Showing posts with label lenin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lenin. Show all posts

Friday, September 6, 2013

Lenin on the question of oppression, working class unity, and the process of engaging with the justified distrust that oppressed people feel towards those of the oppressor social group


I've been thinking a lot about the question of what it actually takes to build a truly united, multiracial, multigender, multi-all-forms-of-oppression, movement that is truly based in genuine solidarity and the collective striving toward mutual emancipation from exploitation and oppression.

It is of course an understatement to say that this is a very difficult task. This is precisely because capitalist society is so effective at dividing the working class and creating definite strata within the working class along the lines of various forms of social oppression. Black workers are invariably subjected to racist attitudes by white workers, and likewise between men and women, and so on. The distrust that exists within the minds of oppressed groups towards those of the oppressor social group -- regardless of class -- are quite real, and frankly understandable, in a strictly logical sense, because of the foregoing.

Thus, the task of establishing unity between oppressed groups as part of a larger united working class struggle for the abolition of capitalism presents very difficult challenges.

In particular, the question of building a revolutionary organization along these lines can be immensely confounding. Indeed, history is littered with social movements, revolutions, and even mass revolutionary parties which have foundered precisely on this contradiction; the contradiction between the needs of unity of the entire working class, and the immense enmity and suspicion which exists between them at present because of capitalist social relations.

Oftentimes, trust will breakdown between comrades within a group or social movement over this issue, with oppressed people feeling slighted, marginalized, or not taken sufficiently seriously.

First of all, I want to say that I actually don't think this is ultimately a matter of individuals being racist or sexist [though that certainly can and does happen on the left and even within revolutionary organizations].

I also don't think that racism or sexism or really, by definition, any form of oppression, in general -- as social constructions -- are the product of any one individual's attitudes. Rather, it is a product of the ensemble of social relations which obtain under capitalism.

Yet, the fact is that this oppression does exist, is real, and permeates virtually all of our relations within the system. Inequality exists between various strata of the working class due to this oppression -- in terms of their opportunity, livelihoods, well-beings -- which then in turn impacts oppressed people's sense of confidence and self-worth, etc., especially in relation to those strata of the working class which rest above them (not even to mention in relation to the upper classes of the dominant social group).

As I sometimes do, I decided to see what comrade V.I. Lenin may have to say on the matter. Now, I don't think that Lenin (or anyone for that matter), was an infallible genius or other such nonsense who always has the "correct" thing to say on every matter.

Nonetheless, I do think on this particular question he offers some important insights.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Summary, Comparison, and Analysis of the Russian Constitutions of 1918, 1924, and 1936

I wanted to share a quick summary and comparison of the first three constitutions adopted by the Russian Soviet governments following the historic revolution of October 1917. Specifically, I want to draw attention to the apparent irony -- though, in actual fact, perfectly logical phenomenon -- that there is a direct correspondence between the extent to which the gains of the revolution were being undone by the Stalinist bureaucracy, on the one hand, and the re-crafting of the constitution, on the other, along increasingly "liberal" lines.

So, for instance, the 1936 constitution -- adopted at a time when Stalin's authoritarian reign of terror against the working class in general, and the original leaders and cadres of the 1917 revolution in particular [source], was at its height -- goes further than any previous constitution in reflecting the traditional liberal values often evinced in those of Western bourgeois-democratic republics, such as the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

This, of course, accords completely with the modus operandi of constitutional democracy as it has appeared in the traditional capitalist Western countries, which use lofty promises regarding the sanctity of individual rights as a veil to hide the most brutally repressive practices, such as slavery, female disenfranchisement, genocide against indigenous populations, exploitation of labor, repression of political dissidence, oppression of socially non-conforming peoples, etc.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Katkov, Germany money and Lenin, in Rabinowitch

