Anarcho-stalinist site

Lernt denken! wrote:

the people of kronstadt did not share the food, so other towns were starving. they were called to bring it out but they did rather fill their savings more and more. so they acted against the revolution.

Kronstadt was isolated from other towns and areas of Russia. They couldn't even contact Petrograd when they tried to cooperate with the workers there.

And guess who stunted their communication?

Now, if you actually cited a source for this, i could likely respond further.

Quote :

as i am not eloquent enough in english to hold up with your writing style i wont write that much at all, but perhaps you would like to read something of an involved person:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm

Okay, i already have a problem with this...

Trotsky wrote:

...all these groupings are interested in compromising the only genuinely revolutionary current, which has never repudiated its banner...

Uhh, if you can't catch the irony here, i'm very disappointed. Kronstadt's slogan, i repeat, was "power to the soviets, not the parties". The Bolshevik slogan was also power to the soviets. So how did they not repudiate their banner? And there's more...

Trotsky wrote:

has not compromised with its enemies

But has instead become the enemy (occupying the state left by the bourgeoisie, and controlling the industry through it). And, as is commonly known to those outside dogmatic circles, they came to state power in a very duplicitous (two-faced) manner (this was admitted by Stalin in 1918).

And further...

Trotsky wrote:

Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves.

Quite a fair assessment, yet you deem it fit to cite a source by Trotsky, about Trotsky's state. Again, the irony is hard to miss.

Quote :

at last i think youre somehow respectless towards me in your writing style.

I wonder what could have possibly elicited my tone...

Lernt wrote:

i am sorry but please read about lenin actions before you start your anarchist petit-bourgeois reflexes

Lernt wrote:

...promising not to shoot you as long as you dont establish a black market

Quote :

please dont get me wrong, i would work together with you as long as you support democratic ways of revolutionary actions, dont get privileges for yourself (as anarchists did in spain) and dont bomb me up

And, of course, as long as i subordinate myself to state capitalism (Only Trotsky could call the USSR anything but capitalist) run in my interests by my benevolent, benign leaders, who, despite being materially capitalist, have the constitution to resist the greed and power-hunger that will inevitably beset those in that position, right? I'll choose to cooperate with those who share my anti-capitalist sentiments (Not those who say they share them).

Quote :

try to focus more on thinking about "why" and not stopping at the "what" questions.

Ever think i don't give a shit about why the state engaged in slaughter and spy mania? When the "what" is 18,000 killed in Kronstadt (to say nothing of the countless other deaths caused by the Cheka and the state), the "why" hardly matters to anyone concerned with humanitarian values and principles. So you can engage in apologetics for the Bolshevik state as much as you want, but those concerned with peace and justice will only hear the violent implications in your words.

Quote :

for example the problems of a social revolution in a totally unevolved, nearly unindustrialised country with a very high analphabet rate, attacked by several imperial armies at a time, under fire from monarchists and reactionary and church-related forces..

I get it! Only when the pressure is on is murder allowable. Thanks for clearing that up.

Lernt denken! wrote:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm

what a load of garbage. obviously he is going to try to justify what he did, he crushed an uprising, thus making him a reactionary.

Getzler wrote:

it was in its commune-like self-government that Red Kronstadt really came into its own, realising the radical, democratic and egalitarian aspirations of its garrison and working people, their insatiable appetite for social recognition, political activity and public debate, their pent up yearning for education, integration and community. Almost overnight, the ship's crews, the naval and military units and the workers created and practised a direct democracy of base assemblies and committees

during the revolt, kronstadt started to re-organise itself from the bottom up. the trade union committees were re-elected and a council of trade unions formed. the conference of delegates met regularly to discuss issues relating to the interests of dronstadt and the struggle against the bolshevik government (specifically on march 2nd, 4th and 11th). and of course, the rank and file Communists, not the petty-reactionaries, or the authoritarian pseudo-revolutionaries, or the autocratic party leaders, but rather the actual workers, the true marxists, the true revolutionaries, the true communists, left the party in mass, expressing support for the revolt and its aim of "all power to the soviets and not to parties." around 300 communists were arrested and treated humanely in prison (in comparison, at least 780 communists left the party in protest of the actions it was taking against kronstadt and its general role in the revolution). significantly, up to one-third of the delegates elected to Kronstadt's rebel conference of March 2nd, were actual communists.

