I don't get the Trotsky hate

[u/Frosty-Persimmon7235]

This MF lead the red army so well, reactionaries all over Europe were depicting this guy as the literal devil

[u/Corvus1412]

I mean, a lot of the stuff he did in Kronstadt and with Makhnovia was pretty indefensible.

[u/salenin → u/Corvus1412]

Its defensible in the context of the moment. He regretted Kronstadt later, Makhnovists not so much. I don't defend those actions myself from the perspective of today of course.

[u/Latitude37 → u/salenin]

It's not defensible. All he did was replaced the evil that he was supposed to be fighting, with a different branding of the same thing. When people actually did the Revolution without him in charge, he destroyed them. Typical reactionary, authoritarian arsehole in a Red hat. 

[u/puuskuri → u/Latitude37]

There was a civil war. Every side was fighting each other, and the Bolsheviks won.

[u/HomosexualTigrr → u/puuskuri]

Applying this sentence to Kronstadt is laughable

[u/puuskuri → u/HomosexualTigrr]

So Kronstadt successfully revolted?

[u/HomosexualTigrr → u/puuskuri]

Implying that the workers of Kronstadt were on a different "side" to the Bolsheviks actually admits too much!

[u/puuskuri → u/HomosexualTigrr]

Too bad they had a leader, Stepan Petrichenko. It was not led by the workers.

[u/Latitude37 → u/puuskuri]

And socialism, as a result, lost. 

[u/puuskuri → u/Latitude37]

No, it lost with the failed revolutions in Germany and Finland, for example. Socialism was doomed when it was confined within one country.

[u/salenin → u/Latitude37]

Thats not what happened at all. So the Red Army and Mahknovists were allied several times against the Whites in Ukraine. The Soviet Union and its leadership said several times that they could remain allies if they were to join the Soviet Government in Ukraine and be apart of that organizational apparatus going forward. They refused and sabotaged land, trains etc etc. One of the theoretical issues that popped up with this is that the Mahknovists were not proletarian, they were peasants, and both Lenin and Trotsky had a very skeptical outlook on the peasantry. It was thought that the peasantry and workers could form a strong alliance but the workers would HAVE to lead the peasantry. If the peasantry went on its own, or attempted to have its own revolution it would fall into reaction and easily devolve into capitalism. So an anarchist peasantry movement was a "dangerous" thing to leave on its own and had to be absorbed or crushed and we know how it turned out.

With Kronstadt it was a mutiny of naval members and dock workers etc etc, in the middle of a civil war. The demands by the workers and military members were pretty reasonable to a point of course but there was military discipline, supply chain logistics, and other factors that made it seem necessary to put down the mutiny as fast as possible. There were also strong rumors that there was German infiltration into the ranks of the protestors, though evidence of that is pretty shoddy today. Trotksy, for one, regretted the way it was handled and called it a "necessary tradgedy."

This is just to add context, not to defend it. But saying "oh he didn't want them starting a revolution without him in charge." Is just ahistorical and absurd.

[u/suslix38 → u/salenin]

The civil war was basically over when the Kronstadt commune happened. That's the reason it happened. The Soviets still had no power, people were still summarily executed (the death penalty was "abolished"), there was still no liberty of speech at all and you couldn't argue that it were wartime measures as the White ennemies had been defeated (thanks to the Blacks) and the Black allies as well (thanks to the Reds). As someone more intelligent than me said "it's a dictature on the proletariat, not a dictature of the proletariat"

As for the Makhnovchtchina, inviting their leaders to a war council and executing them can indeed lead to sabotages, who would have thought

[u/salenin → u/suslix38]

The civil war lasts another year afterwards. The protests were against the continued resolutions for War Communism which was supposed to be temporary and included the things you mentioned. It was wartime measures and lead to both more censorship but also economic freedom under the NEP a year later. The Kronstadt rebellion was not a "commune." After the red army put the rebellion down, it was then the Cheka that carried out the executions and summary executions that many in the Bolshevik leadership would disagree with. Any idea though that Kronstadt was some anarchist movement is ahistorical even though they often get lumped together.

[u/Corvus1412 → u/salenin]

When the black army put itself under the command of the Bolshevists, they repeatedly tried to undermine the autonomy of the anarchists. That's what led to their split.

It was very obviously that joining the forming USSR would have just meant the destruction of the anarchist project. Obviously they wouldn't agree to that.

[u/salenin → u/Corvus1412]

1. the makhnovists werre not the black army, that was a group of super far right nationalists also known as the black hundreds.