Despite Rabinowitch's claim that "Lenin seems to have known of the German money [surreptitiously expended by the German government during WWI to foment internal instability within Russia by funding dissident groups, such as the Bolsheviks, among others]," there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate this claim. Rabinowitch cites the work of Katkov on this score. Katkov presents zero evidence that Lenin was ever aware of money from the German government being funneled to the Bolsheviks, nor that he willingly accepted money from the German government. See comment from Alexander Dallin on Katkov piece, as well as links below. At most, the Bolsheviks openly accepted monetary donations from the German SPD, which was a part of the German government, but never from the Kaiser, the German secret police, or any other such nonsense. Also, while it is possible that the Bolsheviks may have received money from opaque sources that were in fact, unbeknownst to them, agents of the German government, there is no evidence documenting either (a) how much money this amounted to and whether it was a significant sum or not, or (b) that the Bolsheviks were aware of this source.   

http://books.google.com/books?id=HzRiDJnTTG4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false 
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Zdv5hwi_o6b0h6UFUtekhUdFk
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/pearson/katkov.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/11.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1976/lenin2/ch15.htm#s4
https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2360
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisson_Documents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Parvus
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch27.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/27b.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/05b.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/06a.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/07c.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/08a.htm#fwV25E076
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/19a.htm#bkV25E071
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/aug/01.htm

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Notes on Lenin, the Russian civil war, red terror, "The Black Book," and prostitution (literal & figurative)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
- [Makes mention that part of War Communism was that "strikers could be shot," which itself is a quite ambiguous statement. The citation for this is: Nicolas Werth, "Histoire de l'Union Soviétique de Lénine à Staline," 1995. Co-author of Black Book of Communism (see below). It's not exactly clear what this is in reference to or what exactly this is based on ... ]
- After reading Werth's "Histoire," I could find absolutely no mention of strikers being shot. It certainly covers a lot of other people being shot by the Cheka during the civil war (i.e., Whites, SRs, kulaks, etc, i.e., the enemy forces). But the only thing I could find that even comes close to this in the book was the following sentence, which appears in a section dealing with the repression of War Communism: "The unions, many of which were not obedient to the Bolsheviks (railway, postal workers, typographers, employees, etc.), were either dissolved or reduced to the role of a 'transmission belt.'" (Presses Universitaires de France, 1995, p. 20)
- Leaving aside the question of the veracity of this statement there is certainly a world of difference between the supposed dissolution of unions hostile to the Bolsheviks and/or Soviet government, on the one hand, and a policy of shooting workers who go on strike, on the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks#Repression
The Black Book of Communism: ""It is quite clear that preparations are being made for a White Guard uprising in Nizhni Novgorod," wrote Lenin in a telegram on 9 August 1918 to the president of the Executive Committee of the Nizhni Novgorod soviet, in response to a report about peasant protests against requisitioning. "Your first response must be to establish a dictatorial troika (i.e., you, Markin, and one other person) and introduce mass terror, shooting or deporting the hundreds of prostitutes who are causing all the soldiers to drink, all the ex-officers, etc. There is not a moment to lose; you must act resolutely, with massive reprisals. Immediate execution for anyone caught in possession of a firearm. Massive deportations of Mensheviks and other suspect elements." [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/09gff.htm]

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm
"The Black Book of Communism sets out to address: the inability and -- for a great many -- the outright refusal to recognize the unmitigated evil that communism was and is ... [it proffers an] editorial outlook which asserts that Communism, in all its historical forms, is morally equivalent to Nazism ... The clearest picture to emerge from these pages is that the history of Communism is, at its simplest, little more than the history of an all-out assault on society by a series of conspiratorial cliques. These groups have, invariably, been led by excruciatingly cruel dictators who were revoltingly drunk on their own foolish ideology and power."
- [Published by Harvard University Press, written by career anti-communist hacks and apologists for capitalism; largely influenced by work of FA Hayek - conservative economist, connected with Milton and 'Chicago School,' virulent anti-communist, yet admirer of Pinochet, even taking honorary position in Pinochet government.]