the leaders of kronstadt were the true workers, if they werent there would have never been such support for it within the party, eventually leading to the mass exodus of dictorial marxists from the party.

trot$ky wrote:

How can the Kronstadt uprising cause such heartburn to Anarchists, Mensheviks, and “liberal” counter-revolutionists, all at the same time? The answer is simple: all these groupings are interested in compromising the only genuinely revolutionary current, which has never repudiated its banner, has not compromised with its enemies, and alone represents the future. It is because of this that among the belated denouncers of my Kronstadt “crime” there are so many former revolutionists or semi-revolutionists, people who have lost their program and their principles and who find it necessary to divert attention from the degradation of the Second International or the perfidy of the Spanish Anarchists. As yet, the Stalinists cannot openly join this campaign around Kronstadt but even they, of course, rub their hands with pleasure; for the blows are directed against “Trotskyism,” against revolutionary Marxism, against the Fourth International!

as the revolt escalated, the bolshevik government declared martial law, so the petrograd workers were forced into non-action, when as stated above, when so many of the party emancipated themselves, one can only imagine, the mass support the revolt would garner. on march 7th the red army began its first wave of attacks, within 10 days of succesive battering, the kronstadt workers have been crushed. over 100 "instigators" were arrested, and over 70 of which were put to death in a public display.

one of the most cruel facts of the rebellion was the day after it was crushed, the bolshevik government celebrated the anniversary of the paris commune.

Is that a joke comrade Riddler?

I like tanks rockets and parades though.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Is that a joke comrade Riddler?

I like tanks rockets and parades though.

I don't think so The quote above describes me very good.

Then Riddler you're engaging in an oxymron.

"Anarchy" is not "anti-statism", it's broader than that. Anarchy is lack of hierarchy, that is, no human has right to gover orders to other, no human has authority over other.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

"Anarchy" is not "anti-statism", it's broader than that. Anarchy is lack of hierarchy, that is, no human has right to gover orders to other, no human has authority over other.

In general sense, it is. However, the absence of state can also mean the absence of hierarchy.

Riddler wrote:

In general sense, it is. However, the absence of state can also mean the absence of hierarchy.

Not if you acknowledge the hierarchy of some groups over other groups.

Riddler wrote:

Anarchostalinists reject the dogmatism, inertia, impotence and gesturism of anarchism...

Since anarchy comes directly from the working class, this is calling our people impotent, and saying their motions and calls for freedom are empty gestures. This is directly in conflict with the principles of anarchy.

Quote :

...and merge their anti-authoritarian and anti-statist views with a hard-line on anti-social criminals, drug pushers and the landowners.

Well, since you know better than i do, Riddler, would you tell me what exactly is meant by a "hard-line"; that's far too ambiguous (though, i imagine that if it were less ambiguous, it would also be less anarchistic, but i'll wait for your reply before i bite down on that one)

Quote :

Could be seen as a 21st century urban Maoism.

Is this not antithetical to anarchism? If not, how so?

Quote :

Rejects the automatic anti-Sovietism of liberal anarchists.

If an anarchist claims to be anti-sovietist, he/she simply lacks understanding about anarchy.

Quote :

Likes show-trials, tanks and rocket parades.

heh, that's nice. i'm glad whoever wrote this felt the need to throw that in there out of the blue like that

But show trials?... for the sole purpose of what, public humiliation or something?

Why like tanks and rocket parades? There shouldnt be need for them in the first place, right? Or is to be shown as military superiority?

And I second BC on the show trials.

