A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017 | of 2018

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Spaine, puerto real cnt es: The massacres of anarchists in the Russian Revolution of Trotsky Lenin and Stalin (ca) [machine translation]

Date Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:37:43 +0300


"The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat is always tyranny and freedom can not be achieved through tyranny." Ricardo Flores Magón. February 14, 1921 ---- (Taken from Juan Manuel Ferrario, Rosario, Argentina, 2005) ---- The Argentine editor of the blog does not identify with the anarchist ideology of the author of the text, but believes it necessary to clarify all the crimes and outrages that were committed in the name of the revolution by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin. We tried to dismantle the "pink" legend about the first phase of the Russian Revolution in which the Lenin Party was the true representative of the workers and there was a real democracy in the Soviets.
Once a Latin American social activist, he said that in order to understand the 20th century it was necessary to carefully analyze the Russian Revolution, the Mexican Revolution and the Libertarian Revolution in Spain. In fact, these three processes provide many keys to unravel the tragic evolution of oppressed and exploited classes and sectors. It is also necessary to clarify the role played in each of these struggles by the different protagonists.

From the Russian Revolution various testimonies have been given, the Bolsheviks occupied themselves and they deal with telling an official story that skims fundamental data, for example the antecedents of the first soviets or workers' and popular councils of 1905. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, troika The main power of those who take power in Russia from October 1917, appear as the proletariat's champions, when in fact they were the ones who forged the mechanisms of a sinister state capitalism that oppressed, exploited millions of people. Mijail Bakunin's remarks to Karl Marx, about the militarization of society that would imply the survival of the state machinery after a socialist revolution, have been punctually fulfilled. The annihilation of the Soviets of the Baltic (Kronstadt 1921) and the Makotovist guerrilla,

Years later, in Spain they persecuted those who promoted the self-management of fields, factories and workshops, assassinated social fighters such as Camillo Berneri (May 1937), preferred the triumph of fascism to the establishment of a libertarian communist society, with federalism, social justice and freedom. Among others, Piort Kropotkin and Emma Goldman early pointed out the error of centralizing power, not eliminating the mechanisms of bureaucracy. Ironies of fate when the then leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, launched Glasnost and Perestroika from a building on Kropotkin Avenue, the leader of the CPSU, acknowledged in a way the criticisms expressed by the anarchist fighter over sixty years before.

We live in a cruel world, in which capitalism does not stop annihilating lives, afiatar mechanisms of exploitation and barbarism, in many cases like China hand in hand with parties calling themselves communists. The true history is written by the peoples with their sacrifice, their pains and their courage. These pages tell us about a portion of the history they intended to erase, our challenge is to rescue it from oblivion, because the injustices of yesterday persist and the road to travel requires memory and recognition for those women and men who made solidarity a dignified and effulgent flag. Flag that we wield with courage and joy in the struggle for the integral emancipation of individuals and peoples. For a society without exploiters or exploited, without oppressors or oppressed. Carlos A. Solero Rosario,

Introduction.

One of the reasons why I chose to take these subjects is because they are almost unknown issues of the Russian revolution, which were obscured or distorted by right and left historians. So only in the bibliography of anarchist historians could I obtain data and an important development of these problems as well as the reading of direct sources was possible. In the case of professional historians such as Hewllett Carr, the events of Kronstadt and Makhnovism are only superficially named and there is no detailed analysis of these issues specifically. As for Marxist and Bolshevik historiography, I use a brochure of S. Chernomordik, entitled "Makhno and the Makhnovist movement," which gives the Bolshevik vision of what happened in Ukraine. It should be noted that there is not much Marxist literature on these issues. There is a written by Leon Trotsky in English entitled "Hue and cry over Kronstadt", and edited in 1938, which is his justification with respect to Kronstadt, but I could not use it since there was no edition in Spanish of it. Instead he took his work "Terrorism and Communism", where he does not stop at what happened in Kronstadt but at least he alludes to that. The opinion of Lenin and Trotsky in this regard can also be seen in notes of them appearing in the Russian newspaper "Pravda", transcribed by Paul Avrich. It must be remembered that when most of the works on these subjects were written, there was still the Soviet Union as such, and the secret files had not yet been analyzed. There is a written by Leon Trotsky in English entitled "Hue and cry over Kronstadt", and edited in 1938, which is his justification with respect to Kronstadt, but I could not use it since there was no edition in Spanish of it. Instead he took his work "Terrorism and Communism", where he does not stop at what happened in Kronstadt but at least he alludes to that. The opinion of Lenin and Trotsky in this regard can also be seen in notes of them appearing in the Russian newspaper "Pravda", transcribed by Paul Avrich. It must be remembered that when most of the works on these subjects were written, there was still the Soviet Union as such, and the secret files had not yet been analyzed. There is a written by Leon Trotsky in English entitled "Hue and cry over Kronstadt", and edited in 1938, which is his justification with respect to Kronstadt, but I could not use it since there was no edition in Spanish of it. Instead he took his work "Terrorism and Communism", where he does not stop at what happened in Kronstadt but at least he alludes to that. The opinion of Lenin and Trotsky in this regard can also be seen in notes of them appearing in the Russian newspaper "Pravda", transcribed by Paul Avrich. It must be remembered that when most of the works on these subjects were written, there was still the Soviet Union as such, and the secret files had not yet been analyzed. but I could not use it since there was no edition in Spanish of it. Instead he took his work "Terrorism and Communism", where he does not stop at what happened in Kronstadt but at least he alludes to that. The opinion of Lenin and Trotsky in this regard can also be seen in notes of them appearing in the Russian newspaper "Pravda", transcribed by Paul Avrich. It must be remembered that when most of the works on these subjects were written, there was still the Soviet Union as such, and the secret files had not yet been analyzed. but I could not use it since there was no edition in Spanish of it. Instead he took his work "Terrorism and Communism", where he does not stop at what happened in Kronstadt but at least he alludes to that. The opinion of Lenin and Trotsky in this regard can also be seen in notes of them appearing in the Russian newspaper "Pravda", transcribed by Paul Avrich. It must be remembered that when most of the works on these subjects were written, there was still the Soviet Union as such, and the secret files had not yet been analyzed.

