charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Change the record, chum.
An open question to all SWP members on u75
- Thread starter Flavour
- Start date
cockneyrebel
New Member
Did you really feel the need to say that TWO DAYS after I’d posted!!!
And I don't see you saying the same thing to people who say the same thing to SWPers over and over again.....
And I don't see you saying the same thing to people who say the same thing to SWPers over and over again.....
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
You've flounced 3 times from this thread. Let's see if you can break a record and flounce again! 
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
On the left opposition inside the Bolsheviks see here http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/mias.htm
Miasnikov was a Bolshevik veteran, a steelworker, who strongly criticised the Party leadership's corruption and dictatorial methods from an early date. He suffered for this, was expelled from the Party, viciously tortured by the Cheka. Eventually he was lured back to Russia after he made his escape and murdered by the Stalinists
Miasnikov was a Bolshevik veteran, a steelworker, who strongly criticised the Party leadership's corruption and dictatorial methods from an early date. He suffered for this, was expelled from the Party, viciously tortured by the Cheka. Eventually he was lured back to Russia after he made his escape and murdered by the Stalinists
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Anarchobandits
"And I’ve just read the beginnings of Richard Sakwa’s anti-Bolshevik document and some quotes are very interesting.
Quote:
After the local Moscow security police (Cheka) were incorporated with the national body in March 1918, the first to feel the new intolerant atmosphere were the vigorous anarchist groupings, who had contributed much to the growing banditry in the city"
from CR and the "Anarcho-bandit" accusations from Aw Go On.
Frederick I. Kaplan in Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labour 1917-20: the formative years 1968 notes that “ largely because of the support by the anarchists for workers control, that is to say to the local units of production and to seizing of the factories by the workers, that the Bolsheviks feared and oppressed the anarchists”. An official distinction was established between the anarchists “of ideas” and the others. Trotsky: “We knew what had happened in Moscow. The buildings were seized over the head of the soviets and the workers organisations, it happened thus that when the soviets occupied a building, these thugs, under the mask of anarchism penetrated the building to dislodge them installing machineguns there, seizing armoured cars and even artillery”. Kaplan observes:” Such exploits signified that the anarchists were making obstruction to the nationalisation of the Bolsheviks, resisting the politics of work of the Bolsheviks, or opposing themselves to the formation of a state, and this being identified uniquely as the work of criminal elements, because according to Trotsky “Piles of gold, products of pillage have been discovered in their nests. They were simply marauders and burglars who compromised anarchism. Anarchism is an idea, although a false idea, but hooliganism is hooliganism, and we have said to the anarchists: You must draw a clear line between you and the burglars.. the Soviet regime has taken power, not to pillage like brigands of the highways and burglars, but to introduce a discipline of common work and an honest working life” (14 April 1918) “’. Kaplan comments “BY consequence the idea of anarchism was placed in opposition with armed actions which attempted to realise the same idea. The anarchists were warned that no distinction would be made between common law criminals and anarchists, as long as the anarchists engaged in a struggle against Bolshevik order”.
Trotsky concluded” If you want to live with us on the basis of principles of a common discipline of work, then submit yourselves with us to the working classes, but if you put yourself in our way, do not blame us if the government of labour, the power of the Soviets will deal with you without using gloves”. The ultimatum was clear. “Submit to us or prepare for a chastisement”. Kaplan comments “ the anarchist of ideas was one who did not put themselves in the path of the Bolsheviks”.
In actual fact the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups meeting in conference on 13th December 1918 agreed to start mass work to set up anarchist clubs and local groups, and to link themselves closely to the mass of workers, soldiers, sailors and peasants. Publishing houses were set up and colleges of agitators and propagandists, and a number of conferences, lectures collective conversations took place as well as agitation by the anarchist daily Burevestnik. Delegates of warships and regiments communicated that many among them had at first sympathised with the Bolsheviks, but, disenchanted, they were turning more and more to anarchism. A consultative bureau was set up to link the workshop and factory committees, as well as the army and navy units.A week later, the sailors of Helsingfors declared themselves anarchist sympathisers, and sent a resolution to the Federation, affirming that they would serve the ideal of anarchism, ‘not just in words but in deeds.’ Several days later these sympathisers became the Helsingfors anarchist group, composed of delegates from 28 warships and military units.
Libertarian work communes were set up, in first instance disposable ground in the city and in the surrounding countryside to alleviate the food shortages. Peoples kitchens and dormitories were organised in expropriated buildings. The most important initiative for the Kremlin was the formation of a Black Guard, parallel to the regime’s Red Guard. This was supported by the anarchist-communists, the anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists.
The Black Guard was constituted of members recommended by 1. Local anarchist groups. 2. Three members of the Moscow Anarchist Federation 3. Factory and workshop committees 4. neighbourhood soviets. It was made clear that the Black Guard must not carry out policing tasks like the Red Guard e.g. perquisitions, arrests etc. as regards the requisition of houses and buildings, this had to be the work of a special commission composed of local groups. The Black Guard had 2,000 members, divided into 50 detachments, with a common HQ . The Anarchists, Documents and Materials. Volume 2, p. 135 Moscow 1999.Standards for admission into the Black Guard were very rigorous and only recommended militants were admitted. Compare this with the Cheka which functioned with no control from any organ of the working classes, carrying out perquisitions and arrests, and despite the abolition of the death penalty, arbitrarily shooting in its cellars. Who really were the “criminals”? Trotsky makes out the attack on the anarchists to be a simple police raid, when it was a military putsch, involving the troops of the Cheka ( which included Left Social-Revolutionaries in its ranks) and Bashkir and Lett regiments. The Red Guard and the military units of Moscow did not take part and would not accept such an attack that they regarded as fratricidal. In the night of 12-13 April 26 buildings occupied by the anarchist groups and the Black guard were attacked. Believing themselves under attack by the Whites, the anarchists fought back. Field guns had to be brought up to smash them. 30 anarchists were killed and an unknown number of wounded, with 12 wounded among the attackers. 600 anarchists were arrested. In the following days similar attacks on anarchists took place in Petrograd, Vologda, Smolensk, Briansk etc. the papers Anarchia and Burevestnik were seized and then banned outright. Militants were imprisoned or shot outright. Any anarchist opposed to these actions were decreed to be “anarcho-bandits” and “counter-revolutionaries”. The “Valorous combatants of October” were transformed into counter-revolutionary criminals.
Take the case of I.S. Bleikhman. Fiery anarchist orator in Petrograd. Extremely influential among workers and sailors during the July Days of 1917, he was arrested a few days after the Moscow attack and sent to a concentration camp by the Bolsheviks where he was forced to work up to his waist in mud and water. This aggravated his lung condition, (he had spent many years in a Tsarist jail in Siberia) and he died shortly after his release in 1921.
"And I’ve just read the beginnings of Richard Sakwa’s anti-Bolshevik document and some quotes are very interesting.
Quote:
After the local Moscow security police (Cheka) were incorporated with the national body in March 1918, the first to feel the new intolerant atmosphere were the vigorous anarchist groupings, who had contributed much to the growing banditry in the city"
from CR and the "Anarcho-bandit" accusations from Aw Go On.