Black_Cross wrote:

But show trials?... for the sole purpose of what, public humiliation or something?

CoolKidX wrote:

Why like tanks and rocket parades? There shouldnt be need for them in the first place, right? Or is to be shown as military superiority?

So long as there are enslaved workers and Bourgeoise exploiting them, the free workers must have military superiority and if so why not intimidating the oppressors?

Show trials... that doesn't seem neccesary at all so I hope Riddler can explain why he likes them.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So long as there are enslaved workers and Bourgeoise exploiting them, the free workers must have military superiority and if so why not intimidating the oppressors?

Ready for war so? So when you finally have a communist country your gonna get ready for war or atleast show other countries you have a good army? Doesnt seem to lead to anything good, and if you got war, you still gonna fight their army, which are not bourgeoise.

CoolKidX wrote:

Ready for war so? So when you finally have a communist country your gonna get ready for war or atleast show other countries you have a good army?

You show the bourgeoise that you're reading to export the revolution, that you're ready for any attack they may plan on you and that, literally, their days are counted.

CKX wrote:

Doesnt seem to lead to anything good, and if you got war, you still gonna fight their army, which are not bourgeoise.

Some count as petit-bourgeoise, but still, tey idea of that army would be mainly to be deffensive and supportive of revolutionary movements. Plus it wouldn't be an army itself, it would be just a display of military potential.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You show the bourgeoise that you're reading to export the revolution, that you're ready for any attack they may plan on you and that, literally, their days are counted.

Oh sure, first off, it will take years to have a good army atleast. Also second, who the fuck wants to join the army then? U can be a janitor, have the risk of not dying and get the same things as a soldier, and with what you gonna attract recruits with? Money? Oh snap there isnt any.
I mean c'mon, first tell me how you even gonna have a organized army.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Some count as petit-bourgeoise, but still, tey idea of that army would be mainly to be deffensive and supportive of revolutionary movements. Plus it wouldn't be an army itself, it would be just a display of military potential.

Okay well, deffenive I understand, sir, but how will a army, support movements?
And I got a question here are their still ranks? I mean officer and all?

CoolKidX wrote:

Oh sure, first off, it will take years to have a good army atleast.

Not if the revolution occurs in a place like Russia, USA or China. Plus the industrial potential of socialist comunities is far superior to that of capitalist ones.

CKX wrote:

Also second, who the fuck wants to join the army then? U can be a janitor, have the risk of not dying and get the same things as a soldier, and with what you gonna attract recruits with? Money? Oh snap there isnt any.

I love this misunderstanding. Every single worker will be a soldier. The incentive - the survival of the community and freedom. Why do you think people made the revolution in the 1st place?

CKX wrote:

I mean c'mon, first tell me how you even gonna have a organized army.

The same way you organize any group of people.

CKX wrote:

Okay well, deffenive I understand, sir, but how will a army, support movements?

I don't understand your question.

CKX wrote:

And I got a question here are their still ranks? I mean officer and all?

For pragmatic, historic and counseling purposes yes, deprived of hierarchy.

This got me to thinking,

Do you think it may be a good idea to go to China and preach true Marxism, since the people believe they are Communist, they may be the most logical place to start a revolution.

However, Id have to look into more thinks in the country, and see how logical it would be to rally the workers and such, since their government certainly seems to put down their people.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Plus the of industrial potential socialist comunities is far superior to that of capitalist ones.

How do you mean?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I love this misunderstanding. Every single worker will be a soldier. The incentive - the survival of the community and freedom. Why do you think people made the revolution in the 1st place?

Everyone is a soldier? Old people, young kids to? Most likely not but still you said "every single worker", young kids can work and old people to sooo...
So everyone will get a weapon in house? I dont understand what you mean by everyone will be a soldier.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The same way you organize any group of people.

Well I guees bureaucracy kinda, I mean first list eveyrone up and all. Need people to call them out, maybe a state can come in handy.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I don't understand your question.

