power inevitably corrupts?

[Patty]

But do any of those you mention actually hold power (never mind the absolute variant?) and are they really corrupt?

I think the point is that many of the high ranking New Labourites must have, at one point joined the LP with the intention of doing some good for wc people. (misguded as it seems)
They now unashamedly act on behalf of the bosses, creating and enacting legislation that in no way could be concieved as good for wc people e.g selling off council housing, uni tuition fees. Or at least ignor the real problems in society and just punish people who find them selves in difficult situations e.g fineing parents of turanting school pupils, ASBOs.

Futher to the point I made ealier, that so many genuine working class socialists over the decades have been seduced by the power and privalege of becoming part of the capitalist system. Who have, ultimatly willingly become intermderies between the bosses and the workers intead of fighters for workers emancipation says a lot about the corrupting effect of power.

The effect power had on the Bolshevieks also makes an exteemly potent statement about the corruption of power. It also provides the most important lesson of the last century. That Marx, did indeed inadvertently set a blue print for tyranny.

 

[audiotech]

I think the point is that many of the high ranking New Labourites must have, at one point joined the LP with the intention of doing some good for wc people. (misguded as it seems)
They now unashamedly act on behalf of the bosses, creating and enacting legislation that in no way could be concieved as good for wc people e.g selling off council housing, uni tuition fees. Or at least ignor the real problems in society and just punish people who find them selves in difficult situations e.g fineing parents of turanting school pupils, ASBOs.

Futher to the point I made ealier, that so many genuine working class socialists over the decades have been seduced by the power and privalege of becoming part of the capitalist system. Who have, ultimatly willingly become intermderies between the bosses and the workers intead of fighters for workers emancipation says a lot about the corrupting effect of power.

The effect power had on the Bolshevieks also makes an exteemly potent statement about the corruption of power. It also provides the most important lesson of the last century. That Marx, did indeed inadvertently set a blue print for tyranny.

How can a 'genuine working class socialist' become seduced by power and privilege? If they were 'genuine' they wouldn't become seduced in the first place would they?

I thought most of the Bolshevik leaders were executed in one way or another on the orders of Stalin. They never had an opportunity to become corrupt.

 

[Patty]

How can a 'genuine working class socialist' become seduced by power and privilege? If they were 'genuine' they wouldn't become seduced in the first place would they?

I thought most of the Bolshevik leaders were executed in one way or another on the orders of Stalin. They never had an opportunity to become corrupt.

I mean they must have set out with genuinely good intentions. I doubt that even this current New Labour lot, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, envisaged that they would become members of the most right wing Labour government in history.

Wasn't Stalin a Bolsheviek leader? They all took part in the Bolsheviek effort to gain compleat controll over the Russian revolution. They all favored party rule over workers' controll ultimately. That they later became entagled in Stallin's denounciations and fell victim to his tyranny as party leader dosn't change the fact that previous to their executions/exiles/suicides they were just as much part of a corrupt elite as Stalin hmself.

I think it's inherant in a doctorine that places the "Communist Party" (or "Revolutionary Party") over genuine workers controll and organisation that the Party will become corrupt.

 

[audiotech]

I mean they must have set out with genuinely good intentions. I doubt that even this current New Labour lot, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, envisaged that they would become members of the most right wing Labour government in history.

Wasn't Stalin a Bolsheviek leader? They all took part in the Bolsheviek effort to gain compleat controll over the Russian revolution. They all favored party rule over workers' controll ultimately. That they later became entagled in Stallin's denounciations and fell victim to his tyranny as party leader dosn't change the fact that previous to their executions/exiles/suicides they were just as much part of a corrupt elite as Stalin hmself.

I think it's inherant in a doctorine that places the "Communist Party" (or "Revolutionary Party") over genuine workers controll and organisation that the Party will become corrupt.

I would remind you that it was the soviets, set-up by workers themselves, which was the expression of 'workers control' at the time. The Bolsheviks eventually won a majority in the soviets by argument and debate.