Explained all this I point out that I was always interested in revolutions, but in all I saw a constant: the revolutions began with gestures of heroism and immense ideals, but in the short or long, every revolution was degenerated, and with the passage from time their original ideals were lost. There was only one parody of revolution left. This can be seen in the Russian revolution, in the Cuban revolution, in Nicaragua, in China or any other revolution. This will give rise to our hypothesis regarding whether State and Revolution are compatible. If we can reach socialism through the State or if we really get away from it when we approach it. But this will be analyzed later and will be developed and justified throughout the text.

Goals.

-Rescue two almost forgotten facts of the Russian Revolution such as the Kronstadt uprising and the emergence and annihilation of the Makhnovist movement.

-Find and point out the differences between Bolsheviks and anarchists, and see the projects that the latter had in Russia.

-To demonstrate with this analysis that the character of "utopian" and "idealistic dreamers" of which the anarchists are accused is a fiction. Anarchism was practiced in both Ukraine and Kronstadt and it was carried to its ultimate consequences.

- To begin to see if the germs of Stalinism were not already present here with the massacres committed in the repression, if it is not a direct consequence to see how far the first Bolshevism resembles during the "communism of war" and Stalinism.

-Generate more questions than answers regarding the emergence and finalization of the Russian Revolution, denaturing the ideas and official discourses that are on it.

-Separate the idea of State and Revolution, showing that it is two different and opposite things.

- Demonstrate the authoritarian, genocidal and centralizing nature of Bolshevism, not for apologetic purposes but based on concrete facts such as the huge numbers of workers and peasants executed in the name of the "revolutionary government of workers and peasants" or imprisoned in concentration camps, not with Stalin, but before, between 1920 and 1921, with Lenin in power, and condemned to die of hunger or pestilence.

- To point out that the concept of a "good" Lenin surrounded by a "bad" environment is erroneous, as was the idea of a "good" czar surrounded by "bad" courtiers, since Lenin himself was the one who integrated Stalin into the central committee of the Communist Party, and it was Lenin, shortly before his death, who appointed him to Stalin, as General Secretary of the Communist Party.

The anarchists in the Russian Revolution.

The most important events in which the Russian anarchists participated were two: on the one hand in the conformation of the Makhnovist movement that spread throughout the Ukraine between 1918 and 1921 and whose name is due to its guerrilla leader, Néstor Makhno; On the other hand, there are the "events of Kronstadt", a Russian city in which the Bolsheviks, already in power, murdered thousands of sailors who went on strike when they saw the first signs of the formation of the red bureaucracy, and of the distortion of the main objectives of the Russian Revolution.

In Ukraine, for an entire 3 years anarchy was practiced with the expropriation of lands, the libertarian schools were created following the model of the Spanish pedagogue and anarchist Francisco Ferrer, shot in Spain in 1909, whose education project was that of the secular schools with naturalistic and rational training. At the same time there is the elimination of money, the consolidation of the Gulái-Polé Soviet, the destruction of prisons and the release of all prisoners. Hundreds of socialized farming communities are also created in Ukraine, the best known of which was the "Rosa Luxemburg" community, set on fire by the Bolsheviks after defeating the Makhnovists. Finally there is the formation of an entire non-regular army of peasant guerrillas, who rotated their posts so as not to generate bureaucracies.

It should be noted that, even in the worst moments, the Makhnovists never used the obligatory grain requisitions on the peasants to feed the army. The internationalist and classist project of Makhnovism differs from the Ukrainian nationalists of bourgeois origin who were only looking for the independence of Ukraine with respect to Russia and for the German occupation after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, who were also staunch anti-Semites, having killed 100,000 Jews. The nationalists were under the leadership of Petliura, later assassinated by the anarchist Schulin, in an attack committed in 1926, as a way to avenge the murdered Jews.

Los machnovistas y anarquistas en general, a diferencia de los bolcheviques, luchaban por las comunas federadas y los soviets descentralizados, con administraciones locales. Los anarquistas no querían dirigir la revolución sino acompañarla. Mientras los marxistas hablan de revolución política, los anarquistas hablan mas bien de una revolución social. No quieren que cambie un gobierno por otro, sino eliminar de la faz de la tierra a todo principio de autoridad, ya se trate de una monarquía, de una república más o menos democrática o de cualquier tipo de dictadura, así se la haga en nombre del proletariado. Los anarquistas no creen que se llegue al socialismo, si el poder mismo esta centralizado, y no socializado. Para el anarquista su fin, son los medios mismos. Por eso no creen en la toma del poder. Para el marxista estatista, el fin (el socialismo) justifica los medios (dictadura del proletariado, centralismo político, persecuciones indiscriminadas). Por último, los anarquistas creen en la revolución hecha por las masas, no en las vanguardias dirigentes como creen los bolcheviques.

To justify our hypothesis to develop later, we could take the book "The State and the Revolution", by Lenin, and the essay with the same name, by Luiggi Fabbri, there is also a work by Rudolf Rocker, called "Bolshevism and anarchism" and another from Fabbri himself, entitled "Dictatorship and Revolution." All these works analyze the relationship of the State with the revolution and would serve to demonstrate what is affirmed in our hypothesis or prove otherwise. The same can be said of Kronstadt, there a whole city rose up against the Bolshevism that was already hegemonic, despite the threats of repression the population rose up in arms and went to the ultimate consequences. We are talking about a city whose half of the population was decimated. Paul Avrich compares the commune of Kronstadt with the Paris Commune of 1871. In Kronstadt, the population did nothing more than follow Lenin's slogan of "all power to the Soviets" ("and not to the parties"). marinos), slogan then abandoned by the Bolshevik leader. The rebels of this city opposed what they called the "comisariocracy", created the Provisional Revolutionary Committee demanding free elections, not feeling represented by the Bolshevik envoys, in turn imprisoning the Bolshevik general Kuzmin and facing the aerial bombardments of the Bolsheviks. The sailors and workers of the city created a free commune that lasted 16 days. imprisoning in turn the Bolshevik general Kuzmin and facing the aerial bombings of the Bolsheviks. The sailors and workers of the city created a free commune that lasted 16 days. imprisoning in turn the Bolshevik general Kuzmin and facing the aerial bombings of the Bolsheviks. The sailors and workers of the city created a free commune that lasted 16 days.