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Redux: A debate with an anarchist on the 1917 Russian revolution

‎"What a great moral influence strikes have, how they affect workers who see that their comrades have ceased to be slaves and, if only for the time being, have become people on an equal footing with the rich! Every strike brings thoughts of socialism very forcibly to the worker’s mind, thoughts of the struggle of the entire working class for emancipation from the oppression of capital. It has often happened that before a big strike the workers of a certain factory or a certain branch of industry or of a certain town knew hardly anything and scarcely ever thought about socialism; but after the strike, study circles and associations become much more widespread among them and more and wore workers become socialists." - V.I. Lenin, "On Strikes"
I posted the foregoing quote on Facebook and immediately received a comment from one of my anarchist-leaning friends that this was ironic because Lenin had "made strikes illegal in Russia starting in 1918."

The following debate enabled me to put some scattered thoughts down about the Russian revolution which I wanted to put down here as well, for posterity's sake, and because it helped me clarify my own ideas in the process. So, here's what I wrote (slightly edited):

I'm curious where you get that information from? From what I've read/heard, strikes were not completely made illegal in Russia until the late-1920s/30s. The anarchist Emma Goldman even talks about the strikes she witnessed in Moscow, Petrograd, and elsewhere when she was in Russia in 1920-1. Certainly some of these strikes were vehemently opposed by the Soviet government, for a number of reasons, but other of these strikes were settled on terms favorable to the striking workers (something which Goldman smugly extols in these writings). [See http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/index.htm]

[Also, see this document from 1920 which summarizes Russian labor laws at that time -
http://debs.indstate.edu/k17p7_1920.pdf]

I recommend reading "Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory," by Kevin Murphy which documents the strikes, work stoppages, and job actions which occurred in one of the lagrest factories in Moscow between 1917 and the 1930s. It shows the evolving relations between the workers, the Soviet government, and the Communist Party, as the revolution decayed during the 20's and 30's.

There is no doubt that the Russian workers' government was becoming more and more corrupted throughout the period of Civil War and the 1920s (NEP, etc). Workers and peasants suffered privations, to be sure, owing to Russia's economic poverty, international isolation and economic blockade, and vicious civil war against bourgeois counter-revolution.

Nonetheless, workers and unions in Russia still maintained essential control over production until the mid-1920s or so. Here is a really good piece I translated from the original French on the question of workers' control of production in revolutionary Russia - http://joanofmark.blogspot.com/2010/12/english-translation-of-lenin-and.html.

Also, if you're interested, here's a great piece written in 1922 by the American revolutionary and leading original member of the IWW, "Big" Bill Haywood. Haywood was then living in Russia and was working with the unions there (alongside Lenin) as part of the Soviet government. Here he responds to many of Emma Goldman's criticisms - http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodicals/communist_review/1922/04/emma_goldman.htm.

Before Stalin, the question of the trade unions in relation to both the working-class as a whole and the representative workers' Soviets in particular was hotly debated within the Russian Communist Party. However, the clearest statement comes from the Tenth Party Congress in 1921, which is interesting in that Lenin argues that the trade unions in Russia must remain independent of the government and must continue to act as the protectors and defenders of the workers' interests both within the workplace and, as need be, against the increasingly bureucratized government itself.

For instance, see - http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/10th/16d-abstract.htm and http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm.
"Trade unions are not just historically necessary; they are historically inevitable as an organisation of the industrial proletariat, and, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, embrace nearly the whole of it.... It follows from what I have said that the trade unions have an extremely important part to play at every step of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But what is their part? I find that it is a most unusual one, as soon as I delve into this question, which is one of the most fundamental theoretically. On the one hand, the trade unions, which take in all industrial workers, are an organisation of the ruling, dominant, governing class, which has now set up a dictatorship and is exercising coercion through the state. But it is not a state organisation; nor is it one designed for coercion, but for education. It is an organisation designed to draw in and to train; it is, in fact, a school: a school of administration, a school of economic management, a school of communism. It is a very unusual type of school, because there are no teachers or pupils; this is an extremely unusual combination of what has necessarily come down to us from capitalism, and what comes from the ranks of the advanced revolutionary detachments, which you might call the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. To talk about the role of the trade unions without taking these truths into account is to fall straight into a number of errors." - Lenin, 1920

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Class Origin and Basis of Anarchist Ideology: A Marxist Appraisal, or, Anarchism as the ideology of middle-class alienation

Many young people today, repulsed by the militarized, exploitative, oppressive reality of our society, are drawn towards anarchist politics. To be sure, this is a positive development. Any step that people take in the direction away from a wholehearted acceptance of the ruling ideas and assumptions of our capitalist society is something to be supported.