Well you said

Quote :

Some count as petit-bourgeoise, but still, tey idea of that army would be mainly to be deffensive and supportive of revolutionary movements. Plus it wouldn't be an army itself, it would be just a display of military potential.

So I asked how will a army, or in the case of every one is a soldier, support the movements?

Quote :

For pragmatic, historic and counseling purposes yes, deprived of hierarchy.

Good, otherwise your army will be a mess. But what the hell, every worker is a soldier, so how you gonna know whos a officer and shit? People work, but are a soldier to for some reason, they dont wear their uniform all day.

You need to explain how a army works in a commie society, cause this is confusing.

Liche wrote:

This got me to thinking,

Do you think it may be a good idea to go to China and preach true Marxism, since the people believe they are Communist, they may be the most logical place to start a revolution.

They actually don't do such claims, just the government.

Liche wrote:

However, Id have to look into more thinks in the country, and see how logical it would be to rally the workers and such, since their government certainly seems to put down their people.

Anywhere where there are workers shall revolution be started.

CKX wrote:

How do you mean?

A communist community with the same ammount and variety of resources as a capitalist community of the same size has a far greater industrial potential.

CKX wrote:

Everyone is a soldier? Old people, young kids to? Most likely not but still you said "every single worker", young kids can work and old people to sooo...
So everyone will get a weapon in house? I dont understand what you mean by everyone will be a soldier.

"Every single worker" does not mean "every single person able to work".

Everyone will be a combatant shall the community require so.

CKX wrote:

Well I guees bureaucracy kinda, I mean first list eveyrone up and all. Need people to call them out, maybe a state can come in handy.

Do you have bureaucracy at home or with your friends?

If people already organized to stablish a socialist community, then through the same organizational system as with economics they'll organize their military.

CKX wrote:

So I asked how will a army, or in the case of every one is a soldier, support the movements?

What do you mean with "support"?

CKX wrote:

Good, otherwise your army will be a mess. But what the hell, every worker is a soldier, so how you gonna know whos a officer and shit? People work, but are a soldier to for some reason, they dont wear their uniform all day.

You need to explain how a army works in a commie society, cause this is confusing.

Ranks do not imply order. Order is achieved through organization which itself is achieved through communication.

There are not going to be officers persay. There will be just "more experienced" combatants that will be identified by ranks and insignias in order for the rest of the soldiers to consider them as advisors, nothing else. they won't have authority or anything.


In a communist society, shall an armed force be needed, it will work like every single other economic branch with the exception that this branch will imply an economic depletion instead of production.

There are several possibilities as I see it:

1. A professional standing army is created. The members of this army will provide the community with a "defense service". Unlike the other branches of the community, their actiity, rather than contribute to the economy will actually deplete it.

The rest of the community will all be armed and sporadically train in guerrilla warfare in order to be prepared to defend the community as a whole serving as a reserve force while the specialized army serves as a 1st defense line.

2. The workers of all economic branches may be divided in groups of "military priority". For example 25% of the workers will dedicate 75% of their working time to military activity and 25% to economic. Another 25% will dedicate 50% and 50%. Another 25% will dedicate 25% and 75% and the remaining 25% of the workers will dedicate 100% of their working time to economy.

3. All workers dedicate 50% working time to economic activities and 50% to military activities.

4. The entire community creates a military culture in which great part of the day is dedicated to military training and military economy. During war times the entire community focuses all eforts for war. The community has permanent military readiness as a standing economic army.

5. The community focuses on the creation of a military industrial infrastructure that may provide with technological and tactical superiority - creation of weapons of mass destruction for deterrance, development of advanced focused energy systems, focus on air defenses to counter strategic attacks. Basically create a strategic condition in which MAD is nullified and the community is actually able of utterely destroy any adversary community in a first strike without even being harmed, deterring any other community of military action.

Black_Cross wrote:

Since anarchy comes directly from the working class, this is calling our people impotent, and saying their motions and calls for freedom are empty gestures. This is directly in conflict with the principles of anarchy.