The Makhnovist movement

As far as the Makhnovist movement is concerned, we can say that it arose in 1918, when the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, of peace with Germany. Russia came from the First World War and together with the defeat of the Russo-Japanese war, the Tsarist empire had weakened as never before, which led to great discontent in the population and to be one of the causes of the near revolution that already it appeared.

Ukraine had ceased to be an independent nation when the Tsarist empire took over, but much of its population had never ceased to feel the desire for freedom and autonomy. Ukraine was a marginal zone of the empire, and was a traditional refuge of bandits and rebels, it was a border area. (1) The importance of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk lies in the fact that, when the Russians withdraw from the war, the Ukraine is very defenseless, which results in the Austro-Germans invading this area and putting them in charge of "Hetman" "to Skoropadsky, an authority at the service of the invader. The response to the German occupation was not long in coming, there are great peasant revolts in Ukraine, and towards the end of 1918 the Makhnovist army was born in the town of Gulái-Polé, birthplace of Néstor Machno, this army will overthrow the "

Machno had been born in 1889, around 1909 he was related to the anarchist groups of Russia and soon the Czarist police put him prisoner by agitator and anarchist attentive. In 1917, in the middle of the Russian Revolution, the peasants who already worshiped the figure of Machno for their courage, assaulted prisons and freed many political prisoners, among them Machno himself. (2) Once the civil war started, between 1918 and 1921 the Makhnovists faced several enemies. Once Skoropadsky is overthrown, the Makhnovists defend themselves against the attacks of the Tsarist army Deñikin and then Wrangel, who are trying to re-establish the monarchy. Both tsarist leaders will be overthrown by the precarious Makhno guerrillas who attack and flee, making weapons stolen from the enemy.

Petliura, leader of the Ukrainian nationalist bourgeoisie, a rightist and separatist man who aims to give the Ukrainian revolts a national character, will soon appear on the scene, but will soon face the anarchist followers of Makhno, who see that the problem is not being Russian or Ukrainian but to be proletarian or bourgeois. Before the anarchists triumph Petliura prefers to deliver them to the tsarist military, so Makhno and his men must face Deñikin, Wrangel and then Petliura.

Between 1919 and 1920 the Bolsheviks, who are already beginning to be hegemonic, begin to see the "danger" of a horizontalist and anarchic army that does not add to its red ranks. There will be several attempts to co-opt the Makhnovists, or otherwise eliminate them. Leon Trotsky will say in 1918 that "the civil war inevitably feeds anarchist tendencies in the movements of the working masses ... Psychologically a revolution means the awakening in the peasant mass of the human personality." The anarchist forms of this awakening were the inevitable consequence of the oppression existed, to arrive at the creation of a new order, based on the control of the workers themselves over the industry, is only possible through the INTERNAL persistent elimination of the anarchist tendencies of the revolution."

There is not much doubt about the contempt of the Bolshevik leaders towards the peasant (it must be remembered that the Makhnovist movement is fundamentally a peasant movement) and their contempt towards the anarchists in general. There are two non-aggression treaties signed between Makhnovists and Bolsheviks, both violated by the latter. These treaties had signed, among other things, the cessation of persecutions of the anarchists of all Russia, and the release of the anarchists arrested and imprisoned by the Bolsheviks, as well as the freedom of military decision of the Makhnovists to fight in the fronts that they considered necessary. None of this was fulfilled by the Bolsheviks, since they soon began to pressure Makhno to send him to fight in the border area with Poland, far from the Ukraine. Machno refuses, and soon the "ejector hero of Deñikin", according to Bolshevik voices on the eve of the signing of both treaties, suddenly becomes a "bandit at the service of the white generals", when disobeying. Throughout the war between the two tendencies 200,000 Makhnovists will be arrested and another 220,000 executed by the Bolsheviks. (5)

Volin tells us about this subject ... "Days before the decisive victory over Wrangel, when his defeat left no doubt, the central station of radio broadcasts in Moscow ordered all stations in the interior to interrupt his receptions, because of An urgent and absolutely secret telegram from Lenin, which was to be captured exclusively by the two central stations: Kharkov and Crimea.A Libertarian sympathizer in service at a station in the interior did not comply with the order and caught the following telegram: "Establish effective anarchists Ukraine particularly Makhnovist region. Lenin "Some days later, in the same conditions, this one was carried out:" Actively monitor all anarchists. Prepare documents, if possible of criminal nature to be able to submit them to accusation. Keep order and documents secret. Distribute necessary instructions. Lenin "And a few days later the third and last telegram was launched:" Arrest all the anarchists and incriminate them. Lenin. "(6)

In 1919, the followers of Lenin and Trotsky attack Gulái-Polé in order to trap or kill Makhno, but since they do not find him, they execute one of their brothers. Soon the differences between Marxists and anarchists are growing. (7) At the same time there is another fact, Pedro Kropotkin, geographer and biologist of great renown in the scientific fields, and one of the most recognized anarchist theorists in the world, will suffer a break-in at his home. The Bolsheviks arrest him and lock him in a villa in Dimitrov's camp, to keep him away from Moscow. Thus Lenin paid Kropotkin everything he had done for him when in 1905 he used all his influences to get Lenin out of prison, when the Tsar still reigned. (8)