Stalin became head of the bureaucracy that crushed anyone who talked of workers liberating themselves. He may have been a Bolshevik, but Lenin, amongst others, thought he would become an authoritarian leader. Capricious and rude were some of Stalin's personal characteristics which alarmed Lenin.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Look at the supposedly hard-left credentials of many of the New Labour ministers.
Blunkett, Hain et al spring to mind............

Hain was never on the "hard-left". He was in the Young Liberals FFS!

 

[nightowl]

so have there ever been any left-wing politicians who have not been corrupted as soon as they have had a taste of power?

 

[fela fan]

so have there ever been any left-wing politicians who have not been corrupted as soon as they have had a taste of power?

tony benn.

 

[lastmanineurope]

As I understand it communism was always about totalitarian elite dictatorship. Engels and Marx used the exploitation of the time to justify putting more power into the hands of a minority than under capitalism. Engels at least seemed to have an elitist agenda just the same as communism has nearly always manifested itself. Marxist critiques of capitalism are just as relevant to statism; it is naive to see them as opposites as many still do.

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Anthony Sutton describes how the Bolsheviks were funded by US banks. The counter-revolutionary Bolsheviks were basically US-funded terrorists (like the Contras, KLA, Mujahideen etc) who gradually eliminated the genuine socialist elements within the revolution until they had control.

Problems will always arise when ideology is placed above rights and humanity whether in religion, race or politics. Pursuit of a subjective utopian ideal is deemed justification for removing any opposition, and having total control and dictatorship. It will always be dangerous to allow anyone too much power. Those who wish to corrupt will move into (or be moved into) positions of power and those in positions of power if unchecked will most likely abuse it. Anytime you are moving power away from the public and into the hands of few, whether in a communist dictatorship, federal republic, token democracy or a capitalist monopoly it is a step towards potential tyranny.

With New Labour it appears they are using social justice to realise their goal of collectivism rather than the other way around. The elements who would not comply with Queen Tony's orders have been gradually weeded out until he is left with the insane, intolerant, twisted and idealogically dogmatic who will do what they are told, or somehow still believe that it will end in their idea of a socialist utopia.

 

[mk12]

As I understand it communism was always about totalitarian elite dictatorship. Engels and Marx used the exploitation of the time to justify putting more power into the hands of a minority than under capitalism. Engels at least seemed to have an elitist agenda just the same as communism has nearly always manifested itself. Marxist critiques of capitalism are just as relevant to statism; it is naive to see them as opposites as many still do.

Please could you provide quotes, links and evidence for this? Thanks.

 

[Patty]

I would remind you that it was the soviets, set-up by workers themselves, which was the expression of 'workers control' at the time. The Bolsheviks eventually won a majority in the soviets by argument and debate.

Stalin became head of the bureaucracy that crushed anyone who talked of workers liberating themselves. He may have been a Bolshevik, but Lenin, amongst others, thought he would become an authoritarian leader. Capricious and rude were some of Stalin's personal characteristics which alarmed Lenin.

Once the Bolsheviks gained controll of the soviets it proved an absolute impossiblity to remove them, as a party, from that position. To the point that before long the most revolutionary elements of the russian working class found them selves in a struggle against Bolsheviek domination. The most well known incedent that gave expression to this was the Krodstadt Rebellion. Lenin and the Bolshevieks were very good at talking and writing about workers controll and workers democracy but as soon as they were in a position to use state power against it they did not hesitate.

The fact that under Bolsheviek rule a bureaucracy was very soon able to develop around a bolsheviek leader (Stallin) exposes a danger in party domination over a revolution. It's a lesson that must be taken in to account and never forgotten.
I don't accept the Trotskyist appology that Stalinism some how grew out conditions that were beond the Bolsheviek's controll. It grew very much from their controll

 

[tbaldwin]

tony benn.