However, as we all know, the matter does not end there. For after one decides to try to affect social change and enters the activist foray, it becomes clear that there are a number of anti-capitalist or non-capitalist ideas out there. Sometimes these ideas seem to overlap in their goals and methods; but it is also clear that they just as often diverge. In the end, one must figure out which ideology best seems able to achieve the kind of social change one has in mind.

As a revolutionary socialist, I want to offer a broad analysis explaining the class origins and basis of anarchism -- the primary anti-capitalist alternative to that of socialism -- and the drawbacks that inevitably flow from this reality. Specifically, my contention is that anarchist thought is the ideal expression of the social position of the various middle class(es) of history. Oppressed by the ruling class, yet unable to replace the ruling class' political dominance with that of its own, the middle class finds itself in a state of eternal rebellion against seemingly alien powers representing other classes' interests.

(NOTE: This is most certainly not to say that all people who consider themselves anarchist are necessarily middle class).

A quick word to avoid confusion. Oftentimes on the left, the term "middle class" is used as a sort of flip pejorative against a competing ideology. In many of these instances, such usage of the term is less born of an actual historical analysis of an opposing set of ideas, but rather as a simple means to end an unpleasant conversation. This is not how I employ the term. In this article, the term "middle class" is exclusively meant to describe those social layers of a given society that stand between or outside of the primary classes. By primary classes I mean those socioeconomic groups of people that wield palpable weight over the entirety of that society (either "from above" or "from below", actively or potentially), owing to their integral position within the dominant relations of economic production of that society (i.e., the way society is organized so as to meet its needs and physically reproduce itself).

Moreover, my aim in attempting a critical analysis of anarchism is not to discount the important efforts of many of today's activists who identify as anarchist, nor ignore the important historical contributions of the anarchist movement to the fight against oppression and exploitation. Neither am I attempting to claim that anarchism has never been espoused by working-class people -- even large groups of working-class people.

Nonetheless, a scientific attempt at understanding the material basis of an ideology cannot rest exclusively on what class or group of people may support it at a given moment. For instance, if in a moment of political reaction a group of workers come to support the anti-union ideology of their bosses, this does not mean that we must abandon the notion that this ideology is objectively an expression and product of the capitalist class. The true indication of an ideology's social counterpart in the material world is not who happens to espouse it, but rather whose interests it embodies; whose actual conditions of existence it is an ideal expression of.

To begin with, what is anarchism? Though there are myriad different strands of anarchism -- many of which would be loath to admit kinship with each other -- there is a commonality to them all. In essence, this commonality is a basic rejection of the state (i.e., government) and an opposition (at least in theory) to 'hierarchy' in the broadest sense; that is, to the authority exerted by one person or group over another.

In the words of the popular contemporary anarchist writer, Cindy Milstein, anarchism "stands for the absence of both domination (mastery or control over another) and hierarchy (ranked power relations of dominance and subordination)," and that "[f]rom its beginnings, anarchism's core aspiration has been to root out and eradicate all coercive, hierarchical social relations and dream up and establish consensual, egalitarian ones in every instance" (http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/lex_anarchism_master.pdf).

Thursday, March 8, 2012

A debate with an anarchist on the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution of 1917

I am able here to only reprint part of the debate, but it is interesting nonetheless, even if taken in media res.

===

Anarchist:

Lenin and Trotsky had frantically managed to position themselves as ‘leaders’ by October, yes, but that doesn’t mean that their tactics precipitated the revolution. Read Trotsky’s “history of the Russian revolution” where he admits this openly : He writes: “‘The soldiers lagged behind the shop com­mittees. The committees lagged behind the masses … The party also lagged behind the revolutionary dynamic - an organisation which had the least right to lag, especially in a time of revolution … The most rev­olutionary party which human history until this time had ever known was nevertheless caught unawares by the events of history. It recon­structed itself in the fires, and straightened out its ranks under the onslaught of events. The masses at the turning point were a hundred times to the left of the extreme left party” The Bolsheviks actually OPPOSED the Petrograd strikes in February, urging workers to wait till mayday and were rightfully ignored. Trotsky admits that the Bolsheviks had no role in instigating the revolution, why can’t you?