Frederick I. Kaplan in Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labour 1917-20: the formative years 1968 notes that “ largely because of the support by the anarchists for workers control, that is to say to the local units of production and to seizing of the factories by the workers, that the Bolsheviks feared and oppressed the anarchists”. An official distinction was established between the anarchists “of ideas” and the others. Trotsky: “We knew what had happened in Moscow. The buildings were seized over the head of the soviets and the workers organisations, it happened thus that when the soviets occupied a building, these thugs, under the mask of anarchism penetrated the building to dislodge them installing machineguns there, seizing armoured cars and even artillery”. Kaplan observes:” Such exploits signified that the anarchists were making obstruction to the nationalisation of the Bolsheviks, resisting the politics of work of the Bolsheviks, or opposing themselves to the formation of a state, and this being identified uniquely as the work of criminal elements, because according to Trotsky “Piles of gold, products of pillage have been discovered in their nests. They were simply marauders and burglars who compromised anarchism. Anarchism is an idea, although a false idea, but hooliganism is hooliganism, and we have said to the anarchists: You must draw a clear line between you and the burglars.. the Soviet regime has taken power, not to pillage like brigands of the highways and burglars, but to introduce a discipline of common work and an honest working life” (14 April 1918) “’. Kaplan comments “BY consequence the idea of anarchism was placed in opposition with armed actions which attempted to realise the same idea. The anarchists were warned that no distinction would be made between common law criminals and anarchists, as long as the anarchists engaged in a struggle against Bolshevik order”.
Trotsky concluded” If you want to live with us on the basis of principles of a common discipline of work, then submit yourselves with us to the working classes, but if you put yourself in our way, do not blame us if the government of labour, the power of the Soviets will deal with you without using gloves”. The ultimatum was clear. “Submit to us or prepare for a chastisement”. Kaplan comments “ the anarchist of ideas was one who did not put themselves in the path of the Bolsheviks”.
In actual fact the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups meeting in conference on 13th December 1918 agreed to start mass work to set up anarchist clubs and local groups, and to link themselves closely to the mass of workers, soldiers, sailors and peasants. Publishing houses were set up and colleges of agitators and propagandists, and a number of conferences, lectures collective conversations took place as well as agitation by the anarchist daily Burevestnik. Delegates of warships and regiments communicated that many among them had at first sympathised with the Bolsheviks, but, disenchanted, they were turning more and more to anarchism. A consultative bureau was set up to link the workshop and factory committees, as well as the army and navy units.A week later, the sailors of Helsingfors declared themselves anarchist sympathisers, and sent a resolution to the Federation, affirming that they would serve the ideal of anarchism, ‘not just in words but in deeds.’ Several days later these sympathisers became the Helsingfors anarchist group, composed of delegates from 28 warships and military units.
Libertarian work communes were set up, in first instance disposable ground in the city and in the surrounding countryside to alleviate the food shortages. Peoples kitchens and dormitories were organised in expropriated buildings. The most important initiative for the Kremlin was the formation of a Black Guard, parallel to the regime’s Red Guard. This was supported by the anarchist-communists, the anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists.
The Black Guard was constituted of members recommended by 1. Local anarchist groups. 2. Three members of the Moscow Anarchist Federation 3. Factory and workshop committees 4. neighbourhood soviets. It was made clear that the Black Guard must not carry out policing tasks like the Red Guard e.g. perquisitions, arrests etc. as regards the requisition of houses and buildings, this had to be the work of a special commission composed of local groups. The Black Guard had 2,000 members, divided into 50 detachments, with a common HQ . The Anarchists, Documents and Materials. Volume 2, p. 135 Moscow 1999.Standards for admission into the Black Guard were very rigorous and only recommended militants were admitted. Compare this with the Cheka which functioned with no control from any organ of the working classes, carrying out perquisitions and arrests, and despite the abolition of the death penalty, arbitrarily shooting in its cellars. Who really were the “criminals”? Trotsky makes out the attack on the anarchists to be a simple police raid, when it was a military putsch, involving the troops of the Cheka ( which included Left Social-Revolutionaries in its ranks) and Bashkir and Lett regiments. The Red Guard and the military units of Moscow did not take part and would not accept such an attack that they regarded as fratricidal. In the night of 12-13 April 26 buildings occupied by the anarchist groups and the Black guard were attacked. Believing themselves under attack by the Whites, the anarchists fought back. Field guns had to be brought up to smash them. 30 anarchists were killed and an unknown number of wounded, with 12 wounded among the attackers. 600 anarchists were arrested. In the following days similar attacks on anarchists took place in Petrograd, Vologda, Smolensk, Briansk etc. the papers Anarchia and Burevestnik were seized and then banned outright. Militants were imprisoned or shot outright. Any anarchist opposed to these actions were decreed to be “anarcho-bandits” and “counter-revolutionaries”. The “Valorous combatants of October” were transformed into counter-revolutionary criminals.
Take the case of I.S. Bleikhman. Fiery anarchist orator in Petrograd. Extremely influential among workers and sailors during the July Days of 1917, he was arrested a few days after the Moscow attack and sent to a concentration camp by the Bolsheviks where he was forced to work up to his waist in mud and water. This aggravated his lung condition, (he had spent many years in a Tsarist jail in Siberia) and he died shortly after his release in 1921.
You must be a really nice person to know G, this is a gem:
"First of all, aw go on, coming back to the thread two days after the debate has ended, doesn't mean that you're going to get the last word in, no matter how pathethic that word may be… It's fairly funny to see the assembled junior trots complimenting pretty much any old post that agrees with themselves, no matter how non-sensical the content may be."
Ha ha gurrier now I guess youre going to give Charlie Mowbray some grief too for doing the same?? Wont hold my breath. But maybe you could direct us to the senior trots? I guess that sort of implies that you consider yourself the "senior" anarcho? whatever...
Thanks for posting the Miasnikov article been meaning to read it for awhile – just read Richard Sakwa on Moscow , who notes exactly what was said earlier, that the Bolshevik militants left the factories to help administer the economy and form the Red Army, and left the field open to the Mensheviks, and the huge drop in the working class and its militancy in the winter of 1917-1918 due to the famine. The same article also shows, contrary to what G claims when he says the Bolsheviks "were obviously forced to implement the policies and practice that they had been advocating since their inception" - it shows that Lenin initiatlly (other texts like SA Smiths Red Petrograd say the same) was optimistic that factory committees would play a key role in running the factories – the difference was that the Bolsheviks called for working class control, so all workers had a say in the running of any particular factory.
G on the FoD: "The FoD proposal was for directly delegated delegates of the unions, with no party involvement whatsoever. Unlike Russia, this would have been possible as, despite their best efforts, the Leninists still had not managed to shut down the mass workers organisations."
How ridiculous since in Russia soviets were the key and the Leninists didnt shut them down, they fell apart. The trade unions were much more conservative.
Once again the FoD didn't call for soviets in Spain and that was a mistake. The Spanish Civil War needed workers councils that could directly involve all the workers - including those in no union - and that would allow them to change their affiliation, rather than a set block of the particular unions. Also shows what an "taboo" (inverted negative fetish) the revolutionary party is for the anarchists that their happy to have the most conservative trade union in spain on board.
What about workers who supported a political party? Would you deny them a vote?