Yeah he was really beyond criticism living in his £4Million house in Holland Park.....

 

[Kameron]

Yep.
That David Blunkett was labeled "loony left" and then look how he turned out.

Blunkett sees his role as protecting the people of Brightside by reinforcing community values. It is in the Estates and British Slums that Blunkett enjoys strong support for an authoritarian left protecting the under class from the liberal morals of the middle class. I don't think you can divide the British left and right and assume that this represents a libertarian / authoritarian divide as well. The British political divide makes for strange bed fellows and Blunkett is definitely loony left.

 

[JoePolitix]

As I understand it communism was always about totalitarian elite dictatorship. Engels and Marx used the exploitation of the time to justify putting more power into the hands of a minority than under capitalism. Engels at least seemed to have an elitist agenda just the same as communism has nearly always manifested itself. Marxist critiques of capitalism are just as relevant to statism; it is naive to see them as opposites as many still do.....

A good pamphlet on this subject is Hal Draper's "The Two Souls of Socialism":

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

Whatever you think of the politics its a great read.

 

[audiotech]

Once the Bolsheviks gained controll of the soviets it proved an absolute impossiblity to remove them, as a party, from that position. To the point that before long the most revolutionary elements of the russian working class found them selves in a struggle against Bolsheviek domination. The most well known incedent that gave expression to this was the Krodstadt Rebellion. Lenin and the Bolshevieks were very good at talking and writing about workers controll and workers democracy but as soon as they were in a position to use state power against it they did not hesitate.

The soviets didn't function at the time of the Kronstadt uprising. There was a collapse of industry the towns, which were in crisis. The minority urban working class had been decimated by war and a massive reduction in the urban populations followed as workers, now unemployed returned to their peasant families in the countryside. At this time, the aim of the Bolsheviks was to hold on to power and fight to inspire the success of workers' struggles against capitalism in 'one or several advanced countries'.

The Kronstadt sailors, who had been at the head of the Bolshevik revolution and suffered death and woundings were later replaced by conscripts from the rural districts. The Bolsheviks referred to them as 'peasant lads in sailor suits.' Due to the civil war, as in most of Russia, working class leaders, the ones who had fought the hardest within the Red Army, were gone.

By 1921 more than three quarters of the sailors in the Baltic Fleet stationed at Kronstadt were recent recruits of peasant origin. This was a complete reversal of the situation in 1917, when the majority were recruited from the industrial centre of Petrograd, the heart of the workers' revolution in Russia.

The leader of the uprising of March 1921, was himself a Ukrainian peasant, who acknowledged that many of his fellow mutineers were peasants from the south and who were in sympathy with the peasant opposition movement against the Bolsheviks.

With peasant backwardness came backward ideas, expressed in anti-semitism. Another leader of the uprising announced to a Soviet detachment: 'Enough of your "hoorahs", and join with us to beat the Jews. It's their cursed domination that we workers and peasants have to endure.' A seaman, also involved in the Kronstadt uprising referred to the Bolshevik regime as the 'first Jewish republic', he called the Soviet government's ultimatum to retreat 'the ultimatum of the Jew Trotsky.'

Meetings that were called to address the sailors concerns degenerated into chaos, as people were heckled and not allowed to speak. Later, a non-elected body was formed by those leading the rebellion (interesting to note that Petrograd workers supported the Bolsheviks against the Kronstadt uprising), which was tantamount to a declaration of war against the Bolshevik state.

Lenin's became suspicious of an international conspiracy linked up with the Kronstadt events. A discovery of a handwritten memorandum preserved in the Columbia University Russian Archive, dated 1921 and marked 'Top Secret' appears to vindicate Lenin with regard to his suspicions at the time.

The document includes detailed information about the plans of the Kronstadt rebellion. It also details White army and French government support for the Kronstadt sailors' rebellion. Apparently, it was written by an organisation called the National Centre, which originated at the beginning in 1918 as a self identified 'underground organisation formed in Russia for the struggle against the Bolsheviks.'