On the other hand, while the Bolshevik army had a mandatory system of cam, the Makhnovists joined the army voluntarily, so that, although they were thousands, they were less than the Bolsheviks. The lack of weapons and food was another great problem for the anarchists, since by their ideology they did not have the centralizing power of the State nor the requisitioning of grains towards the peasants. The machnovism is dying to have to fight on several fronts. Many times, Bolshevik troops sent to repress the anarchists, ended up joining these seeing the revolution betrayed by the red leaders. For this reason, Lenin will send Chinese and Latvian mercenaries to repress Ukraine. On the other hand, the Red Army retained all the authoritarianism and discipline of the Tsarist army, since many of his new commissioners were former criminals, officers of tsarism. On repeated occasions the Bolsheviks used the Makhnovists for the most dangerous fronts, to weaken them and thus be able to be dominated. The different treaties violated by the Bolsheviks, demonstrated what their intentions were and what their idea of revolution. The revolution would be led by Lenin and the Bolshevik party or it would not be revolution. (9) The revolution would be led by Lenin and the Bolshevik party or it would not be revolution. (9) The revolution would be led by Lenin and the Bolshevik party or it would not be revolution. (9)

Towards 1921 the Makhnovist army is only a ghost, Makhno manages to escape with only 100 horsemen, survivors of that army. Makhno had 9 wounds in the body, one of them was a bullet in the neck that came out of his jaw. The Bolshevik repression had been enormous. Hundreds of peasants and "suspected" and "sympathetic" workers of the Makhnovists were executed by the new "representatives of the working class." Several villages are burned and many peasants are raped by Bolshevik soldiers. (10) Meanwhile, the Bolshevik press, for its part, although almost never named what happened in Ukraine, when it did simply said that it was an "army of degenerate bandits and rapists." (eleven)

Another Bolshevik accusation against the Makhnovists was to point them out as Czarist agents or in the service of the white generals scattered throughout Ukraine, a misguided argument since the Makhnovists expel Tsarist generals like Deñikin or Wrangel from the Ukraine. On the other hand the Bolsheviks, in their press, said that the Makhnovists were nationalist groups fighting for the independence of Ukraine. (12) If we remember what was the Makhnovists 'relationship with Petliura, the Ukrainian nationalist leader, then executed by the anarchist Schulim, for having killed more than 100,000 Jews, and we take into account the anarchist workers' internationalism, the Bolshevik argument falls for its own weight. Nor is it the Bolshevik argument that the Makhnovists were rich landlords,

Finally, Machno manages to escape to Romania, and then ends his days in Paris, France, where he will die in 1935, very poor and sick, with the help of other refugees. Time before dying Machno met there Buenaventura Durruti, the emblematic Spanish anarchist who was in exile in France. (13)

The events of Kronstadt.

Kronstadt is a military fortress built in the eighteenth century, and is located on the island Kotlin, north of Russia, on the Baltic Sea, very close to Finland. By the time analyzed, this port city had 50,000 inhabitants. Its importance as a city lies in the fact that both in the Tsarist era and later with the Bolsheviks, Kronstadt will be the main base of the Russian fleet.

The sailors, when traveling knew other regimes and brought many ideas from other parts of Europe. The revolutionary character of this city is historical. It had been one of the first towns to join the revolution of 1905. Then in 1906 there was a huge revolt stifled by Tsarism. Something similar happened in 1910, and in 1917 Kronstadt became "the glory of the revolution" according to Trotsky. (14) On the eve of the October revolution, 16,000 Kronstadt sailors enter this city with red and black flags. But towards 1921, its inhabitants, always defenders of the revolution, begin to suffer the abuses of the Bolshevik troops. The city has no autonomy but its local soviet begins to be permanently boycotted by Bolshevik members to comply with orders from Moscow. The discontent is increasing and during all February and March the insurrection takes place. Those who head it are the Kronstadt sailors. They demand free soviets, popular participation of their inhabitants and not of Bolshevik leaders of the capital, and in addition they are added to the enormous strikes that at that time shake Petrograd.

Tired of searches, abuses of all kinds and orders of red ex-tsarist officers, the sailors get up. The whole city supports them. The few Bolshevik envoys are expelled but many communists loyal to socialism leave the party and stay with the sailors. Here "the glory of the revolution" becomes for Trotsky "the counterrevolutionary rogue". Lenin declares the state of siege and on March 7, at 6:45 pm, the ground and air bombardments begin on the city. As many of his envoys flee and join the rebels, Lenin must send troops of Chinese mercenaries and bashkirs to suppress. With the bombings 7000 children and women are killed by the Bolsheviks. The largest number of deaths occurs on March 16, two days after Kronstadt falls. They had killed 14,000 insurgent sailors. From a city of 50,000 inhabitants the Bolsheviks killed 21,000, not counting the captured survivors, who were sent to a concentration camp in the Turkestan desert, where they died of hunger. Only a few sailors managed to escape to Finland, and others such as Alejandro Berkmann and Emma Goldman will be expelled to the United States. (fifteen)

The Bolsheviks then placed General Dybenko, who had led the bombings, as the local dictator of Kronstadt. He would see to it that no one else would have the audacity to revolt. And so Trotsky could boast: "At last the Soviet power sweeps Russia, with an iron broom, to anarchism!" The revolution was dead. (16) The Bolshevik explanations regarding what happened in Kronstadt will be many and even contradictory. First they will say that it was an uprising of Tsarist exiles commanded from Paris. Then they will say that it was an uprising of exiles, but commanded from Finland, where there were still many refugees. By those days Finland had signed a peace treaty with Russia, so the Finnish government was very careful that the Russian exiles in Finland did not disturb or harm the pact. (17) Then another argument will come, also unjustified. It will be said that the sailors of Kronstadt will have support from abroad, from powers such as England or France. While the right wing of several countries wanted to take advantage of the seamen's uprising to restore tsarism and wanted to help the sailors economically, they rejected the aid, even though they were blocked and without food.