G says i "descend into a classical leninist/stalinist denunciation of all the non-bolshevik political forces in russia."
Ok lets hear your description of them G. And do i denonunce them the same way anarchists denounce the "non-anarchist political forces" like the Stalinists who were the same as that famous "non-bolshevik political force" called the Mensheviks?? Your double standard is glaring, since anarchists on this thread have said they wouldn't condemn the FoD banning the PSUC (the mensheviks in the spanish civil war) and could "understand" it- so why condemn us for having the same attitude to the mensheviks and SRs? What a laugh.
G gets on his high horse and claims that "a large portion of this thread (since it got derailed when you trots couldn't defend bolshevik brutality) has been precisely concerned with anarchists answering that question."
You answered nothing. Neither did the Moscow anarchists who met in late 1920 and said that they wouldn’t overthrow the Bolsheviks because they didn't know how to deal with the grain crisis – they would just wait for the Bolsheviks to become so unpopular that they were overthrow, and then the anarchists would step in (victor serge, memoirs of a revolutionary). A bit analogous to the Stalinists in Germany 1932, who thought that if Social Democracy was overthrown by Hitler then it would be their turn and then they would then just step in, but that didn't work out too well did it.
I said that the Soviets tried the various things that Prof. Kropotkin said and they didn't work, and the food Makno sent was token. Come on lets hear your response.
As for C mowbray's quotes about the anarchists, all sorts of criminal gangs and white conspirators in Moscow spring 1918 sheltered under the black flags of the black Gaurds – it was easy, take over a building, stick a black flag outside and you've got perfect cover. The Bolsheviks told them to sort out their own movement and they refused in the name of autonomy, and were disarmed. You can see why.
Trotsky: “We knew what had happened in Moscow. The buildings were seized over the head of the soviets and the workers organisations, it happened thus that when the soviets occupied a building, these thugs, under the mask of anarchism penetrated the building to dislodge them installing machineguns there, seizing armoured cars and even artillery”. Kaplan observes:” [the author then comments] Such exploits signified that the anarchists were making obstruction to the nationalisation of the Bolsheviks..."
But hang on the factory committees themselves largely called for nationalisation! The Soviet government didn't want nationalisation because they couldn't cope with the scale of the economy they were having to administer. The anarchists didn't seize these buildings in the name of the working class but themselves. They went around the soviets when they couldn't win a majority in them. Trotsky had it right.
And your quote from December 1918 is irrelevant to that, by then things had moved on and there was a constant state of civil war, with the working class and soviets fallen apart largely – But interesting that you put the quote about all the "good work" the anarchists did and support they gained from some regiments in the rear (in December 1918) before returning to the very different situation of April 1918 – it makes it look like they had much more support than they did in spring 1918 which isn't right.
G then puts his killer argument: "You dishonest little arrogant, managerial, superior toad" Gee whiz G those insulting trots are just so out of order arent they? But hang on when did I ever call you names? What a hypocrite! Your just making me laugh now mate - keep toeing the anarchist line.
forgot in terms of corruption in Miaskinov's article, it was a real problem, they set up a workers and peasants inspectorate, purged the party to reassert control over it, but without a working industry and therefore a living workers movement capable of counterbalancing the bureaucracy and subordinating it, i'd agree with Avrich (or Robert Service), that Lenin's solution was trying to organise elements of the workers state against the bureaucracy. But the workers opposition and Miaskinov had no rael solution, sorry the trade unions were bureaaucratic and conservative by 1920, with alot of Menshevik influence in key sectors like the railway workers, you could hardly hand the economy over to them.
willing to be convinced of the opposite though, just dont feel your arguments stack up tbh, heard em all before.
"First of all, aw go on, coming back to the thread two days after the debate has ended, doesn't mean that you're going to get the last word in, no matter how pathethic that word may be… It's fairly funny to see the assembled junior trots complimenting pretty much any old post that agrees with themselves, no matter how non-sensical the content may be."
Ha ha gurrier now I guess youre going to give Charlie Mowbray some grief too for doing the same?? Wont hold my breath. But maybe you could direct us to the senior trots? I guess that sort of implies that you consider yourself the "senior" anarcho? whatever...
Thanks for posting the Miasnikov article been meaning to read it for awhile – just read Richard Sakwa on Moscow , who notes exactly what was said earlier, that the Bolshevik militants left the factories to help administer the economy and form the Red Army, and left the field open to the Mensheviks, and the huge drop in the working class and its militancy in the winter of 1917-1918 due to the famine. The same article also shows, contrary to what G claims when he says the Bolsheviks "were obviously forced to implement the policies and practice that they had been advocating since their inception" - it shows that Lenin initiatlly (other texts like SA Smiths Red Petrograd say the same) was optimistic that factory committees would play a key role in running the factories – the difference was that the Bolsheviks called for working class control, so all workers had a say in the running of any particular factory.
G on the FoD: "The FoD proposal was for directly delegated delegates of the unions, with no party involvement whatsoever. Unlike Russia, this would have been possible as, despite their best efforts, the Leninists still had not managed to shut down the mass workers organisations."
How ridiculous since in Russia soviets were the key and the Leninists didnt shut them down, they fell apart. The trade unions were much more conservative.
Once again the FoD didn't call for soviets in Spain and that was a mistake. The Spanish Civil War needed workers councils that could directly involve all the workers - including those in no union - and that would allow them to change their affiliation, rather than a set block of the particular unions. Also shows what an "taboo" (inverted negative fetish) the revolutionary party is for the anarchists that their happy to have the most conservative trade union in spain on board.
What about workers who supported a political party? Would you deny them a vote?
G says i "descend into a classical leninist/stalinist denunciation of all the non-bolshevik political forces in russia."
Ok lets hear your description of them G. And do i denonunce them the same way anarchists denounce the "non-anarchist political forces" like the Stalinists who were the same as that famous "non-bolshevik political force" called the Mensheviks?? Your double standard is glaring, since anarchists on this thread have said they wouldn't condemn the FoD banning the PSUC (the mensheviks in the spanish civil war) and could "understand" it- so why condemn us for having the same attitude to the mensheviks and SRs? What a laugh.
G gets on his high horse and claims that "a large portion of this thread (since it got derailed when you trots couldn't defend bolshevik brutality) has been precisely concerned with anarchists answering that question."
You answered nothing. Neither did the Moscow anarchists who met in late 1920 and said that they wouldn’t overthrow the Bolsheviks because they didn't know how to deal with the grain crisis – they would just wait for the Bolsheviks to become so unpopular that they were overthrow, and then the anarchists would step in (victor serge, memoirs of a revolutionary). A bit analogous to the Stalinists in Germany 1932, who thought that if Social Democracy was overthrown by Hitler then it would be their turn and then they would then just step in, but that didn't work out too well did it.
I said that the Soviets tried the various things that Prof. Kropotkin said and they didn't work, and the food Makno sent was token. Come on lets hear your response.
As for C mowbray's quotes about the anarchists, all sorts of criminal gangs and white conspirators in Moscow spring 1918 sheltered under the black flags of the black Gaurds – it was easy, take over a building, stick a black flag outside and you've got perfect cover. The Bolsheviks told them to sort out their own movement and they refused in the name of autonomy, and were disarmed. You can see why.