Despite being unaware of the secret document, the Bolshevik leaders rightly perceived the rebellion as a step to counter-revolution. The world's ruling classes also perceived this way.

The rebellion was suppressed militarily and some 8,000 Kronstadt rebels fled to Finland, where some, including their leader Petrichenko, openly identified their links with the White army.

The repression of the uprising by the Bolsheviks was, as Trotsky described it in August of 1940 (the same month in which he died at the hand of a Stalinist agent), a 'tragic necessity.'

 

[Patty]

The soviets didn't function at the time of the Kronstadt uprising. There was a collapse of industry the towns, which were in crisis. The minority urban working class had been decimated by war and a massive reduction in the urban populations followed as workers, now unemployed returned to their peasant families in the countryside. At this time, the aim of the Bolsheviks was to hold on to power and fight to inspire the success of workers' struggles against capitalism in 'one or several advanced countries'.

The Kronstadt sailors, who had been at the head of the Bolshevik revolution and suffered death and woundings were later replaced by conscripts from the rural districts. The Bolsheviks referred to them as 'peasant lads in sailor suits.' Due to the civil war, as in most of Russia, working class leaders, the ones who had fought the hardest within the Red Army, were gone.

By 1921 more than three quarters of the sailors in the Baltic Fleet stationed at Kronstadt were recent recruits of peasant origin. This was a complete reversal of the situation in 1917, when the majority were recruited from the industrial centre of Petrograd, the heart of the workers' revolution in Russia.

The leader of the uprising of March 1921, was himself a Ukrainian peasant, who acknowledged that many of his fellow mutineers were peasants from the south and who were in sympathy with the peasant opposition movement against the Bolsheviks.

With peasant backwardness came backward ideas, expressed in anti-semitism. Another leader of the uprising announced to a Soviet detachment: 'Enough of your "hoorahs", and join with us to beat the Jews. It's their cursed domination that we workers and peasants have to endure.' A seaman, also involved in the Kronstadt uprising referred to the Bolshevik regime as the 'first Jewish republic', he called the Soviet government's ultimatum to retreat 'the ultimatum of the Jew Trotsky.'

Meetings that were called to address the sailors concerns degenerated into chaos, as people were heckled and not allowed to speak. Later, a non-elected body was formed by those leading the rebellion (interesting to note that Petrograd workers supported the Bolsheviks against the Kronstadt uprising), which was tantamount to a declaration of war against the Bolshevik state.

Lenin's became suspicious of an international conspiracy linked up with the Kronstadt events. A discovery of a handwritten memorandum preserved in the Columbia University Russian Archive, dated 1921 and marked 'Top Secret' appears to vindicate Lenin with regard to his suspicions at the time.

The document includes detailed information about the plans of the Kronstadt rebellion. It also details White army and French government support for the Kronstadt sailors' rebellion. Apparently, it was written by an organisation called the National Centre, which originated at the beginning in 1918 as a self identified 'underground organisation formed in Russia for the struggle against the Bolsheviks.'

Despite being unaware of the secret document, the Bolshevik leaders rightly perceived the rebellion as a step to counter-revolution. The world's ruling classes also perceived this way.

The rebellion was suppressed militarily and some 8,000 Kronstadt rebels fled to Finland, where some, including their leader Petrichenko, openly identified their links with the White army.

The repression of the uprising by the Bolsheviks was, as Trotsky described it in August of 1940 (the same month in which he died at the hand of a Stalinist agent), a 'tragic necessity.'