The Kronstadt will not be an organized uprising as the Bolsheviks said, since the uprising occurred days before the first thaw, and had waited to rise during the same, the Bolshevik repression would have been very complicated since it is an island, the only thing that connected it to the continent was that immense block of ice, which when being in thaw made it impossible for the red infantry to pass by to suppress. It was not expected at that moment because the Kronstadt was something spontaneous, not something organized. In this way the Bolsheviks were able to repress, and for that reason there were no negotiations between both sectors. Trotsky saw that thaw coming, and in the face of doubt decided not to delay things. If the Kronstadt thing was expanded the "revolution", as Trotsky understood it, was in danger. In the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party, held on March 8, 1921, Lenin will say: "behind the revolt the familiar figure of the white guard appears, it is perfectly clear that this is the work of the revolutionary socialists and the White Guards emigrated. " This is absurd since between 1918 and 1920, 40,000 sailors from Kronstadt had confronted the white generals, always putting their lives to defend the revolution. On March 15, the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party continued, and thus, 7 days after his first accusation against the sailors, Lenin will say that "in Kronstadt they do not want the white guards, nor do they want our power," referring to to the sailors, but did nothing to prevent the killing that at that very moment, while he was recanting, It was taking place on the island. (18) Nor was it an uprising of Ukrainians infiltrated into the Kronstadt fleet, since although there were Ukrainians in their ranks, there were also Latvians, Estonians and Finns, but the bulk of the Kronstadt fleet was of Russian origin, many were from Moscow and Petrograd, where the revolts against the Bolshevik regime multiplied, and beyond the nations of origin, from the first to the last seaman supported the uprising because they considered it a defense against what they understood, rightly so to my understanding, as the threat of death to the revolution on the part of the red bureaucracy and the nationalization of the soviets.

The Kronstadt sailors spoke of their uprising as signaling the beginning of the "Third Revolution". In the case of Kronstadt, the Bolshevik press will also use the argument used in Ukraine, saying that the rebels were rich landowners. The falsity of this argument can be seen by observing the peasant origin of Petrichenko and the other sailors, who at the time of the uprising had their families starving in the countryside, because of the grain searches carried out by the government Bolshevik

Relationship between the Makhnovist movement and the Kronstadt events.

There are two exclusively political and geographical points of relation between Makhnovism and what happened in Kronstadt. In the first place, when the Makhnovist movement ended in 1921, conflicts began in Kronstadt in that same year. Secondly, many (although not the majority) of the sailors of the Kronstadt fleet were of Ukrainian origin, so that the experience in Ukraine could have influenced when it was time to stir the already exalted spirits of the unhappy city of Kronstadt. Petrichenko himself, the most recognized figure of the uprising in this city, was Ukrainian. (19)

On the other hand, there are those who affirm that the fugitive Néstor Machno, when expelled from the Ukraine, and on the way towards his exile towards Poland, and then towards France, could have contacted the anarchists who were in Kronstadt, wishing to take at least his ideas towards the city of the sailors. (twenty)

It is also known that both in the whole region of Ukraine and in the city of the sailors, although more in the first than in the second, numerous anarchist groups acted that fomented the open rebellion against the Bolshevik regime. But there is no conspiratorial hypothesis here because in both regions the revolts were spontaneous, and the anarchists were one of the many sectors opposed to the Bolsheviks.

Another similarity between the two processes is that in both regions Lenin sent red guards to repress, but also foreign mercenaries (in the case of Ukraine, Chinese and Latvian mercenaries are sent in Chinese Kronstadt and Bashkires) and both are ex-Tsarist officials who repress

Finally another phenomenon occurs, the sailors of Kronstadt were of peasant origin, like the guerrillas of the Ukraine, and all of them had witnessed or listened to the stories of their relatives about the obligatory requisitions of grain that they suffered on the part of the Bolshevik army, between other abuses, to feed their soldiers and the growing bureaucracy that lived in the cities. In both regions there is much more widespread anger towards the Bolsheviks, in cities such as Petrograd or regions such as Siberia that had suffered all kinds of strikes and revolts throughout 1920 and 1921.

The projects of the sailors of Kronstadt were similar to those of the Makhnovists: decentralization, free soviets, defense of the first ideals of the revolution of October 1917, desires to finish the Communism of War, etc. (twenty-one)

Final hypothesis.

The hypothesis to pose is the following: The revolution is not compatible with the State because when the new State triumphs the revolution dies. In order for the "revolutionary" State to impose itself, the revolution must subordinate itself to it, and the revolutions are not made by the parties or the statesmen but by the great masses, which will be repressed by the new State in case they do not agree with it. , in the same way that the new party in power was repressed when fighting for its conquest.

It is interesting to see how in 1923 Luiggi Fabbri predicted almost perfectly, everything that would happen in Russia later; it seems to anticipate the emergence of Stalinism. However, two years had passed since the events in Kronstadt, and analyzing that massacre it was foreseeable that if "the glory of the revolution" was savagely repressed, something much worse could be expected for the rest of the Russian population.

Conclusion.

