133
Who is your hero from history?
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
133 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43719 readers
1482 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, after the previous events had happened. Ie, the millitant Anarchists had been fighting against the Comnunists. It was a Civil War, and Anarchists opposed the Communists. Had the Anarchists won against the Communists, perhaps some Marxists would be making the same argument that you're making, that the Communists were innocent and the big bad Anarchists repressed them, and they would be equally guilty of misframing the context of a civil war. Again, many Anarchists joined the Communists, the ones who didn't stood violently opoosed to them.
Is it fascist to be antifascist? You have an uprising led by a fascist in the middle of a Civil War, and you're siding with the fascist? Or do you think the Communists should have let the fascist-led anticommunist rebellion continue in the middle of a civil war?
In all this time, you're specifically quoting Bolsheviks Shooting Anarchists, without any added context or framing. You're suggesting that the Communists were simply evil people killing peaceful anarchists well into the USSR, and not in the context of armed conflict in the middle of a civil war where 14 capitalist nations had invaded them. It's a myopic and idealist, rather than materialist, framing of history.
I'm suggesting you that executing anarchists as bandits without trial or hearing is far from being heroic
And I'm suggesting to you that the entire context of the situation gave no chance of that. The rebels had arrested and silenced the Communists in their area, and they were led by a fascist. Again, as I said, had this been at peacetime in a fully solidified USSR, where the Communists held a large enough power difference to enable such a trial or hearing, then that would be a different manner. Referring to Konstadt specifically, of course. Additionally, at Kronstadt, the rebels stepped down and arrested the leaders of the revolt, and were fine.
The fact is, the Anarchists had their own ideals they felt valuable enough to fight Communists to the death over. Either you're defanging and making useless the Anarchists as useless smol beans, or you're misrepresenting them as strong yet entirely in agreement with the Communists, neither of which is true. The reality of the situation was Civil War, where multiple sides fought for their own interests and ideals, the Anarchists were in no way a neutral faction.
Who did they arrest and why? Who led the Bolsheviks? How was the rebellion suppressed?
The Kronstadt rebels arrested the communists, because false rumors were spread about Communists killing workers and strike leaders. The Bolsheviks were led by Lenin, though Trotsky was in charge of Kronstadt. The rebellion was suppressed as it began, violently, until the rebels turned on the fascists and rejoined the Communists.
You aren't doing any material analysis, just vibes and idealism. You ignore all context.
I've read the page, you think I am arbitrarily applying analysis?
Again, I am aware of the events, you don't need to repeat them, link a basic Wikipedia article, or quote said article as though that will change anything I have said.
Notably, these were made up of fascists, Kadets, and Anarchists, all anti-bolshevik millitant forces in the middle of a Civil War.
Again, this is devoid of context, or analysis. We see a hostile, fascist-led revolt, and a subsequent response from the Communists. What is your point? You have none, you rely on endless "gotchas."
Stepan Petrichenko, the leader of the rebellion, tried to join the White Army before the Kronstadt Rebellion, and joined the White Army after it failed, under general Wrangel. The White Army was a fascist, anti-communist group. We also know that Petrichenko attempted to instill paranoia among the sailors by lying about Bolsheviks executing strike leaders, and allied with Mensheviks, Kadets, ex-Capitalists, and black market speculators that together formed the Provisional Revolutionary Committee with several Anarchists. What else could this be but a fascist-led counter-revolution?
Ignoring the will of the leaders and manipulators of the rebellion, lets look at who this supported. Capitalist media positively reported on the rebellion before it even came to a head, the Bourgeoisie supported the movement as it weakened the Communist movement, causing division.
Ignoring who wanted it to succeed, was what the rebels wanted feasible at this point in time? Absolutely not. The rebels wanted to dissolve the bolshevik influence over the revolution, fracturing it during a bloody Civil War. This would have doomed the revolution, it could not come to pass and not result in Capitalist victory over Socialism.
Was it possible for there to be a bloodless resolution? Perhaps, but it didn't. The Bolsheviks did not have the strength to hold courts and answer said rebellion peacefully, nor could they grant the demands of the rebels. Ultimately, the rebels surrendered and turned on the PRC, ending the conflict and counter-revolution.
What would you rather have happened? The fascists get what they wanted? The Capitalists get what they wanted? No. Kronstadt is used as a "gotcha" against Communists all the time, of course I have investigated it.
Is your point that Communists are just violent and evil individuals? Or that Lenin's indirect involvement means he isn't worthy of recognition of his role in Marxist theory and as the architect of the first Socialist State? It's a pointless gotcha that lacks meaningful analysis, you wish you could wave a magic wand and have everyone happy. I do too, but I don't believe it's possible, so I analyze from a materialist lens.
I never once said the Whites were behind the rebellion. I said the rebellion was supported by the West and the Whites, as in they agreed with it vocally, and the main leader tried to join the Whites beforehand and successfully joined afterwards.
Kronstadt: the 1921 Uprising of Sailors in the Context of the Political Development of the New Soviet State
Petrichenko tried to join the Whites before. You don't just try to join the fascists then change your mind then change it again.
Secondly, fascism isn't an "idea," it's Capitalism in decline, a violent defense of bourgeois interests. The Whites were fascists, even if the term hadn't been coined.
Thirdly, the bolsheviks were the leaders of the Communist revolution, counter-revolutionary forces like the Whites, the Kronstadt rebels, the Black Guards, all were fighting against the Communist revolution towards bourgeois interests. Equating Communists with fascists is ahistorical, read Blackshirts and Reds.
Then Lenin either qualifies as a hero, or nobody does, and you should be arguing against everyone in this comment section. You clearly have an anticommunist agenda here, you specifically singled out Lenin as someone you oppose by carrying water for fascists.