Marxism is the most developed and popular strain of Socialism, historically and globally, so it makes sense.
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
What is it "Tankies" advocate for that is "totalitarian?" The term "tankie" is the new "woke," it's a strawman and a bundle of contradictions based on misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and being entirely unfamiliar with Marxism.
I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds, Communism and Communist movements are and have historically been entirely different in aim, goals, practices, and context from fascism and fascist movements.
I never once said the Whites were behind the rebellion. I said the rebellion was supported by the West and the Whites, as in they agreed with it vocally, and the main leader tried to join the Whites beforehand and successfully joined afterwards.
Can you provide source for Stepan Petrichenko joining the white army before the Kronstadt Rebellion?
According to your own logic if they turned fascist we could argue that the whole repression was fascist-led. Considering this happened before fascist even rose to power in italy the term you are throwing around has a lose meaning. The activities fascists were involved in during these years in italy resemble to me these of the Bolsheviks repressive methods quoted in the conversation.
Petrichenko tried to join the Whites before. You don't just try to join the fascists then change your mind then change it again.
Secondly, fascism isn't an "idea," it's Capitalism in decline, a violent defense of bourgeois interests. The Whites were fascists, even if the term hadn't been coined.
Thirdly, the bolsheviks were the leaders of the Communist revolution, counter-revolutionary forces like the Whites, the Kronstadt rebels, the Black Guards, all were fighting against the Communist revolution towards bourgeois interests. Equating Communists with fascists is ahistorical, read Blackshirts and Reds.
I believe the hero status is something reserved to people who did great or good with no injustice. I'm not arguing communism or marxist theory.
Then Lenin either qualifies as a hero, or nobody does, and you should be arguing against everyone in this comment section. You clearly have an anticommunist agenda here, you specifically singled out Lenin as someone you oppose by carrying water for fascists.
This is your rendition of the events and you have the guts to call out others for no context or analysis
Stepan Petrichenko, the leader of the rebellion, tried to join the White Army before the Kronstadt Rebellion, and joined the White Army after it failed, under general Wrangel. The White Army was a fascist, anti-communist group. We also know that Petrichenko attempted to instill paranoia among the sailors by lying about Bolsheviks executing strike leaders, and allied with Mensheviks, Kadets, ex-Capitalists, and black market speculators that together formed the Provisional Revolutionary Committee with several Anarchists. What else could this be but a fascist-led counter-revolution?
Ignoring the will of the leaders and manipulators of the rebellion, lets look at who this supported. Capitalist media positively reported on the rebellion before it even came to a head, the Bourgeoisie supported the movement as it weakened the Communist movement, causing division.
Ignoring who wanted it to succeed, was what the rebels wanted feasible at this point in time? Absolutely not. The rebels wanted to dissolve the bolshevik influence over the revolution, fracturing it during a bloody Civil War. This would have doomed the revolution, it could not come to pass and not result in Capitalist victory over Socialism.
Was it possible for there to be a bloodless resolution? Perhaps, but it didn't. The Bolsheviks did not have the strength to hold courts and answer said rebellion peacefully, nor could they grant the demands of the rebels. Ultimately, the rebels surrendered and turned on the PRC, ending the conflict and counter-revolution.
What would you rather have happened? The fascists get what they wanted? The Capitalists get what they wanted? No. Kronstadt is used as a "gotcha" against Communists all the time, of course I have investigated it.
Is your point that Communists are just violent and evil individuals? Or that Lenin's indirect involvement means he isn't worthy of recognition of his role in Marxist theory and as the architect of the first Socialist State? It's a pointless gotcha that lacks meaningful analysis, you wish you could wave a magic wand and have everyone happy. I do too, but I don't believe it's possible, so I analyze from a materialist lens.
Tons of epubs of books and TTRPGs, with dice rolling software. Classic SNES, NES, N64, GB, GBC, and GBA games, romhacks, and emulators. Storage-efficient MP3s of a few albums like Drukqs that get better with repeated listening, and classical, impressionist, and other such music. A photo of my fiancé.