Finalmente, creo que queda claro que un grupo o partido puede tener un discurso o una ideología muy progresista, pero que al llegar al poder empieza a olvidarse de sus principios y rápidamente lo revolucionario va dejando lugar a lo reaccionario. El movimiento se convierte en algo estático, y quien se rebela ante el nuevo orden pasa a ser un "contrarrevolucionario". Queda claro aquí que no hay nada mas derechista que los izquierdistas reprimiendo a los anarquistas. Por lo analizado en estos casos creo que Estado y Revolución no pueden convivir, para que uno de los dos triunfe es necesario que el opuesto muera. Por otra parte se puede hablar de "dictadura del proletariado", "gobierno de los trabajadores" y demás, pero sabemos que quien gobierna no trabaja, y quien trabaja no gobierna, que si no hay cambios permanentes de roles se genera una burocracia parásito y la revolución se muere. El socialismo no puede existir si los mismos espacios de poder no están socializados, si todo el poder es un monopolio del Estado centralizado, de un partido, de una vanguardia o de un líder. En el caso ruso podemos observar cómo los soviets de obreros, soldados y campesinos, pronto se convirtieron en soviets de dirigentes bolcheviques, pronto pasaría lo mismo con los sindicatos y otros espacios de poder. Hay que recordar que la estatización de los sindicatos, la borucratización y copamiento de los soviets, la militarización de las fábricas, el genocidio político y la persecución y matanza de opositores, junto a la aplicación del taylorismo explotador en las fábricas tomado del modelo norteamericano; el ejército y las levas obligatorias sumados al hambre y la miseria de millones de seres humanos a causa de la requisa autoritaria y violenta de granos y productos agrícolas, como así también la incorporación de altos jerarcas militares ex zaristas al Ejército Rojo, es decir toda esa gama de síntomas para nada revolucionarios, ya se daban entre 1918 y 1921 con Lenin y Trotsky a la cabeza, mucho antes de Stalin. Lo que hizo Stalin fue aumentar las cifras de las atrocidades cometidas por los otros dos líderes bolcheviques. Los metodos de Stalin no eran desconocidos en Rusia, al contrario, eran moneda corriente. Estos eran los líderes "revolucionarios", estos eran los "defensores" de la clase trabajadora, estos eran el "cambio" para el mundo. Habría que empezar a analizar seriamente quiénes eran en realidad los verdaderos contrarrevolucionarios y burgueses al servicio del capital.

On the other hand: What would have happened if the rest of Russia folded to the Kronstadt uprising? How far could the revolution have come if it was allowed to be? Why the rest of Russia did not fold to Kronstadt?. The answer is simple: the new Bolshevik state when it came to power, was taking over the media, then the most used were the radio and the newspaper. It must be borne in mind that the Bolsheviks monopolized the media and banned and persecuted opposition newspapers. Through these means the new State was misinforming the population to the point that the information that reached Moscow and other cities was false, and in many cities they learned of the Kronstadt massacres months after they occurred. In addition, during the period from 1918 to 1921, the lack of communication between the cities was almost total due to the destruction of bridges, routes and roads. It was very difficult to move to neighboring cities. In addition, the bulk of the revolts against the Bolsheviks were taking place during 1921, in Petrograd, Moscow and Siberia, places that also suffered Bolshevik repression. The sailors of Kronstadt expected these cities to fold to them after their uprising, but when the same occurred the other revolts had already been stifled and were not connected to each other. That is why the rest of Russia did not join the commune of Kronstadt. For the rest, it is clear that if the Russian revolution survived, and it was allowed to be, the possibilities of change would have been endless. The impact of the Russian revolution on the world was enormous, and the expectations were enormous.

For this reason, it is necessary to alert the deluded people who are currently awaiting revolutions or changes by parties of the most diverse acronyms, but with similar aims, which even today are vindicating genocide of workers and peasants like Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin, who criticize genocide like Videla (who led the massacre and disappearance of 30,000 people under the last dictatorship in Argentina, among other atrocities) but they claim to genocide as Trotsky who killed more people than the detestable Argentine military, and we are not talking about massacres of bourgeois or accomplices , but of massacres of workers and peasants in the name of socialism, justifying their opponents' hunts as "a mistake", when behind that error there is actually a dead person, and thousands of mistakes that cost thousands of lives. You have to always remember these killings,

If we talk about recovering memory, that all memory is recovered and not only things "that do not harm the party". On the other hand, we must not forget that among those who currently talk about the freedom of political prisoners in Argentina, there are those who justify political prisoners in Cuban prisons, where even today there are hundreds of anarchists imprisoned who are currently being imprisoned. rotting between its walls. As they also rotted in Russia or China under regimes called "communists." Those leftists are against this or that government, against this army or against this police, not against every government, against every army or against any police. They do not realize that the problem is the State, the authority. They want their own police, their own army, and their own jails, although they put the red color behind him. Also, if possible, they want their own ESMA, as did Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin in their respective concentration camps. It is enough to think about what would happen to us if one of these many current left parties had tomorrow the much desired power that they seek to take today. Any criticism of his authoritarianism would be branded as "petit bourgeois or counterrevolutionary influence bancada Yankee imperialism" and this booklet that is in his hands would be burned, his author arrested by the future red police with friends, family and supporters, just in case. One can still hear the occasional Trotskyist regret that in Argentina there is no longer compulsory military service, since in its authoritarian logic the Trotskyist considers that military service was a good possibility for the people to know the handling of weapons and to liberate themselves on the day of the revolution, as if self-liberation should be based on imposition, an example of a mentality Jesuit that justified compulsory military service during the Russian Revolution, trying to force the peasant to join a "liberating army" that in reality had nothing of such and that in case of denying that same "liberating" army, he shot him. A peculiar way of "liberating" the oppressed. Everything we tell on these pages is what those who filled their mouths talking about surplus value, workers and socialism, but who only sought power. And everything they did in the past, they will do it again if they have the possibility, those who still vindicate these red Machiavellians, because they do not criticize the power itself, but criticize it because it is not yet in their hands, and when they have it they will stop criticizing it, to keep it without getting out of hand, as good conservatives they are.Finally, the most important conclusion is that revolutions are made from below, or are not revolutions, that the revolution is not the work of illuminated vanguards, or parties, or leaders . In the revolutions act multiple sectors, and all must have the same possibility of making decisions. These can not be a monopoly of a party. A government can be overthrown by another that is attributed the nickname of revolutionary, this "workers and peasants government" it can forcibly requisition peasants and militarize the factories, it can kill thousands of workers and thousands of peasants in its name. An army can change its uniform and add the color red, and add to its ranks renowned repressors. You can do that and much more in the name of the most abstract ideals and phraseology, but if the revolution and the possibility of permanent change is not an end in itself, there is no change, only parodies. If one is not a socialist on the level of everyday practice and concreteness, socialism will never come. If power is not socialized, socialism is a lie. The new state can take power and repress all those who do not agree with it, but please, then let's not talk about revolution. An army can change its uniform and add the color red, and add to its ranks renowned repressors. You can do that and much more in the name of the most abstract ideals and phraseology, but if the revolution and the possibility of permanent change is not an end in itself, there is no change, only parodies. If one is not a socialist on the level of everyday practice and concreteness, socialism will never come. If power is not socialized, socialism is a lie. The new state can take power and repress all those who do not agree with it, but please, then let's not talk about revolution. An army can change its uniform and add the color red, and add to its ranks renowned repressors. You can do that and much more in the name of the most abstract ideals and phraseology, but if the revolution and the possibility of permanent change is not an end in itself, there is no change, only parodies. If one is not a socialist on the level of everyday practice and concreteness, socialism will never come. If power is not socialized, socialism is a lie. The new state can take power and repress all those who do not agree with it, but please, then let's not talk about revolution. but if the revolution and the possibility of permanent change is not an end in itself, there is no change, only parodies. If one is not a socialist on the level of everyday practice and concreteness, socialism will never come. If power is not socialized, socialism is a lie. The new state can take power and repress all those who do not agree with it, but please, then let's not talk about revolution. but if the revolution and the possibility of permanent change is not an end in itself, there is no change, only parodies. If one is not a socialist on the level of everyday practice and concreteness, socialism will never come. If power is not socialized, socialism is a lie. The new state can take power and repress all those who do not agree with it, but please, then let's not talk about revolution.