At best that is a distortion. I don't have space to go in to every aspect of the rebelion in detail. To claim that the Krondstadt rebelion was a move to counter revolution however can be refuted by the events that led to the rebellion.
During the early part of 1921 the workers of Petrograd were involved in a struggle against the continude authoriterian rule of the Bolsheviks, despite the civil war being won for all intent and puurpose. Mass strikes were led by workers from the Patromy Munitions Works, Trubothnyy and Baltiysky Mills the Lamferm factory and the Galernia Docks. The most concious of theese workers put forward slogans and demands such as:

"the workers and peasants need freedom...They don''t want to live by the decrees of the Bolsheviik"

"Liberation of all arrested socialists and non partisan working men"

"Free elections of all shop and factory commitees of llabour union and soviet representatives"

This movement, whith such demands was crushed by military force under instructions of the Lenin led Bolsheveiks.The Krondstadt rebellion took place in the aftermath of this.

There may have been backward or rectionary elements amoungst the krondstadt sailors and after the event many of those who reached Finland would have been uterly demoralised by their experience making them easy prey for "white" or imperiialist propagandists. It's clear howeve that the most revolutionary elements involved were taking the initiative from the beginging.
A resolution, passed with an overwhelming majority dispite the protests of Bolsheveik delegeates at a meeting of the Sailors comitee of the 1st and 2nd Baltic fleets, held march 1st 1921 stated the following, amoungst other such things:

1"In the view that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants..."

2"To establish freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, for anarchists and left Socialist Parties"

7"To abolish all political bureaus because no party should be given special privilages in propogation of it's ideas"

10"To abolish Communist guards kept on duty in mills and factories. Should such guards be found necessery they must be appointed from the ranks according to the judgment of the workers"

A delegation sent by the sailors to Petrograd to explain their positions to the workers and soldiers of the city was duly arrested by the Bolsheviki there. Your claim that the Petrograd workers supported the Bolsheveiks does not this in to account, neither does it take in to account the recent strike movement or the fact that the Petrograd workers had little or no access to a free press, making them reliant on Bolshevik lies and propaganda.

The above is taken from historical documents and accounts of people who were there actrually there. It says one hell of a lot about the reality of Bolsheviek rule pre-Stallinism and, I think refutes the lies and distortions put forward by Trotskysts and Stallinists alike that the only opposition to Bolsheviek rule at the time was counter revolutionary and rectionary.

 

[audiotech]

At best that is a distortion. I don't have space to go in to every aspect of the rebelion in detail. To claim that the Krondstadt rebelion was a move to counter revolution however can be refuted by the events that led to the rebellion.

During the early part of 1921 the workers of Petrograd were involved in a struggle against the continude authoriterian rule of the Bolsheviks, despite the civil war being won for all intent and puurpose. Mass strikes were led by workers from the Patromy Munitions Works, Trubothnyy and Baltiysky Mills the Lamferm factory and the Galernia Docks. The most concious of theese workers put forward slogans and demands such as:

"the workers and peasants need freedom...They don''t want to live by the decrees of the Bolsheviik"

"Liberation of all arrested socialists and non partisan working men"

"Free elections of all shop and factory commitees of llabour union and soviet representatives"

This movement, whith such demands was crushed by military force under instructions of the Lenin led Bolsheveiks.The Krondstadt rebellion took place in the aftermath of this.

There may have been backward or rectionary elements amoungst the krondstadt sailors and after the event many of those who reached Finland would have been uterly demoralised by their experience making them easy prey for "white" or imperiialist propagandists. It's clear howeve that the most revolutionary elements involved were taking the initiative from the beginging.
A resolution, passed with an overwhelming majority dispite the protests of Bolsheveik delegeates at a meeting of the Sailors comitee of the 1st and 2nd Baltic fleets, held march 1st 1921 stated the following, amoungst other such things:

1"In the view that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants..."

2"To establish freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, for anarchists and left Socialist Parties"

7"To abolish all political bureaus because no party should be given special privilages in propogation of it's ideas"

10"To abolish Communist guards kept on duty in mills and factories. Should such guards be found necessery they must be appointed from the ranks according to the judgment of the workers"

A delegation sent by the sailors to Petrograd to explain their positions to the workers and soldiers of the city was duly arrested by the Bolsheviki there. Your claim that the Petrograd workers supported the Bolsheveiks does not this in to account, neither does it take in to account the recent strike movement or the fact that the Petrograd workers had little or no access to a free press, making them reliant on Bolshevik lies and propaganda.