The October coup merely replaced one bourgeois government with another. The article you link to describes the set up of what Lenin called ‘workers control’, but in practice it was anything but [the article being referenced here on "Lenin and workers' control" can be found on this blog at
http://joanofmark.blogspot.com/2010/12/english-translation-of-lenin-and.html]. Yes, workers had voted for them in large numbers late in 1917 (they were the party promising most workers power after all), but as early as 1918 these promises were being exposed as opportunistic lies. No land was to be given to the peasants. Workers found that they were banned from going on strike, they were not allowed to form independent trade unions or elect whoever they chose to the Soviets.

Let me ask you this: if the Soviet system as set up by the Bolsheviks in 1917 was so democratic, what happened when they failed to elect Bolsheviks? What happened when Mensheviks and SRs won majorities, as they did in Tula, Kostroma, Briansk, and many many other industrial centres in 1918? They were ALL disbanded by FORCE. There’s your Bolshevik ‘democracy’.

As Volin wrote in ‘the voice of Labour in 1917’, “‘Once their power has been consolidated and legalised, the Bolsheviks, as state socialists, that is as men who believe in centralised and authoritarian leadership - will start running the life of the country and of the people from the top. Your soviets … will gradually become simple tools of the central government … You will soon see the inauguration of an authoritarian political and state apparatus that will crush all opposition with an iron fist… “All power to the soviets” will become “all power to the leaders of the Party”

History proved him 100% right.



===


My Rebuttal:

First of all, let me say that I sympathize with your clear antipathy to authoritarianism and oppression, which I share. However, I think your reading of the Russian revolution and the behavior of the Bolshevik Party is misguided and incorrect.

You claim that the Bolsheviks did not instigate the revolution and intimate that the only role they played between February and October was to "position" themselves as leaders. I will not contest that the Bolsheviks weren't the "instigators" the revolution; that the whole thing was simply orchestrated by the Party, No genuine mass revolution in history has been this way. However, the Bolsheviks did play a very important role in the whole period leading up to February 1917, and certainly between February and October.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

English translation of "Lenin and Workers' Control," by Didier Limon (1967)

Lenin and workers’ control

Didier-L. LIMON

------------------------------------------------------------

Published: Paris, December 1967, Autogestion: études, débats, documents, cahier no. 4, pp. 65-111.
Translated and Edited: Keith Rosenthal, December 2010

Editor’s Note: This phenomenal, historical and analytical study has, until now, not been translated into English. This is a shame on many levels for it stands nearly peerless in its meticulous treatment of the specific subject it takes up. That is, the debates and discussions surrounding the implementation of workers’ control of production within the first months after the October revolution of 1917 in Russia.

Didier Limon’s study goes in-depth to flesh out the various political tendencies, forces, and organizations at play during this pivotal moment in the revolution’s history. There’s little doubt as to where Limon’s political inclinations lay in all of this, namely, with the Bolsheviks, and more specifically, with Lenin’s approach to the question. Nonetheless, one cannot claim that he has failed to present the first-hand views of the various actors in this drama, and thus provides the reader with a clear, multi-dimensional picture of this centrally-important question to any socialist revolution, as it played out in the days when Russia was controlled by its working class.

One final note on this translation; I do not pretend in any way to be an expert in French-English translations. Indeed, I hope that such an expert will one day be inspired to give this article a much more professional touch. To this end, I am supplying the original French version of this article, which can be accessed at the following link, https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Zdv5hwi_o6Vmw1bGoyVHRUU3lSTzRUdGxRa2lOQQ. The only reason I tried my hand at this task was because, first of all, I was so delighted upon recently discovering this article that I wanted to share it with a broader audience, and second, given that the article was not available in English, I thought it better for there to be at least a less-than-perfect translated version of this article rather than no translated version at all.