Well, some anarchist reject the proletarian rhetoric and replace it with the idea of the intellectual hegemony. There are also varieties of national-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc. Personally I don't divide all people into proletariat and bourgeoisie, thinking that there are other classes and subclasses.

Black_Cross wrote:

Well, since you know better than i do, Riddler, would you tell me what exactly is meant by a "hard-line"

Quote from Wiki:

Quote :

In politics, hardline refers to the doctrine, policy, and posturing of a government or political body as being absolutist, or authoritarian. Hardline movements are usually extremist, militant, and uncompromising. Hardline movements range across the entire political spectrum, including black nationalism, objectivism, neo-Nazism, radical feminism, and anti-revisionism.

Black_Cross wrote:

Is this not antithetical to anarchism? If not, how so?

More anarchical than classic Marxism, I guess.

Black_Cross wrote:

If an anarchist claims to be anti-sovietist, he/she simply lacks understanding about anarchy.

A lot of anarchists call Soviet Union a totalitarian regime, even worse than any capitalist one.

Liche wrote:

Do you think it may be a good idea to go to China and preach true Marxism, since the people believe they are Communist, they may be the most logical place to start a revolution.

You'd get shot by the thought police if you do. Besides you should try mexico instead.

Riddler wrote:

Well, some anarchist reject the proletarian rhetoric and replace it with the idea of the intellectual hegemony. There are also varieties of national-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc. Personally I don't divide all people into proletariat and bourgeoisie, thinking that there are other classes and subclasses.

well any social anarchist can tell you there are two major division, labor and those who profit from said labor, it is just different schools of thought that differ on how to bring an end to this injustice.

Quote :

Quote from Wiki:

Quote :

In politics, hardline refers to the doctrine, policy, and posturing of a government or political body as being absolutist, or authoritarian. Hardline movements are usually extremist, militant, and uncompromising. Hardline movements range across the entire political spectrum, including black nationalism, objectivism, neo-Nazism, radical feminism, and anti-revisionism.

does it really need to be said?

Quote :

More anarchical than classic Marxism, I guess.

A lot of anarchists call Soviet Union a totalitarian regime, even worse than any capitalist one.

first and foremost, marxism is anarchism, likes like saying one apple is more of an apple than another.

second, it is painfully obvious you have no clue what the council(ie soviet) system is, or entitles so allow me to explain, as i quote another post of mine.

beatnikzach wrote:

Getzler wrote:

wrote:
it was in its commune-like self-government that Red Kronstadt really came into its own, realising the radical, democratic and egalitarian aspirations of its garrison and working people, their insatiable appetite for social recognition, political activity and public debate, their pent up yearning for education, integration and community. Almost overnight, the ship's crews, the naval and military units and the workers created and practised a direct democracy of base assemblies and committees

beatnikzach wrote:

during the revolt, kronstadt started to re-organise itself from the bottom up. the trade union committees were re-elected and a council of trade unions formed. the conference of delegates met regularly to discuss issues relating to the interests of dronstadt and the struggle against the bolshevik government (specifically on march 2nd, 4th and 11th). and of course, the rank and file Communists, not the petty-reactionaries, or the authoritarian pseudo-revolutionaries, or the autocratic party leaders, but rather the actual workers, the true marxists, the true revolutionaries, the true communists, left the party in mass, expressing support for the revolt and its aim of "all power to the soviets and not to parties." around 300 communists were arrested and treated humanely in prison (in comparison, at least 780 communists left the party in protest of the actions it was taking against kronstadt and its general role in the revolution). significantly, up to one-third of the delegates elected to Kronstadt's rebel conference of March 2nd, were actual communists.

the leaders of kronstadt were the true workers, if they werent there would have never been such support for it within the party, eventually leading to the mass exodus of dictorial marxists from the party.

case and point.