Notes.1- Volin. "The Unknown Revolution", ed. Projection. Bs.As, 1977. 2- Idem 3- Trotsky, León. "For the history of the October Revolution." (p 114) Russian edition in New York. 1920. Source quoted in the work "The Russian Revolution and Anarchism" by Anatol Gorelik. Ed. Anarchy. Bs.As, 1933.4- Radek, Carlos. "The Soviet government and the disarmament of the anarchists." Source cited by Anatol Gorelik in his already named work. It would be an edition made in Moscow, written by Radek in 1918. Remember that for that year there were already military, political and social conflicts between Makhnovists and Bolsheviks.5- While there were certain sectors of anarchism close to the Bolsheviks, known as the "anarchobolcheviks", (including Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkmann) the paranoia generated after the events of Kronstadt in 1921, made every suspect of an anarchist was shot, arrested or expelled from Russia, the latter measure was applied to Goldman and Berkmann who are exiled in United States United. According to Volin, towards 1921 the anarchist movement disappears from Russia. It is also known the case of Zensl Müsham, (the companion of the renowned Jewish poet and anarchist Erich Müsham, killed by the Nazis in 1934) who was 13 years under the regime of Stalin, but by then a living anarchist in Russia was a rarity . 6- Volin. op. cit. p180.7- Rocker, Rudolf. "Bolshevism and anarchism." Editorial Rebuild. Bs.As., 1959.8- BRB "Remembering Pedro Kropotkin". Acratas Editions "El Sembrador". Andorra, Teruel. No year of editing. You can also see the "Letter of Kropotkin to Lenin", March 4, 1920. There Kropotkin will tell Lenin, among other things: "As you live in the center of Moscow (by then Lenin lived in the Kremlin, luxurious palace formerly home of the Tsar) he does not know the true situation of the country, he should go to the provinces, get in touch with the people, share his desires, jobs and calamities, be with the hungry-adults and children-bear the innumerable inconveniences that arise at the moment of obtaining a miserable oil lamp, and I would reach conclusions that could be summed up in one: the need to find a way to a life in better conditions, otherwise we will soon fall into a bloody catastrophe. " Note that the letters of Kropotkin never received an answer, far from that, Lenin only managed to surround the villa of Kropotkin, several red guards. A year later the wise and Russian anarchist died. 9- Why do we affirm this? Because for the Bolshevik leaders in general, with their ideology of "revolutionary vanguards" and "professional revolutionaries", any opponent of their ideas, be it a left-wing revolutionary socialist, a Menshevik, a Democrat, a liberal or an anarchist, he was a "counterrevolutionary", "petty-bourgeois", "at the service of English capitalism", "agent of German imperialism or of the Czarist refugees of Finland". For this mentality, which claims to be the owner and guide of the revolution, which monopolizes power, There is no possibility that there are revolutionaries outside of their party, who may not share their concept of "revolution". That anarchists and left-wing revolutionary socialists have demonstrated since the early 1900s their capacity for organization, rebellion and destabilization of the tsarist regime, through strikes, attacks, armed insurrections and factory takeovers, for the Bolsheviks did not matter. Who opposed the party, automatically opposed the revolution, for the Bolsheviks. They were the revolution, and not others. Therefore, there was no room for criticism. For those who dared to say that they were going to the counterrevolution on their way, the concentration camps created between 1920 and 1921, prison, execution, exile or death by hunger awaited him. The heroic Maria Spironodova, emblematic figure of the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, which had committed several attacks throughout Russia against the Tsar and his regime, will be released from prison at the beginning of the revolution, but will soon oppose the policy of the Bolsheviks, and these the They arrest again, dying sick in jail. The same fate will run other legendary members of his party, pioneers in the clashes against Tsarism, imprisoned and killed by the Bolsheviks. For more information, Archinoff, Pedro. "History of the Makhnovist movement" (1918-1921). Editorial Argonauta. Bs.As. 1926 and "The Subterranean Russia", by Stepniak, Editorial Americalee, Buenos Aires, 1945.10- Machno, Néstor. "The Russian Revolution in Ukraine", volume I. Editorial Vértice, Barcelona (No edition year). It should be noted that the majority of the few survivors of the Makhnovist guerrilla, unbelievably, will go as volunteer internationalists to fight against fascism in Spain at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, always in pursuit of anarchy and social revolution, despite have miraculously escaped from Russia and made a rag, full of wounds. This figure is highlighted by Christian Ferrer in his book "Cabezas de Tormenta", Utopia Libertarian Collection, Bs. As., 2004.11- Chernomordik, S. "Majno and the movement majnovista". Publications Edeya. Barcelona. Chernomordik is the pseudonym of P. Sarianof.12 This can be seen in the pamphlet of the Bolshevik S. Chernomordik, as well as in some issues of the newspaper "Pravda", cited and transcribed by Volin or by Pedro Archinoff.13- Volin op. cit. On the encounter between Machno and Durruti can be seen "Durruti in the Spanish Revolution", by Abel Paz, edited by the Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation in Madrid, in 1996. 14- Volin op.cit15- Petrichenko, leader of the Kronstadt insurrection, will flee to Finland after the fall of Kronstadt, through the United States, but after the Second World War will be repatriated to Stalin's Russia, where he will be locked in a concentration camp, dying there in 1947, in terrible living conditions.16 - Avrich, Paul. "Kronstadt 1921". Projection Editorial. Bs. As. 1973. What Trotsky could not see is that a short time later he too would be swept out of Russia with an iron broom by the same political system that he had defended and with the same methods of terror that he had used, to later be assassinated in Mexico by Stalinist envoys. Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and Marshal Tukhachevsky (military repressor of workers in the time of the Tsar, then placed in the Red Army by Lenin and Trotsky, and one of those responsible for the Kronstadt massacre in 1921), Lenin's four pimps and after Stalin, they would die executed by order of it in the purges carried out between 1934 and 1938, along with thousands of other Bolshevik leaders. For more information, read "Stalin", Jacinto Toryho's book, Editorial Americalee, Bs. As., 1946.17- Avrich, Paul. op cit.18- Avrich, Paul. op cit. See, above all, on page 99 and 130.19- Avrich, Paul. op cit.20- Volin. op.cit.21- Avrich, Paul. op.cit. and Marshal Tukhachevsky (military repressor of workers in the time of the Tsar, then placed in the Red Army by Lenin and Trotsky, and one of those responsible for the Kronstadt massacre in 1921), the four panderers of Lenin and then Stalin, would die executed by order of the latter in the purges carried out between 1934 and 1938, together with thousands of other Bolshevik leaders. For more information, read "Stalin", Jacinto Toryho's book, Editorial Americalee, Bs. As., 1946.17- Avrich, Paul. op cit.18- Avrich, Paul. op cit. See, above all, on page 99 and 130.19- Avrich, Paul. op cit.20- Volin. op.cit.21- Avrich, Paul. op.cit. and Marshal Tukhachevsky (military repressor of workers in the time of the Tsar, then placed in the Red Army by Lenin and Trotsky, and one of those responsible for the Kronstadt massacre in 1921), the four panderers of Lenin and then Stalin, would die executed by order of the latter in the purges carried out between 1934 and 1938, together with thousands of other Bolshevik leaders. For more information, read "Stalin", Jacinto Toryho's book, Editorial Americalee, Bs. As., 1946.17- Avrich, Paul. op cit.18- Avrich, Paul. op cit. See, above all, on page 99 and 130.19- Avrich, Paul. op cit.20- Volin. op.cit.21- Avrich, Paul. op.cit. they would die executed by order of this one in the purges carried out between 1934 and 1938, next to other thousands of Bolshevik leaders. For more information, read "Stalin", Jacinto Toryho's book, Editorial Americalee, Bs. As., 1946.17- Avrich, Paul. op cit.18- Avrich, Paul. op cit. See, above all, on page 99 and 130.19- Avrich, Paul. op cit.20- Volin. op.cit.21- Avrich, Paul. op.cit. they would die executed by order of this one in the purges carried out between 1934 and 1938, next to other thousands of Bolshevik leaders. For more information, read "Stalin", Jacinto Toryho's book, Editorial Americalee, Bs. As., 1946.17- Avrich, Paul. op cit.18- Avrich, Paul. op cit. See, above all, on page 99 and 130.19- Avrich, Paul. op cit.20- Volin. op.cit.21- Avrich, Paul. op.cit.