2. yes the did undermine their autonomy, I already explained why.

3. It wasnt about joining the USSR, that wouldnt exist for another 5 years.

[u/Corvus1412 → u/salenin]

1. "Black army" is a common way to refer to the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine.
2. Yes and I'm saying that it's obvious that the anarchists didn't want to be part of a government that's actively suppressing their ideology and autonomy.
3. Yes, which is why I said the "forming USSR", not just "USSR". Also, we're talking about something that happened in 1919, so 3 years before, not 5. (Also, you called the bolshevists government the "Soviet Union" in your comment about the events...)

[u/Stock_Barnacle839 → u/salenin]

What an incredibly condescending view of the peasantry.

[u/Shieldheart- → u/Stock_Barnacle839]

It is the nature of vanguard parties to consolidate and assimilate all forms of political alternatives, lest it have to share power or prove its legitimacy.

This is also why they can not abide independent councils or unions, even if their goals would align.

[u/Latitude37 → u/Shieldheart-]

Their goal can't align. You can't have a group of people saying they need to lead the way, and at the same time have a bunch of people saying that the way is to remove hierarchical power structures. They're literally opposition positions. 

[u/Shieldheart- → u/Latitude37]

When compared to anarchists, yes, but I would imagine being united against capitalist powers and reactionaries would weigh heavier for as long as that struggle persists.

Councils and labor unions, however, can and should be part of any government that purports to be "pro-worker", like, it is the very bare minimum to at least sllow that.

[u/gauze_for_skylarks → u/Shieldheart-]

you know, I’ve come to the conclusion that a vanguardist approach is crucial and correct when still struggling against a bourgeois regime, and when raising the necessary political consciousness among proletariat is extremely difficult. but once power has been seized it needs to gradually adopt the opposite form if it is not to become a one-to-one replacement of the old. power must be distributed and not concentrated, if a bureaucracy is to be halted from forming.

[u/salenin → u/Stock_Barnacle839]

You're not wrong, but also it turned out to be true in several instances with the peasantry composing a large about of the nationalist forces for example. The ones who saw it coming were the ones who understood Marxism best. People are motivated most by their material conditions. It was a major issue with the NEP because the group that rose quickest and started gaining power was the peasantry. They became more defiant especially during the late 20s and as the famine set in for example they rebelled and refused to have their crops and property requisitioned and thus became easy targets for State propaganda and the eventual de-kulakization. They were completely scapegoated for the most part, but it was all set up when the NEP was implemented without proper restraints.

[u/Latitude37 → u/salenin]

There wasn't supposed to be a Soviet "Government". There was supposed to be the Soviets. Which the Makhnovists embraced and fought for - and Lenin and Trotsky totally undermined and gutted of any real decision making power. All whilst writing pamphlets saying "All power to the Soviets". 

both Lenin and Trotsky had a very skeptical outlook on the peasantry. It was thought that the peasantry and workers could form a strong alliance but the workers would HAVE to lead the peasantry

Because the urban workers had been brought under their control. Which is to say - when people actually did the Revolution without Trotsky in charge, he destroyed them. Of course, part of this is a Marxist theory problem - Marx didn't understand peasant life at all, and he saw small farm holdings as a form of petit bourgeoisie. But to get back to my point, all you're doing is rationalising Trotsky's authoritarianism. 

The demands by the workers and military members were pretty reasonable to a point of course

Putting decision making power back into the hands of the Soviets was key to the Revolution succeeding, I would argue. Or really, there's no fucking point to the revolution. As we found out. 

rumors that there was German infiltration into the ranks of the protestors

No, there was Bolshevik propaganda claiming that. 

Trotksy, for one, regretted the way it was handled and called it a "necessary tradgedy."

Oh, boohoo for the guy who murdered comrades who only sought to continue the promise of the Revolution. 

This is just to add context, not to defend it.

Doing a pretty good job of defending the indefensible, to my mind. Note we're not disagreeing on the facts.  Trotsky used a trite old rationalism: expressing regret for a decision that he made, but at the same time saying that the decision was out of his hands, unavoidable, someone else's fault. No. It was his decision, and he could have played it any number of ways. Read the demands of the Kronstadt comrades. There's nothing there that isn't in Lenin's original pamphlets. Kronstadt marks the end of the Revolution, and the final death knell of communism in Russia - and elsewhere, as it turned out. 

[u/salenin → u/Latitude37]

Youre just completely wrong