Kronstadt Uprising centenary events,
- This topic has 52 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some anarchist background reading on the Kronsdadt
Our blog’s commemoration
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2021/03/100th-anniversary-of-kronstadt-commune.html
A former member has posted a comment upon it so others are welcome to place their own comments upon it.
jings. what’s wrong with you? gout playing up again? kiss your good lady, your fine bairns and calm the fuck down.
and, since you said, i had to post the same picture with a call to lady aycogites to revenge the commune. i’ll tell you the response. i imagine they’ll just look at me, kind of what-the-fuckish.
and, no, normally i wouldn’t have done anything of the sort. we’re not a bloke party. you know what bought me here? the response on the transgender thread. no wonder you’re tetchy. just the sort of shit that made me jack it in. it ain’t me and it ain’t you. it’s the party innit.
Another 1921 event not to be forgotten. The March Action in Germany
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2021/03/march-action.html
For those interested in a contemporary socialist commentary and analysis of events in 1921 all the issues of the Socialist Standard for that year are online here:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1921/
The suppression of the mutiny in Kronstadt doesn’t seem to have been given much publicity at the time. It was publicised later as a stick to beat Trotsky and the Bolsheviks — and a good one too as it showed how ruthless they were prepared to be to hold on to power and maintain their dictatorship. But I don’t think it can be said to have had any socialist content.
It was one of the events that forced Lenin to realise that the only way forward for Russia in the circumstances was the development of capitalism in one form or another and to adopt the New Economic Policy of what he called “state capitalism” as the development of capitalism in Russia under the control of the so-called “proletarian state”. That change of policy is commented on in detail in the series of articles on “Where Russia Stands”.
oh yeah, did post up that pic. no comments. got a “like”. i can do that on ours. and i can send personal messages like on zoom. good forum ours. and it cost nowt.
“jings. what’s wrong with you? gout playing up again? kiss your good lady, your fine bairns and calm the fuck down.”
“no wonder you’re tetchy.”
“oh yeah, did post up that pic. no comments. got a “like”. ”
I take it these were in reply to me. You can guess what you like about the motivations for my replies. You’re wrong but that’s par for the course.
did an actual response to ALB but it didn’t take. some sort of negative banter filter. gobshittery it likes, serious response no. maybe have to keep it short.
ALB says “the only way forward for Russia…was the development of capitalism”. thing is capitalism needs blood to oil its wheels. in this case sailor blood. “ruthless” is what it takes.
there is a choice at kronstadt. the nep, economic development, a modern capitalist economy, with lenin the sailorkiller, gulag joe and poisoner putin. or democracy. that’s what the 15 points amount to. via workers councils not parliament.
“any socialist content”. happen it were all about socialism. the preconditions for it at any rate. and is workers control, via the free soviets, really of no relevance? are you absolutely sure now? because i thought socialism was all about workers control. i’d say a functioning soviet was a fair bit of common ownership and democratic control. certainly more promising than the NEP.
Just because something wasn’t socialist doesn’t mean that it was useless. The demands for free elections, freedom of speech, assembly etc and against a one-party dictatorship were good, as a degree of political democracy is essential for the growth of the working class trade union movement and the socialist movement. As you might agree (or, perhaps as an anarchist, not). The economic demands, for freedom of activity for small peasants and artisans, were realistic in the circumstances but were not socialism.
There’s nothing to be gained from describing something as socialist that wasn’t.
we might treat nos. 11 and 15 on the kronstadt list (peasants and artisans) as something thrown in to please old dad. the crux of the issue is no. 1: free soviets. top of the wants list. democracy as expressed through the councils.
yes, love democracy. it’s filling up my inbox. anarchist type base democracy. as opposed to sticking a bit of paper in a box.
however, individual production and free soviets and democracy were incompatible with state capitalism. if that’s the “only way forward”, you’ve got to shoot the sailors. if you’ve got to back lenin, back him.
I don’t think I said that state capitalism was the way forward for Russia (that was Lenin) but that in the circumstances capitalism in one firm or another was the only way forward. The circumstances being of course that workers neither in Russia nor, crucially, in the industrialised parts of the world wanted socialism. For economically backward and isolated Russia capitalism was the only way. Obviously socialism on a world scale was the only real way out but unfortunately that wasn’t on the cards — only if the rest of Europe and North America had gone socialist could Russia have avoided capitalism.
We can only speculate now on what alternatives to what actually happened there might have been, ideally I suppose one which allowed the working class trade Union and socialist movement some margin to develop. But it wasn’t to be. I don’t know what you think could/should have happened “in the circumstances”?
Talking of democracy, I am not sure what you mean by “anarchist type base democracy” where you don’t have to put bits of paper in a ballot box. I thought the first Kronstadt demand was for new elections to the Soviet’s with a secret ballot.
In any event, under the ideal soviet (council) system the “base” only gets one chance to vote — when electing the local soviet. Elections above that level (wider geographical area) are made up delegates from lower (smaller) soviets. Which could mean that those on the supreme (nationwide) soviet might be 5 or 6 times separate from the base one.
I am not sure that this is more democratic than directly electing the members of the region-wide decision-making body. But not up to us today to lay down or decide.
you got me good on the ballot box!
i was meaning democracy generally though rather than the kronstadters. who, of course, weren’t anarchists. their secret ballot demand must have been the only thing they could think of to counter leninist gerrymandering. more a protest than a practical solution. secret or open, they were going to stack them.
what do i think should have been done? then as now, if you want socialism, common ownership and democratic control, you do socialism, common ownership and democratic control. never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. or the nearest best thing. if in 1921, they needed capitalism because they didn’t have stuff, then we’ll need it until we have star trek replicators (another way of saying never).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.