powers of history. Individual rights don´t play any role in his world view.

Anarchism and Socialism (as proposed by Marx for a "transitional period") are directly contradicting each other. Freedom leds to differences. You need to cut away the freedom to get equality.

i don't use marx's definition of socialism, given that socialism predates marxism. i go for a more broad approach to the term. but in any case, it seems fairly obvious to me, both from a theoretical and historical standpoint, that equality cannot exist without freedom. its not as if the bolshevik dictatorship had much in the way of equality after all. it couldn't, because some were powerful and most were not. the very definition of inequality. material inequality results from inequalities of power and control.

i don't use marx's definition of socialism, given that socialism predates marxism. i go for a more broad approach to the term. but in any case, it seems fairly obvious to me, both from a theoretical and historical standpoint, that equality cannot exist without freedom. its not as if the bolshevik dictatorship had much in the way of equality after all. it couldn't, because some were powerful and most were not. the very definition of inequality. material inequality results from inequalities of power and control.
Communism also predates Marxism. Though it is mainly based on him.
The problem of the inequality of power was also a problem Mao saw: He proclaimed permanent revolution as solution to it. Didn´t work either. The great cultural revolution was a fiasco. Not only from an human rights standpoint but from an economic standpoint.
People are not equal. People have different abilites. Every society inevitably breeds therefore social differences. It is unavoidable.

Anarchism and Socialism (as proposed by Marx for a "transitional period") are directly contradicting each other. Freedom leds to differences. You need to cut away the freedom to get equality. And that is what Marx at the end proposed. The dictatorship of the proletariat led by an avantgarde -which was by Lenin "correctly" defined as the Communist Party. So, that was inevitable cutting away freedom. Marx is going from the wrong assumption that all problems between people would disappear if economic differences are removed and they are taught - or rather forced - to life in a socialists society. Then suddenly repression wouldn´t be necessary because everybody would understand the wisdom of the ideology and everybody would act selfless and would act good. Where did Marx call for a vanguard? If you look at the example of the Paris Commune you'll see that Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was actually entirely democratic.
That is of course simply nonsense. The same is the case that he failed to see the thread of a dictatorship. His ideas inevitably led to a cruel and totalitarian dictatorship. Individual freedom doesn´t play a role in his theory. He sees economies and the development of social groups as the moving powers of history. Individual rights don´t play any role in his world view.I'd agree that one of Marx's main failings is an overconcentration on economics. However, if his ideas inevitably lead to a cruel and totalitarian dictatorship then again you need to address the subject of the Paris Commune. Also, how about non Marxist communism. Do you believe the Levellers and the Diggers were also running a dictatorship.

People are not equal. People have different abilites. Every society inevitably breeds therefore social differences. It is unavoidable.

equality worth the name isn't about being identical. it is about equal access to resources and opportunity.

social differences are different than natural differences, because social differences are by definition a product of that particular society and the structures it has in place - the basis on which it distributes power, prestige, and resources. change the structures and it is possible, at least in theory, to have a society with very few and very small social differences. and we know that it is possible in at least some forms of society because we have witnessed it among various small-scale cultures around the world. it is just a question of doing it with a large scale one; and we have some pretty good ideas on that front, if i do say so myself.