Trotsky: “We knew what had happened in Moscow. The buildings were seized over the head of the soviets and the workers organisations, it happened thus that when the soviets occupied a building, these thugs, under the mask of anarchism penetrated the building to dislodge them installing machineguns there, seizing armoured cars and even artillery”. Kaplan observes:” [the author then comments] Such exploits signified that the anarchists were making obstruction to the nationalisation of the Bolsheviks..."
But hang on the factory committees themselves largely called for nationalisation! The Soviet government didn't want nationalisation because they couldn't cope with the scale of the economy they were having to administer. The anarchists didn't seize these buildings in the name of the working class but themselves. They went around the soviets when they couldn't win a majority in them. Trotsky had it right.
And your quote from December 1918 is irrelevant to that, by then things had moved on and there was a constant state of civil war, with the working class and soviets fallen apart largely – But interesting that you put the quote about all the "good work" the anarchists did and support they gained from some regiments in the rear (in December 1918) before returning to the very different situation of April 1918 – it makes it look like they had much more support than they did in spring 1918 which isn't right.
G then puts his killer argument: "You dishonest little arrogant, managerial, superior toad" Gee whiz G those insulting trots are just so out of order arent they? But hang on when did I ever call you names? What a hypocrite! Your just making me laugh now mate - keep toeing the anarchist line.
forgot in terms of corruption in Miaskinov's article, it was a real problem, they set up a workers and peasants inspectorate, purged the party to reassert control over it, but without a working industry and therefore a living workers movement capable of counterbalancing the bureaucracy and subordinating it, i'd agree with Avrich (or Robert Service), that Lenin's solution was trying to organise elements of the workers state against the bureaucracy. But the workers opposition and Miaskinov had no rael solution, sorry the trade unions were bureaaucratic and conservative by 1920, with alot of Menshevik influence in key sectors like the railway workers, you could hardly hand the economy over to them.
willing to be convinced of the opposite though, just dont feel your arguments stack up tbh, heard em all before.
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Don't you read anything we post up? I supplied proof that the Black Guard was a bona fide organisation that did not harbour criminal elements, As usual you ignored this and repeated the old and totally unfounded slanders against the Black Guard. And why this obsession with Professors, eh? As far as I 'nm aware Kropotkin never had this title. Did a professor frighten your mother one day whilst she was carrying you?
And I think my sources show that support for the anarchists was growing in 1918. Why do you think the Bolsheviks moved against them. But go on wallowing in your wilful ignorance!!
And ignore all the oppositional groups inside the Bolshevik Party itself that saw early- and a long time before Trotsky- that things were going seriously wrong!!
"G then puts his killer argument: "You dishonest little arrogant, managerial, superior toad" Gee whiz G those insulting trots are just so out of order arent they? But hang on when did I ever call you names? What a hypocrite! Your just making me laugh now mate - keep toeing the anarchist line."
Old trick this one Gurrier- although you're probably familiar with it. They go on denying the facts, then when you lose your temper, they smugly patronise from a great height. Seen this so many times. Tragic!!
And I think my sources show that support for the anarchists was growing in 1918. Why do you think the Bolsheviks moved against them. But go on wallowing in your wilful ignorance!!
And ignore all the oppositional groups inside the Bolshevik Party itself that saw early- and a long time before Trotsky- that things were going seriously wrong!!
"G then puts his killer argument: "You dishonest little arrogant, managerial, superior toad" Gee whiz G those insulting trots are just so out of order arent they? But hang on when did I ever call you names? What a hypocrite! Your just making me laugh now mate - keep toeing the anarchist line."
Old trick this one Gurrier- although you're probably familiar with it. They go on denying the facts, then when you lose your temper, they smugly patronise from a great height. Seen this so many times. Tragic!!
charlie mowbray said:
thats strange, G was insulting from day 1 i was on the boards charley. And he (and you) still havent' answered our two major questions in the slightest, the banning of the Mensheviks and the grain question - as said, the anarchists didn't have an answer in 1920 and they don't now imo.
Interested in that question about the FoD too, about how only workers in a union should have representation, and then they should ban parties and shoot opposition to the workers Junta. That one's still live too. Sorry if i've missed previous debates but that one shouldnt be too hard to answer in a paragraph or so.
and can you requote the bit where it "proves" the anarchist social centres/militias were without criminal or white elements, dont agree, and Victor Serge didn't either.
interested in doing some of the reading you've done though, what's the source?
Not worth continuing
I actually don't think that I lost my temper with aw go on. I think that there is scarcely an insulting adjective in the book that he wouldn't merit, based upon what he has openly admitted about his opinions. Slimy, odious, lying, managerial and smug are actually compliments when applied to him. I'm far too much of a prude to do him justice.
For a start, he has no problem with admitting that he thinks murdering people who bring a little more grain to market than the government allows is okay. That alone would place him on a level with dogshit on the pavement in my eyes.
But there's more. He simply lies again and again. His arguments are mostly just based on naked assertions, either his own or regurgitated ones of bolsheviks of the era. When presented with sources that contradict his assertions, he just restates them. Whenever an answer is presented, he merely ignores it and claims that no answer has been offered. When presented with concrete evidence of what lenin and trotsky actually did and said, he just dismisses it and tells us how they 'were optimistic' about it being otherwise, but objective reality....
I've heard it all a thousand times before. It's not even worth dwelling on the details, since we can be absolutely certain of one thing from his screeds. He regrets nothing, if given a chance he would do exactly the same again and he is quite happy for history to repeat itself and create another mountain of bodies in the name of communism. Thank fuck that I live in a time when bolshevism is in its death throes, because these fuckers make me shudder.
I actually don't think that I lost my temper with aw go on. I think that there is scarcely an insulting adjective in the book that he wouldn't merit, based upon what he has openly admitted about his opinions. Slimy, odious, lying, managerial and smug are actually compliments when applied to him. I'm far too much of a prude to do him justice.
For a start, he has no problem with admitting that he thinks murdering people who bring a little more grain to market than the government allows is okay. That alone would place him on a level with dogshit on the pavement in my eyes.
But there's more. He simply lies again and again. His arguments are mostly just based on naked assertions, either his own or regurgitated ones of bolsheviks of the era. When presented with sources that contradict his assertions, he just restates them. Whenever an answer is presented, he merely ignores it and claims that no answer has been offered. When presented with concrete evidence of what lenin and trotsky actually did and said, he just dismisses it and tells us how they 'were optimistic' about it being otherwise, but objective reality....
I've heard it all a thousand times before. It's not even worth dwelling on the details, since we can be absolutely certain of one thing from his screeds. He regrets nothing, if given a chance he would do exactly the same again and he is quite happy for history to repeat itself and create another mountain of bodies in the name of communism. Thank fuck that I live in a time when bolshevism is in its death throes, because these fuckers make me shudder.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Bolshevism in its death throws, so what state would that leave anarchism in!
Actually aw go on has come back on points and given sources, but you think you can debate by petty name calling, shouting “liar liar” in every other post and twisting peoples arguments…..
Pathetic….
Actually aw go on was talking about millions of people starving in cities and people taking grain away so those people were left to starve to death.
What would you say about people who physically attack scabs (which has resulted in strikers killing scabs)? That they are scum because they think it’s ok to attack people who just wanna do an honest days work?