Bibliography · Anonymous. "Unsustainable anarchism." Insurrectional anarchism in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Insurgent editions. Published in November 2002. This is a response to the book "The Other Soul of the Revolution" by Paul Avrich, written in 1978. · Archinoff, Pedro. "History of the Makhnovist movement" (1918-1921). Editorial Argonauta. Bs.As. 1926. · Avrich, Paul. "Kronstadt, 1921". Projection Editorial. Bs.as. 1973. · BRB "Remembering Pedro Kropotkin". Publications Acratas "El Sembrador". Andorra, Teruel. (It has no edition year) · Chernomordik, S. "Majno and the movement majnovista" (The anarchists to the work). Publications Edeya. Barcelona (No edition year). It is the Bolshevik look on what happened in Ukraine. · Fabbri, Luiggi. " (Thirteen years imprisoned by Stalin). Editions SAI (It has not year of edition) · Stepniak. "The Underground Russia", Editorial Americalee, Bs. As., 1945. · Toryho, Jacinto. "Stalin." Editorial Americalee. Bs. As. 1946. · Trotsky, León. "Terrorism and Communism". Workers Policy Editions. Bs.As. 1965. · Williams, Chester S. "Soviet Crimes." Editorial Agora. Bs.As. 1957.Fuentes. · Letters from Kropotkin to Lenin, written in 1919 included in the work "Ideario Anarquista", Editorial Longseller. Bs. As. 2000. · Transcripts of journalistic notes appeared in 1921 with the events of Kronstadt, in the newspapers "Pravda", "New York Times" and "New York Tribune", made by the historian Paul Avrich. Literary source. Gorky, Máximo. "Mother". United Mexican Publishers.

Source: http://tierranarquista.blogspot.mx/2012/...en-la.html

http://puertoreal.cnt.es/denuncias-politica/6722-las-matanzas-de-anarquistas-en-la-revolucion-rusa.html
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center