Cyberpunk is good. Good game, great graphics.
Red Dead Redemption 2 also has high fidelity.
Art style, graphical fidelity, or both? Cyberpunk 2077 is probably the best looking game to test your PC right now.
Again, I am aware of the events, you don't need to repeat them, link a basic Wikipedia article, or quote said article as though that will change anything I have said.
Immediately a Provisional Revolutionary Committee (PRC) was elected, formed by the five members of the collegiate presidency of the assembly, to manage the island until the election of a new local soviet. The committee enlarged to 15 members two days later.
Notably, these were made up of fascists, Kadets, and Anarchists, all anti-bolshevik millitant forces in the middle of a Civil War.
Again, this is devoid of context, or analysis. We see a hostile, fascist-led revolt, and a subsequent response from the Communists. What is your point? You have none, you rely on endless "gotchas."
I've read the page, you think I am arbitrarily applying analysis?
What causes fascism to rise or fall? Whose interests does it serve? The economy is political, politics are economic in nature, you cannot divorce the two.
I'll give you that much: Communists don't have a leader cult, it was wrong to imply it. They have the concept of "democratic centralism" which slowly but steadily shifts its emphasis from the first to the second bit.
Thanks for the acknowledment.
First of all, centralization is core to Marxism, without it there can be no economic democracy. Second of all, without the results of democratic decisions being binding, a centralized system cannot function.
Also "the ends that justify all means" was an exaggeration to emphasize the difference that anarchists focus on using only power structures they want to see in the liberated society while communists think they can get to a horizontal power structure via a vertical one. Anarchists say power structures reproduce themselves and that's why it's important to have the right one from the start. Communists lack any meaningful analysis of power structures but dismiss them as the superstructure that will follow the material base eventually.
Communists don't want a horizontal power structure. Hierarchy isn't the problem, class is. Communists absolutely have meaningful analysis of power structures, I can recommend reading on it if you want but don't insinuate that it doesn't exist.
So the "strong leader" is by no means core of communist ideology but merely a byproduct. Happy now?
No, because "strong leader" isn't a byproduct of Communism. What is typically seen as "strong leader" type government is a combination of slander, careful exaggeration of facts, and the unfortunate necessity of underdeveloped productive forces. As productive forces advance into large syndicates through Capitalism, so too can they be siezed and democratized, without that there cannot be true economic democracy.
Yes, that concept is used in anarchism, too. How does that fit to what you said before? Anarchists want it overnight (not literally but still) and communists suggest the same mechanism? What is the difference between the anarchist dual power that you dismiss as "not literally [but still] over night" and the Marxist one?
Marxists don't believe private property can be abolished without markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that can be socialized, and as such the state remains an instrument of class suppression. Marxists also advocate for centralization, and are fine with hierarchy.
For me it's the already mentioned lack of analysis of power structure. Communists want an "over night" revolution, put the right people in charge and they will sort things out. Anarchists will and have argued that (1.) power corrupts and (2.) positions of power attract the wrong people. I do believe Lenin that he came into power with good intentions but the power blinded him and he put "the cause" over everything else (like the workers in Kronstadt and let's not get into Makhnov). For Stalin, well, see (2.).
No, Communists advocate for democratization. The Vanguard isn't some unaccountable beast. The Anarchist position that "power corrupts" and "attracts the wrong people" is answered by implementation of bottom-up structures like the Mass Line and accountability measures like Recall Elections.
Anarchists on the other hand say we need to build and work with horizontal power structures from the start and put a lot of emphasis not only on the critiques of existing hierarchies, but also into how hierarchies come into existence. There are "skill shares" for example to avoid "knowledge hierarchies" by teaching what you know to others and avoiding to be "the one and only expert". Still, some people are better in things than others and will have a "natural authority" that never should succeed their expertise.
I'm aware of what Anarchists believe and want, the issue Communists take with that is that Marxists don't see inherent problems with hierarchy, nor do they believe Anarchism can actually be implemented in the context of a global Capitalist system.
Marxism, it's Marxism.