You’ve ducked all the Qs, ask people to read Prince Kropotkin and now say the threads over….nice one!
Actually aw go on has come back on points and given sources, but you think you can debate by petty name calling, shouting “liar liar” in every other post and twisting peoples arguments…..
Pathetic….
Actually aw go on was talking about millions of people starving in cities and people taking grain away so those people were left to starve to death.
What would you say about people who physically attack scabs (which has resulted in strikers killing scabs)? That they are scum because they think it’s ok to attack people who just wanna do an honest days work?
You’ve ducked all the Qs, ask people to read Prince Kropotkin and now say the threads over….nice one!
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Ignoring the totally dishonest CR let's answer AW GEE WHIZ on the question of the Black Guard. As I pointed out from documents quoted the Black Guard was made up of people recommended by factory commitees, anarchists groups etc and admission was rigorous. Why then would "criminal" elements be operating within this organisation? Oh, and as regards Victor Serge ( I could say Professor Serge, but I won't) did not arrive in Russia until 1919. I know you don't read our replies correctly, but tell me, was the crushing of the Black Guard in April 1918 or not? So why would Serge be an authority on this in the slightest!!!!!
Even among Bolsheviks there was disquiet. SI Gopner, a Bolshevik veteran, in her letter to Lenin in 1918, said about the Cheka: "This organisation is rotten to the core. The canker of criminality, violence and totally arbitrary decisions abounds, and it is filled with common criminals and the dregs of society, men armed to the teeth who simply execute anyone they don't like. They steal, loot, rape and throw anyone into prison, forge documents, practise extortion and blackmail, and will let anyone go in exchange for huge sums of money."
Other officials talked about drunkenness. N Rosental, an inspector for the Bolshevik government, reported in 1919 that, "Orgies and drunkenness are daily occurrences. Almost all the personnel of the Cheka are heavy cocaine users. They say that this helps them deal with the sight of so much blood on a daily basis."
How about your selective use of Serge? Talking about the Makhnovists, Serge says: "This fantastic attitude of the Bolshevik authorities, who tore up the pledges they themselves had given to this endlessly daring revolutionary peasant minority, had a terribly demoralising effect; in it I see one of the basic causes of the Kronstadt rising" (Memoirs of a revolutionary). And on the Cheka Serge opines: "... the establishment of the Cheka, with its techniques of secret inquisition had been a grievous error on the part of the revolutionary leadership, and one incompatible with any socialist philosophy" (ibid.).So is it OK to quote Serge on the Black Guard, but not on the Cheka and the Makhnovists??
And what about Bleikhman. CAn anyone provide any evidence whatsoever that he was a criminal or bandit? Everything points to him being a revolutionary idealist of the first order. What do you say about the existence of concentration camps in 1918 and the appalling treatment of revolutionaries , which led to premature death. And what about all the other anarchists shot in Moscow at that time,as well as Petrenko, non-party revolutionary, who led an armed band in the Tsaritsyn area killed around the time of the Moscow attacks; 350 Left SRs shot down after the unsuccessful rising in 1918. I could go on ...
By the way there were strong protests about the crushing of the Moscow anarchists at Kronstadt. Two resolutions were in fact passed: one at a "monster rally" and one by the Kronstadt Soviet (from eyewitness accounts by Efim Yarchuk).Remind me, weren't the Kronstadters still the "fine flower of the Revolution" (Trotsky)in 1918, rather than the kulak and White reactionaries they had supposedly turned into in 1921?
Even among Bolsheviks there was disquiet. SI Gopner, a Bolshevik veteran, in her letter to Lenin in 1918, said about the Cheka: "This organisation is rotten to the core. The canker of criminality, violence and totally arbitrary decisions abounds, and it is filled with common criminals and the dregs of society, men armed to the teeth who simply execute anyone they don't like. They steal, loot, rape and throw anyone into prison, forge documents, practise extortion and blackmail, and will let anyone go in exchange for huge sums of money."
Other officials talked about drunkenness. N Rosental, an inspector for the Bolshevik government, reported in 1919 that, "Orgies and drunkenness are daily occurrences. Almost all the personnel of the Cheka are heavy cocaine users. They say that this helps them deal with the sight of so much blood on a daily basis."
How about your selective use of Serge? Talking about the Makhnovists, Serge says: "This fantastic attitude of the Bolshevik authorities, who tore up the pledges they themselves had given to this endlessly daring revolutionary peasant minority, had a terribly demoralising effect; in it I see one of the basic causes of the Kronstadt rising" (Memoirs of a revolutionary). And on the Cheka Serge opines: "... the establishment of the Cheka, with its techniques of secret inquisition had been a grievous error on the part of the revolutionary leadership, and one incompatible with any socialist philosophy" (ibid.).So is it OK to quote Serge on the Black Guard, but not on the Cheka and the Makhnovists??
And what about Bleikhman. CAn anyone provide any evidence whatsoever that he was a criminal or bandit? Everything points to him being a revolutionary idealist of the first order. What do you say about the existence of concentration camps in 1918 and the appalling treatment of revolutionaries , which led to premature death. And what about all the other anarchists shot in Moscow at that time,as well as Petrenko, non-party revolutionary, who led an armed band in the Tsaritsyn area killed around the time of the Moscow attacks; 350 Left SRs shot down after the unsuccessful rising in 1918. I could go on ...
By the way there were strong protests about the crushing of the Moscow anarchists at Kronstadt. Two resolutions were in fact passed: one at a "monster rally" and one by the Kronstadt Soviet (from eyewitness accounts by Efim Yarchuk).Remind me, weren't the Kronstadters still the "fine flower of the Revolution" (Trotsky)in 1918, rather than the kulak and White reactionaries they had supposedly turned into in 1921?
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Anarkhiia, the daily paper of the Moscow Anarchist Federation clearly distanced the anarchists from "criminal" activities. And so why is it that the offices of Anarkhiia were one of the buildings attacked by the Chekists in April 1918, and why was it then suppressed?
One anarchist,Khudounov was shot by Chekists "after attempting to escape" (heard that one before?). Six hundred anarchists were arrested, but mass popular revulsion against the raids forced Lenin and Trotsky to release many of them.
As well as the raids in Moscow, similar raids took place in Petrograd, Vologda, Smolensk and Vitebsk. Organisations were dissolved, clubs shut down, and confiscated anarchist propaganda was burnt.
The anarchist daily Burevestnik of Petrograd, which was not immediately shut down, stated on April 13, just after the raids: "The anarchists did not desire any clash. We regarded you [Bolsheviks] as our revolutionary brothers. But you have proved to be traitors." One anarchist (quoted in The anarchists in the Russian Revolution by Anatoli Gorelik, a veteran anarchist), dragged before a judge, asked him: "Why have you done this?" The judge replied: "The representatives of the Entente [the interventionist western allies] are actually in Vologda and are refusing all talks, declaring that they will not discuss with a government that walks hand in hand with the anarchists, and which gives them so much liberty. We cannot proceed in any other manner. You must understand yourselves that we could not act otherwise." In his Memoirs of A British agent (1932) RH Bruce Lockhart enthusiastically supported the action as a "first step towards the establishment of discipline".