The above is taken from historical documents and accounts of people who were there actrually there. It says one hell of a lot about the reality of Bolsheviek rule pre-Stallinism and, I think refutes the lies and distortions put forward by Trotskysts and Stallinists alike that the only opposition to Bolsheviek rule at the time was counter revolutionary and rectionary.

The slogans adopted and quoted below, in the piece where you got the above, indicates the reactionary nature of those opposed to a government whose goal was to hold onto power and fight to 'inspire the success of workers' struggles against capitalism in 'one or several advanced countries' in the 'interests of the poor and against the rich'. That there was no successes in 'one or several advanced countries' is the reason for the rise of the bureaucractic distortion which was Stalinism and not Bolshevism.

Down with the hated Communists!
Down with the Soviet Government!
Long live the Constituent Assembly!

 

[Patty]

The slogans adopted and quoted below, in the piece where you got the above, indicates the reactionary nature of those opposed to a government whose goal was to hold onto power and fight to 'inspire the success of workers' struggles against capitalism in 'one or several advanced countries' in the 'interests of the poor and against the rich'. That there was no successes in 'one or several advanced countries' is the reason for the rise of the bureaucractic distortion which was Stalinism and not Bolshevism.

The Trotskyist analysis of that period failes to make the distinction beteween those struggling for workers democracy in the face of Bolshevik tryanny and more backward eliments pushed by towards reaction by those circumstances. In an attempt to paper over the gap between the rhetoric and relaity of that political tradition, I suspect.

I agree, if there had been subsiquent revolutions in advanced countries the bureauacrats would have been exposed and Stallinism would not have been able to gain it's strangle hold on the international worker's movement. However Lenin laid the foundation stones for Stallinism. The crushing of workers democracy and the strengthening of the represive insitutions of the state left a legacy for Stallin and the bureaucrats to build up on.

As for the Krondstadt sailors. They refused aid from the Socialist Revolutionaries who called for the Constituant Assembly because they wanted free soviets, not the free market. They set up a provisional revolutionary commitee in Krondstadt and for prior to the military defeat the city was run along sovietist lines without party domination. They posed no threat to socialism in Russia. Unlike the Bolsheviks who strangled it's development with their party dictatorship.

 

[audiotech]

The Trotskyist analysis of that period failes to make the distinction beteween those struggling for workers democracy in the face of Bolshevik tryanny and more backward eliments pushed by towards reaction by those circumstances. In an attempt to paper over the gap between the rhetoric and relaity of that political tradition, I suspect.

I agree, if there had been subsiquent revolutions in advanced countries the bureauacrats would have been exposed and Stallinism would not have been able to gain it's strangle hold on the international worker's movement. However Lenin laid the foundation stones for Stallinism. The crushing of workers democracy and the strengthening of the represive insitutions of the state left a legacy for Stallin and the bureaucrats to build up on.

As for the Krondstadt sailors. They refused aid from the Socialist Revolutionaries who called for the Constituant Assembly because they wanted free soviets, not the free market. They set up a provisional revolutionary commitee in Krondstadt and for prior to the military defeat the city was run along sovietist lines without party domination. They posed no threat to socialism in Russia. Unlike the Bolsheviks who strangled it's development with their party dictatorship.

The 'tyranny' you talk about was directed at those imposing white terror and their supporters in the midst of a civil war.

Lenin led a disciplined organisation of 240,000 members whose goal was the overthrow of the existing order. Lenin's legacy was his testament, warning against Stalin becoming leader. Stalin's personality, reflected in his brutal leadership style, had nothing to do with Lenin and everything to do with Stalin.