In any event, while I cannot guarantee the reader that the following is a flawless translation, I can most definitely guarantee that in all its essentials, the following is an accurate representation of the arguments, facts, and details as penned by Limon some forty years ago.

All citations and footnotes are those of the original author, unless otherwise noted.


------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The makings of a response to Wetzel & Brinton (or, Were Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks Really Just Evil Despots?)

=http://ideasandaction.info/2010/11/debate-with-the-international-socialist-organization/#identifier_5_474
http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/02.htm#fn67
http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/06.htm#h1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1971/xx/kronstadt.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1972/no052/brinton.htm#reply
http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1975/factory-committees.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/introduction.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/supplem/decept.html
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6wrx8djlr3k5t6h/limon%20lenine%20controle%20ouvrier.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/file/svsl0mnzpm22ij4/Trotsky%20-%20Tenth%20Party%20Congress%201921.pdf
http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/trotsky-tenth-party-congress-30092010#comment-400154
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/9th/01.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/10th/16d-abstract.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/10th/16c.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/10th/16b.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/10th/16.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/10th/15-abstract.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/11th/02.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/27.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/may/26.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25a.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/origins.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/26.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article1.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm
http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/8thcong/ch01.htm
http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jul/04.htm#bk2
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/04.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jan/10.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jan/20.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/07.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm#bk11
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jun/28.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/14.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jan/x01.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jan/17.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x02.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/dec/05.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/05.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/04b.htm#1.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/29.htm#fw3
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/sep/25.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/19.htm#bk02
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/01.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm#bk01
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/06.htm#bk07
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/23b.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/24.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm


http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shliapnikov/1922/appeal.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shliapnikov/1921/workers-opposition.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shliapnikov/1920/theses.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/party-congress/11th/02.htm
http://marxists.org/archive/lozovsky/1920/russrevunion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Democratic_Centralism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/apr/12.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1943/04/intro-trotsky.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timofei_Sapronov
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1971/xx/introis.htm#f5
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1943/fnc/nc02.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/ch01.htm#f2


http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1990/trotsky2/11-warcomm.html#p6
Tenth Parthy Congress, March 1921, Trotsky argues for militarization of labor, "shake-up" in the trade unions on the part of the Soviet state, rejecting trade union autonomy from workers' state, and that Soviet dictatorship trumps democracy (See English translation of Trotsky's speech here).

Trotsky roundly denounced by Lenin, voted down by Tenth Party Congree in favor of Lenin's opposed proposal, Trotsky nearly loses seat on Central Committee.

Trotsky later says he was wrong & that Lenin was correct.

Exactly one year later, in a prepared speech for the Fourth World Congress of the Cominter (Nov 1922), Trotsky clarifies his position on the trade unions (stark contrast to his 1921 arguments):

"Naturally the legend spread by the reformists that Plans are afoot to subordinate the trade unions organizationally to the party must be unconditionally denounced and exposed. Trade unions embrace workers of different political shadings as well as non-party men, atheists as well as believers, whereas the party unites political co-thinkers on the basis of a definite program. The party has not and cannot have any instrumentalities and methods for subjecting the trade unions to itself from the outside.
The party can gain influence in the life of the trade unions only to the extent that its members work in the trade unions and carry out the party point of view there. The influence of party members in the trade unions naturally depends on their numerical strength and especially on the degree to which they are able to apply party principles correctly, consistently and expediently to the needs of the trade-union movement.
The party has the right and the duty to aim to conquer, along the road above outlined, the decisive influence in the trade-union organization. It can achieve this goal only provided the work of the Communists in the trade unions is wholly and exclusively harmonized with the principles of the party and is invariably conducted under its control." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/12/lenin.htm
http://www.isreview.org/issues/71/featrev-trotsky.shtml
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/02/tu.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch38.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch39.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1979/trotsky/ch2.htm#f7
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1989/xx/broue.html#f1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky#Trade_union_debate_.281920.E2.80.931921.29
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/ilo/1923-lo/ch01.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/broue/works/1971/ussr/ch07.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1910/xx/intell.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1989/11/vanguard.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch05.htm#ch05-2
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch00.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1907/1905/ch08.htm#f1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1907/1905/ch24.htm#f1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1907/1905/ch26.htm#f1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/ourrevo/ch05.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/12/faction.htm