At a time when the new authorities had actually abolished the death penalty, why were the Cheka summarily executing revolutionaries, ? What is more "criminal": this or the expropriation of the rich?
One anarchist,Khudounov was shot by Chekists "after attempting to escape" (heard that one before?). Six hundred anarchists were arrested, but mass popular revulsion against the raids forced Lenin and Trotsky to release many of them.
As well as the raids in Moscow, similar raids took place in Petrograd, Vologda, Smolensk and Vitebsk. Organisations were dissolved, clubs shut down, and confiscated anarchist propaganda was burnt.
The anarchist daily Burevestnik of Petrograd, which was not immediately shut down, stated on April 13, just after the raids: "The anarchists did not desire any clash. We regarded you [Bolsheviks] as our revolutionary brothers. But you have proved to be traitors." One anarchist (quoted in The anarchists in the Russian Revolution by Anatoli Gorelik, a veteran anarchist), dragged before a judge, asked him: "Why have you done this?" The judge replied: "The representatives of the Entente [the interventionist western allies] are actually in Vologda and are refusing all talks, declaring that they will not discuss with a government that walks hand in hand with the anarchists, and which gives them so much liberty. We cannot proceed in any other manner. You must understand yourselves that we could not act otherwise." In his Memoirs of A British agent (1932) RH Bruce Lockhart enthusiastically supported the action as a "first step towards the establishment of discipline".
At a time when the new authorities had actually abolished the death penalty, why were the Cheka summarily executing revolutionaries, ? What is more "criminal": this or the expropriation of the rich?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Zzzzzzzz....change the record....saying it enough times with your anarcho buddies won't make it true....
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
<<nah fuck it: i've got better things to do with my time>>
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Yep, you're right Butchers, what an arsehole!
cockneyrebel
New Member
Charles obviously if sections of the Cheka were carrying out these kind of actions it’s disgusting, it’s not like people are gonna justify it. The same goes for some of the grain requisition units who abused their positions and stole stuff for their personal gain.
But is that an argument for saying that you can never have a secret police or that executions would never happen. Indeed that’s why I’d stress the point about the FOD supporting executions and closing down organisations. If anarchists on here disagree with that, it’s a fairly big disagreement IMO. Also the history of anarchist movements. Were the Makhnovists against any kind of secret police? What was their use of secret police (I’ve read conflicting accounts of that)….and the Makhnovists certainly weren’t against stringing up Bolsheviks. Indeed Makhno shot someone on the spot in a conference! So the whole “you bad person you support killing people” etc is just nonsense, especially when there was a position of millions of people starving to death. People selling grain for their own benefit becomes much more serious in a situation like that than someone stealing stuff from Tescos. But that doesn’t mean people support any abuses carried out by people in/by the Cheka.
And it still leaves the Qs for the anarchists, what would they do if people in the cities were starving and the peasants wouldn’t give up their grain. You twist this way and that but won’t answer the Q other than saying that you’d be able to convince them, but won’t say what you’d do if you couldn’t and didn’t have enough to barter with as production had collapsed almost immediately.
You also are very vague about how you’d deal with the Mensheviks who were against soviet democracy and sided with the Whites. Indeed anarchists on here won’t even agree with the FOD in shutting the Stalinists down! So what would you do, just let them carry on no matter what?
Also non-Bolsheviks sources refer to the banditry among anarchist organisations, but you just expect people to accept your sources……the same goes for freedom of organisation. Clearly sources show that the left SRs were shut down after they started bombing and assassinating Bolsheviks and they clearly show the Mensheviks weren’t just shut down straight away. But as said, more importantly, is how anarchists say they would deal with these questions….
But is that an argument for saying that you can never have a secret police or that executions would never happen. Indeed that’s why I’d stress the point about the FOD supporting executions and closing down organisations. If anarchists on here disagree with that, it’s a fairly big disagreement IMO. Also the history of anarchist movements. Were the Makhnovists against any kind of secret police? What was their use of secret police (I’ve read conflicting accounts of that)….and the Makhnovists certainly weren’t against stringing up Bolsheviks. Indeed Makhno shot someone on the spot in a conference! So the whole “you bad person you support killing people” etc is just nonsense, especially when there was a position of millions of people starving to death. People selling grain for their own benefit becomes much more serious in a situation like that than someone stealing stuff from Tescos. But that doesn’t mean people support any abuses carried out by people in/by the Cheka.
And it still leaves the Qs for the anarchists, what would they do if people in the cities were starving and the peasants wouldn’t give up their grain. You twist this way and that but won’t answer the Q other than saying that you’d be able to convince them, but won’t say what you’d do if you couldn’t and didn’t have enough to barter with as production had collapsed almost immediately.
You also are very vague about how you’d deal with the Mensheviks who were against soviet democracy and sided with the Whites. Indeed anarchists on here won’t even agree with the FOD in shutting the Stalinists down! So what would you do, just let them carry on no matter what?
Also non-Bolsheviks sources refer to the banditry among anarchist organisations, but you just expect people to accept your sources……the same goes for freedom of organisation. Clearly sources show that the left SRs were shut down after they started bombing and assassinating Bolsheviks and they clearly show the Mensheviks weren’t just shut down straight away. But as said, more importantly, is how anarchists say they would deal with these questions….
CM's book quote: Trotsky concluded” If you want to live with us on the basis of principles of a common discipline of work, then submit yourselves with us to the working classes, but if you put yourself in our way, do not blame us if the government of labour, the power of the Soviets will deal with you without using gloves”.
The anarchist or liberal (which is it? Not heard of him before) Kaplan has done the usual sleight of hand, where Government based on the soviets becomes "the Bolshevik order" that’s why I don't agree with you Charlie or think it proves your point. I've read other sources than Serge on the anarchist bands, but I'll read yours too if I can get a hold of it.
About the sailors joining the anarchists in Dec. 1918, many of the best Sailors had joined the Red Army and were some of its most ferocious shock troops – don't know the political composition of those who stayed behind. Avrich and Getzler – liberals who are sympathetic to the anarchists - have shown that discontent with not being demobilised and disgust with the Bolshevik policy of requisitioning and what it mean for their peasant families, WAS the key factor in the Kronstadt revolt.
The Black Gaurds as your own quotes show, and Avrich's artices on the anarchos on Angelfire, prepared for a guerrilla war to overturn the decision of the soviets passing the treaty of brest litovsk. Two laws conflicted, the autonomous commune and the soviet workers state, and the latter won – the anarchists would have done much the same as their preparations show. Their prisons wouldn't have been any better because they would have, to quote the FoD, shot everyone, yes? And if they had prisons, they wouldn't have been any better because everyone was starving and had to work, including people in camps.
Of course the anarchists grew in influence in this period - from tiny to… 2000! Not exactly huge and able to take the lead - the Mensheviks were already a mass organisation, also grew and were much stronger among the working class. What's more, the anarchists had no answers to the grain crisis and how to fight the civil war, the two main questions you still haven't answered. With their calls for decentralisation and every local soviet just doing what it wanted to do, the revolution would have been annihilated.
CM: "the Black Guard were very rigorous and only recommended militants were admitted."