As for the Krondstadt sailors setting up a 'provisional revolutionary commitee'? As far as I'm aware, they were not elected by anyone, so it's difficult to understand who they were acting on behalf of? It was Stalin who strangled the Bolsheviks, by ordering the executions of most of it's revolutionary leadership.

 

[october_lost]

Does it escape your notice that the Kronstadt sailors might have been expressing solidarity with the Russian peasants, against a society that was obviously in the throes of becomming a state dictatorship?

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Does it escape your notice that the Kronstadt sailors might have been expressing solidarity with the Russian peasants, against a society that was obviously in the throes of becomming a state dictatorship?

But the peasants were irrelevant, even if they were the vast majority. All that mattered was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin couldn't help it if the peasants hadn't read Marx.

 

[audiotech]

Does it escape your notice that the Kronstadt sailors might have been expressing solidarity with the Russian peasants, against a society that was obviously in the throes of becomming a state dictatorship?

Most of the sailors were peasants and some of their leaders expressed solidarity with the white armies terror and their dictatorship.

 

[audiotech]

But the peasants were irrelevant, even if they were the vast majority. All that mattered was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin couldn't help it if the peasants hadn't read Marx.

Most of them hadn't read anything. Too busy hoarding grain I expect.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Most of them hadn't read anything. Too busy hoarding grain I expect.

Illiterate = worthless? I doubt if the peasants were hoarding any more grain than they normally did: to feed their families and plant the next year. Do you think the peasantry lived an affluent lifestyle?

As far as I'm aware, they were not elected by anyone

In which case how could the sailors be responsible for these "leaders"?

 

[audiotech]

Illiterate = worthless? I doubt if the peasants were hoarding any more grain than they normally did: to feed their families and plant the next year. Do you think the peasantry lived an affluent lifestyle?

In which case how could the sailors be responsible for these "leaders"?

Worthless? Didn't say that. Although, some held reactionary ideas in their heads. The 'Countryside Alliance' of the day springs to mind. Many peasants were hoarding grain whilst workers starved, the rich ones in particular.

The sailors followed those leaders.

 

[october_lost]

Mate the policy of the emerging state were leading to starvation, why cant you just accept that and stop being so dogmatic?

 

[audiotech]

Mate the policy of the emerging state were leading to starvation, why cant you just accept that and stop being so dogmatic?

Nothing to do with being dogmatic, major forces, both without and within wanted to see the destruction of this workers revolution.

 

[october_lost]

 

[Patty]

Most of the sailors were peasants and some of their leaders expressed solidarity with the white armies terror and their dictatorship.

I'm sorry but thats typical Trot slander.
The Krondstadt sailors made their aims clear. Free Soviets, as expressed by the resolution democratically passed at the meeting of the sailors of the 1st and 2nd Baltic fleet on March 1st 1921, were the unltimate aim of the sailors.
Elections to the provisional revoutionary commitee of the city of Krodstadt took place during the seige, the are historic records showing that even Communist party members took part in that election. There are similar records showing that many Communists in Krondstadt during that period left the party because they saw, at first, hand how despotic it's rule had become.

A close familly member of mine once told me that the Bolsheviks had "The correct position towards the russian peasants, that is how they won them to the revolution" (he is a trot). Seems to me that the Bolshevik attitude towards the peasants was that they didn't matter. Bolshevik policy did nothing to eliveite the famine in the countryside during or after the civil war. So in reality it seems the oposite is true of the above statement.

"Communism" at all costs, even when a majorty of the people(workers,peasants) due to their experiences are not in favor of it is not communism, it's despotism.

 

[october_lost]

"Communism" at all costs, even when a majorty of the people(workers,peasants) due to their experiences are not in favor of it is not communism, it's despotism.

Means and ends....

 

[audiotech]

I'm sorry but thats typical Trot slander.

I posted further up this thread that their leader Petrichenko, openly identified with the White's. Sue me!