http://marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1919/xx/dictdem.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/09/11.htm#n5
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodicals/communist_review/1922/04/emma_goldman.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/unions/iww/1921/0900-gannett-haywoodmoscow
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1920s/21_11_19.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1920s/29_x01.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1910s/19_04_28.htm


http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1918/0316-debs-russia.pdf
"The Revolution in Russia is now in its most critical stages. The near future will determine whether or not the Bolsheviki can maintain their supremacy. They represent the peasants, the workers, and the soldiers — the great bulk of the population. Their demand is the land to the peasants who till it and the tools to the workers who use them. This means real democracy, for which the Russian people alone are fighting in the present war . . . the Bolsheviki, the representatives and the only representatives of real democracy in Russia."

http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/groups/fsr/1922/0401-debs-appealforfsr.pdf

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Kronstadt and Anarchism

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Petrichenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks
http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm
A Look At Kronstadt 1921 | James Hinchee

Kronstadt Index at Marxists.org
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/kronstadt/index.htm

Socialists on Kronstadt
An Anarchist on Russia: A Reply to Emma Goldman | William 'Big Bill' Haywood
Kronstadt: A Tragic Necessity | Abbie Bakan
Hue & Cry Over Kronstadt | Trotsky
The Truth About Kronstadt | John Wright
More on the Suppression of Kronstadt | Trotsky
The Tax in Kind | Lenin
The Fifth Wheel | Trotsky
1921 and All That | Brian Pearce
The Russian civil war: a Marxist analysis | Trudell
Kronstadt 1921: Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution | 4th Intl
Kronstadt and the
Defeat of the Russian Revolution | Chris Harman

Kronstadt Takes Up Arms | Cliff

Victor Serge on Kronstadt
Kronstadt | Victor Serge
Once More: Kronstadt | Serge
Serge-Trotsky Debate
http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1938/10/25.htm
Victor Serge's Early Bolshevism | Peter Sedgwick

Paul Avrich (anarchist) on Kronstadt
Selections from Kronstadt 1921 | Paul Avrich ("the historian can sympathize with the rebels and still concede that the Bolsheviks were justified in subduing them" - page 6)

Emma Goldman on Kronstadt
Trotsky Protests Too Much | Emma Goldman
Kronstadt | Emma Goldman

Anarchist Violence Against the Bolshevik Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Russia#Anarchists_during_the_Third_Russian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Failed_assassinations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks#Anarchist_attacks

Trotsky & Lenin on Anarchism
--Trotsky--
My First Exile, My Life
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism, 1909
The July Days, History of the Russian Revolution
The Makhno Movement, 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets, 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised?, 1920
Contradictions Between the Economic Successes of the Ussr and the Bureaucratization of the Regime, 1932
--Lenin--
Anarchism and Socialism, 1901
Guerilla Warfare, 1906
Socialism and War, 1914
State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists, 1917

===

Anarchism vs. Marxism
Marx and Engels on Anarchism
Anarchism: A Marxist Criticism | Molyneux
Anarchism | Paul D'Amato
Marxism & Anarchism | Blackledge
Another side of anarchism | Birchall
The relevance of anarchism | Arblaster
Contemporary Anarchism | Kerl
The Makhno Myth | Yanowitz
EMMA GOLDMAN: A life of controversy | Selfa
In defense of Leon Trotsky | Gasper
ANARCHY IN THE UK? | Stack
Trotsky | Hallas
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War | Bailey
Proudhon: Father of anarchism | Hal Draper
Anarchist Libertarianism? | IS Canada
Bakunin's antisemitism and his 'invisible dictatorship'
Bakunin vs. Marx | Diemer
Marx vs. Bakunin | Woods
The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict | Robertson

Links on Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin
http://joanofmark.blogspot.com/2011/01/proudhon-bakunin.html