Don't know if this is true or not, I'd want to see another source than just an anarchist one. But their real goal was the mirror image of the Mensheviks, and would have ultimately helped them – to create an armed, alternative power to the soviet government and overthrow it in the name of a decentralised federation of the soviets, led and hegemonised by…the anarchists! Who had, once again however, no answer to the grain crisis etc.
You accuse me of being selective in my quoting – so you'll have read Serge's report on the Moscow Federation's meeting where they said they had no answer to the grain crisis (just like you Charley and G and Ray), the fundamental question of the whole civil war, and read R. Sakwa who as you quoted above talked about anarchist criminality and also noted the huge collapse in the Moscow working class's organisation and morale and consciousness – partly due to the section of the working class that left for the soviet admin and red army? Look we've all been quoting the bits that are relevant to our arguments big deal.
(and about V serge he wrote Memoirs of a revolutionary in the 30's when he had split from Trotsky – he did have a difference on makno but everyone, liberal academics included, recognise that the alliance of the Bolsheviks and Makno was one of convenience, neither side was committed to it and it was inevitable that it would be broken. You could debate about whether the Bolsheviks were wrong to break it first. But interesting that as Serge became more libertarian and looked back, he still asserted the legitimacy of the Red Terror and where necessary the disarming of the anarchists- despite being no apologist for the Cheka).
Most of this debate is at cross purposes. The anarchists make a long list of crimes of the Bolsheviks and remain silent about the larger questions about how they would have defended the revolution, how they would have fed it, how they would have related to the Menshevik opposition to the soviets etc. (other than a couple of short vague comments by Gurrier who at least tried to make an answer which we showed to be inadequate).
sorry if it seems I've been over snipey to you G but I don’t think I'm the one who kicked it off tbh - and I've credited almost everything I've written, honestly you just have a blindspot when it comes to trots – they can do nothing right. That's alright, I don't think we're arguing to convince a hardened anarcho ideologue like yourself or C Mowbray, but interested to hear your best arguments. So far nothing new's been raised except that bit about the black gaurds by C mobray (btw who wrote The Anarchists, Documents and Materials. Volume 2, and is it online?) btw I do this stuff at work G i'd hardly do it on my own time but if there is anything specific you'd like a quote for say so and i'll go to the trouble to dig it out for you.
CM: "Compare this with the Cheka which functioned with no control from any organ of the working classes, carrying out perquisitions and arrests, and despite the abolition of the death penalty, arbitrarily shooting in its cellars."
The Cheka, the grain requisitioning units all got out of hand. The commissar of grain requisitioning was forced to admit that a large number of the detachments were little more than self-seeking bandits with a licence to loot! The death penalty was banned for the Cheka except at the front because of the huge number of abuses - in response to the ban they shipped the prisoners to the front so they could execute them! Its not surprising that this work attracted the worst elements and destroyed many of the other cadres who volunteered to do it in good faith and were corrupted by it. Corruption was rife especially in Moscow where 30,000 of the civil servants and technicians of the old regime were used. Why were they used? Why didn’t the Bolsheviks dismantle the Cheka and grain detachments until the end of the civil war in 1921? Because they couldn't. Even as inadequate as these measures were and the corupption of many of the people carrying them out, they were necessary to keep the revolution going. If the soviets had the personnel to inspect and replace them that would have been fine, but they were forced to work with such people exactly because they didn't, due to the backwardness of Russia, the resulting crisis of trained skilled people and the fact that the working class was a minority. For the grain requisitioning detachments Orlando Figes book on the Ukraine is the best, and he is anti-bolshevik, but he shows how out of desperation to feed the cities they basically flew by the seat of their pants and tolerated a lot of stuff and made a lot of mistakes that they wouldn't otherwise – set grain quotas too high and so starved villages by accident, were unable to oversee detachments in far off middle of nowhere villages etc. (and once again, how about Makno and his secret police and executions?? A bit one sided here. )
Once again this is nothing new. But that said, yes, it is a tragedy that good comrades like Miasnikov, Bleikhman, and many many others took the road they did, sorry that doesn't come out in these ding-dong deabates. It is a tragedy and "communists" who make jokes about kronstadt etc are wankers, it was a terrible thing, nobody should revel in it or whatever. But unfortunately a clash was inevitable – yes? Just as if the FoD had developed into a revolutionary force they would have fallen out with many of the anarchists in the CNT and it would have led to bloodshed, inevitably. That is the way history works.
I'm sure there are many places where the Bolsheviks could have done better or their decisions were overharsh and overreacting especially 2-3 years into the civil war. But overall they defended the revolution, the precondition to a successful revolt in Germany which didn't happen. In terms of their more specific decisions, I wouldn't want to say they were wrong because I wasn't there, its easy to play fantasy revolution here in the 21st century, and though there were many Left Bolsheviks who questioned all these decisions Lenin (and many others,up to Avrich) point out that the alternatives they put forward were unrealistic, which shows that as ugly as the choices the bolsheviks were forced to make, they did what they had to do. They weren't just the caricature of power hungry sadists put forward.
The larger purpose for the Russian revolution was to detonate the revolution in Europe (successful largely, but no Bolshevik parties to lead them to victory) and to combine with the german revolution – ie they needed to hang on till that happened, since you couldn't have socialism in one country. But it sort of sounds like you guys are saying you could have had an anarchist revolution and society in Russia alone - is that true?
So comrades, what's the big picture: the grain crisis…decentralising the revolution (and the FoD?)…the FoD and shooting opposition, and Makno for that matter…anarchism in one country….we'll be waiting for those answers in vain though I bet. No doubt to cover his lack of answers C Mowbray will plant another huge killer quote and loads of facts about what the anarchists were doing in Moscow.
The anarchist or liberal (which is it? Not heard of him before) Kaplan has done the usual sleight of hand, where Government based on the soviets becomes "the Bolshevik order" that’s why I don't agree with you Charlie or think it proves your point. I've read other sources than Serge on the anarchist bands, but I'll read yours too if I can get a hold of it.
About the sailors joining the anarchists in Dec. 1918, many of the best Sailors had joined the Red Army and were some of its most ferocious shock troops – don't know the political composition of those who stayed behind. Avrich and Getzler – liberals who are sympathetic to the anarchists - have shown that discontent with not being demobilised and disgust with the Bolshevik policy of requisitioning and what it mean for their peasant families, WAS the key factor in the Kronstadt revolt.
The Black Gaurds as your own quotes show, and Avrich's artices on the anarchos on Angelfire, prepared for a guerrilla war to overturn the decision of the soviets passing the treaty of brest litovsk. Two laws conflicted, the autonomous commune and the soviet workers state, and the latter won – the anarchists would have done much the same as their preparations show. Their prisons wouldn't have been any better because they would have, to quote the FoD, shot everyone, yes? And if they had prisons, they wouldn't have been any better because everyone was starving and had to work, including people in camps.
Of course the anarchists grew in influence in this period - from tiny to… 2000! Not exactly huge and able to take the lead - the Mensheviks were already a mass organisation, also grew and were much stronger among the working class. What's more, the anarchists had no answers to the grain crisis and how to fight the civil war, the two main questions you still haven't answered. With their calls for decentralisation and every local soviet just doing what it wanted to do, the revolution would have been annihilated.
CM: "the Black Guard were very rigorous and only recommended militants were admitted."