Riddler wrote:

Well, some anarchist reject the proletarian rhetoric and replace it with the idea of the intellectual hegemony.

This doesn't seem quite clear but looks reminiscent to the ambiguous Bakuninist concept of "invisble dictatorship".

Riddler wrote:

There are also varieties of national-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc. Personally I don't divide all people into proletariat and bourgeoisie, thinking that there are other classes and subclasses.

Then you haven't read enough Marx for sure.

National-anarchist - What are their tenets?
Anarcho-capitalist - There are also transvestites that call themselves "women" but that doesn't make them women does it? Capitalism requires a coercive entity to protect the property rights of the capitalist. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is nothing but "Stateless capitalism" where everything, including coercive forces, are owned privately and form part of the market.

Plus anarchy and capitalism are mutually exclusive since capitalism requires hierarchy. So a guy can call himself "anacho-capitalist" as much as he wants, it will make as much sense as the term "manwoman".

Anarchists that believe in each worker owning privately means of production and trading with each other, then, that's a different story that while not the same, doesn't make much sense either.

Riddler wrote:

Quote from Wiki:

Quote :

In politics, hardline refers to the doctrine, policy, and posturing of a government or political body as being absolutist, or authoritarian. Hardline movements are usually extremist, militant, and uncompromising. Hardline movements range across the entire political spectrum, including black nationalism, objectivism, neo-Nazism, radical feminism, and anti-revisionism.

In other words opposite to anarchy.

Riddler wrote:

More anarchical than classic Marxism, I guess.

Ehm... no. What you call "classical marxism" is about the abolition of social classes and the state... how is being a "hard-liner" (in accordance to the definition yo gave) more "anarchic" than that?

Also, remember one thing, anarchy is an absolut. Absoluts do not exist in proportion - they exist or they don't.

Riddler wrote:

A lot of anarchists call Soviet Union a totalitarian regime, even worse than any capitalist one.

Because the Soviet Union was for 99% of the time it existed Anti-Sovietist. It was a state capitalist totalitarian regime. Better than western capitalism and Monarchies for it was collectivist but still a state capitalist totalitarian regime.

The "Soviet", as you know since you speak Russian, is a council. All that was "Soviet" about the Soviet Union was the name, and nothing more. Pretty much like the condition of woman of a transvestite.

Quote :

Well, some anarchist reject the proletarian rhetoricand replace it with the idea of the intellectual hegemony.

That's right, but i wasn't referring to ideological anarchists. I'm just pointing out how wrong that statement was, given that it was basically calling grassroots organization impotent. Anarchy doesn't just come from anarchists and their organizations, it's the natural tendency of humans in general, to be 'anarchic'.

Quote :

There are also varieties of national-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.

Well, considering those are pretty oxymoronic, i wouldn't compare that to genuine -- socialist -- anarchy.

Quote :

Personally I don't divide all people into proletariat and bourgeoisie, thinking that there are other classes and subclasses.

More than personally, it's just a fact, not everyone within a capitalist system participates in one of those two ways.

Quote :

In politics, hardline refers to the doctrine, policy, and posturing of a government or political body as being absolutist, or authoritarian. Hardline movements are usually extremist, militant, and uncompromising. Hardline movements range across the entire political spectrum, including black nationalism, objectivism, neo-Nazism, radical feminism, and anti-revisionism.

I'm gonna stick with antithetical... This is obviously nothing like anarchy (maybe the only thing similar is the 'militant' part, for what should be obvious reasons), so i'm just more boggled as to why this group chose this name.

Quote :

More anarchical than classic Marxism, I guess.

See ZK's post.

Quote :

A lot of anarchists call Soviet Union a totalitarian regime, even worse than any capitalist one.

There is a distinct difference between sovietism and what the soviet union practiced. There was a period of months when old Russia was sovietist, socialist, anarchist, communist, or whatever synonym you wanna call it, but once the state had infiltrated the soviets, the democracy necessary to sustain that sovietism was gone.

Also, see ZK's post.