Don't know if this is true or not, I'd want to see another source than just an anarchist one. But their real goal was the mirror image of the Mensheviks, and would have ultimately helped them – to create an armed, alternative power to the soviet government and overthrow it in the name of a decentralised federation of the soviets, led and hegemonised by…the anarchists! Who had, once again however, no answer to the grain crisis etc.
You accuse me of being selective in my quoting – so you'll have read Serge's report on the Moscow Federation's meeting where they said they had no answer to the grain crisis (just like you Charley and G and Ray), the fundamental question of the whole civil war, and read R. Sakwa who as you quoted above talked about anarchist criminality and also noted the huge collapse in the Moscow working class's organisation and morale and consciousness – partly due to the section of the working class that left for the soviet admin and red army? Look we've all been quoting the bits that are relevant to our arguments big deal.
(and about V serge he wrote Memoirs of a revolutionary in the 30's when he had split from Trotsky – he did have a difference on makno but everyone, liberal academics included, recognise that the alliance of the Bolsheviks and Makno was one of convenience, neither side was committed to it and it was inevitable that it would be broken. You could debate about whether the Bolsheviks were wrong to break it first. But interesting that as Serge became more libertarian and looked back, he still asserted the legitimacy of the Red Terror and where necessary the disarming of the anarchists- despite being no apologist for the Cheka).
Most of this debate is at cross purposes. The anarchists make a long list of crimes of the Bolsheviks and remain silent about the larger questions about how they would have defended the revolution, how they would have fed it, how they would have related to the Menshevik opposition to the soviets etc. (other than a couple of short vague comments by Gurrier who at least tried to make an answer which we showed to be inadequate).
sorry if it seems I've been over snipey to you G but I don’t think I'm the one who kicked it off tbh - and I've credited almost everything I've written, honestly you just have a blindspot when it comes to trots – they can do nothing right. That's alright, I don't think we're arguing to convince a hardened anarcho ideologue like yourself or C Mowbray, but interested to hear your best arguments. So far nothing new's been raised except that bit about the black gaurds by C mobray (btw who wrote The Anarchists, Documents and Materials. Volume 2, and is it online?) btw I do this stuff at work G i'd hardly do it on my own time but if there is anything specific you'd like a quote for say so and i'll go to the trouble to dig it out for you.
CM: "Compare this with the Cheka which functioned with no control from any organ of the working classes, carrying out perquisitions and arrests, and despite the abolition of the death penalty, arbitrarily shooting in its cellars."
The Cheka, the grain requisitioning units all got out of hand. The commissar of grain requisitioning was forced to admit that a large number of the detachments were little more than self-seeking bandits with a licence to loot! The death penalty was banned for the Cheka except at the front because of the huge number of abuses - in response to the ban they shipped the prisoners to the front so they could execute them! Its not surprising that this work attracted the worst elements and destroyed many of the other cadres who volunteered to do it in good faith and were corrupted by it. Corruption was rife especially in Moscow where 30,000 of the civil servants and technicians of the old regime were used. Why were they used? Why didn’t the Bolsheviks dismantle the Cheka and grain detachments until the end of the civil war in 1921? Because they couldn't. Even as inadequate as these measures were and the corupption of many of the people carrying them out, they were necessary to keep the revolution going. If the soviets had the personnel to inspect and replace them that would have been fine, but they were forced to work with such people exactly because they didn't, due to the backwardness of Russia, the resulting crisis of trained skilled people and the fact that the working class was a minority. For the grain requisitioning detachments Orlando Figes book on the Ukraine is the best, and he is anti-bolshevik, but he shows how out of desperation to feed the cities they basically flew by the seat of their pants and tolerated a lot of stuff and made a lot of mistakes that they wouldn't otherwise – set grain quotas too high and so starved villages by accident, were unable to oversee detachments in far off middle of nowhere villages etc. (and once again, how about Makno and his secret police and executions?? A bit one sided here. )
Once again this is nothing new. But that said, yes, it is a tragedy that good comrades like Miasnikov, Bleikhman, and many many others took the road they did, sorry that doesn't come out in these ding-dong deabates. It is a tragedy and "communists" who make jokes about kronstadt etc are wankers, it was a terrible thing, nobody should revel in it or whatever. But unfortunately a clash was inevitable – yes? Just as if the FoD had developed into a revolutionary force they would have fallen out with many of the anarchists in the CNT and it would have led to bloodshed, inevitably. That is the way history works.
I'm sure there are many places where the Bolsheviks could have done better or their decisions were overharsh and overreacting especially 2-3 years into the civil war. But overall they defended the revolution, the precondition to a successful revolt in Germany which didn't happen. In terms of their more specific decisions, I wouldn't want to say they were wrong because I wasn't there, its easy to play fantasy revolution here in the 21st century, and though there were many Left Bolsheviks who questioned all these decisions Lenin (and many others,up to Avrich) point out that the alternatives they put forward were unrealistic, which shows that as ugly as the choices the bolsheviks were forced to make, they did what they had to do. They weren't just the caricature of power hungry sadists put forward.
The larger purpose for the Russian revolution was to detonate the revolution in Europe (successful largely, but no Bolshevik parties to lead them to victory) and to combine with the german revolution – ie they needed to hang on till that happened, since you couldn't have socialism in one country. But it sort of sounds like you guys are saying you could have had an anarchist revolution and society in Russia alone - is that true?
So comrades, what's the big picture: the grain crisis…decentralising the revolution (and the FoD?)…the FoD and shooting opposition, and Makno for that matter…anarchism in one country….we'll be waiting for those answers in vain though I bet. No doubt to cover his lack of answers C Mowbray will plant another huge killer quote and loads of facts about what the anarchists were doing in Moscow.
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
You're no comrade of mine, as the above amply illustrates, so please don't hypocritically use this term when addressing anarchists, please.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Great reply 
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Yeah and I don't intend replying to you and your Trotskyist dinosaur friend either. I've better things to do with my time. Oh, and don't see this , in your usual way, as a sign of "victory", 'cos it ain't.
Incidentally how many times have you flounced from this board, only to return? Is it 4 or 5? Maybe a record?
Incidentally how many times have you flounced from this board, only to return? Is it 4 or 5? Maybe a record?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......I wouldn't see anything on U75 as a victory or defeat, it's a bloody irrelevant web board ffs!
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Yeah, yeah, whatever!!
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
What, and you quoting Trotsky? Get a life!!
cockneyrebel
New Member
But Charles it wasn’t aw go on calling people dinosaurs in the first place, was it. If you don’t wanna (or can’t) answer the Qs don’t, but is there any need for the endless sarcy comments?
As for "getting a life" I doubt aw go on needs any advice from you.....
As for "getting a life" I doubt aw go on needs any advice from you.....
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Did I hear an annoying noise? Must be Trotskasaurus Rex!!
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
In the Cheka execution cellar. Charlie bound to a chair, whilst Cockney Webel and Aw Shucks are pulling out his fingernails.
"Answer ze questions! You must answer ze questions!!"
"But...but...but ... Me and my mates already have, time and time again!!
"Answer ze questions! You must answer ze questions!!"
"But...but...but ... Me and my mates already have, time and time again!!
Similar threads
