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?

Kronstadt: the 1921 Uprising of Sailors in the Context of the Political Development of the New Soviet State

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?

The Kronstadt rebels arrested the communists, because false rumors were spread about Communists killing workers and strike leaders. The Bolsheviks were led by Lenin, though Trotsky was in charge of Kronstadt. The rebellion was suppressed as it began, violently, until the rebels turned on the fascists and rejoined the Communists.

You aren’t doing any material analysis, just vibes and idealism. You ignore all context.

And I’m suggesting to you that the entire context of the situation gave no chance of that. The rebels had arrested and silenced the Communists in their area, and they were led by a fascist. Again, as I said, had this been at peacetime in a fully solidified USSR, where the Communists held a large enough power difference to enable such a trial or hearing, then that would be a different manner. Referring to Konstadt specifically, of course. Additionally, at Kronstadt, the rebels stepped down and arrested the leaders of the revolt, and were fine.

The fact is, the Anarchists had their own ideals they felt valuable enough to fight Communists to the death over. Either you’re defanging and making useless the Anarchists as useless smol beans, or you’re misrepresenting them as strong yet entirely in agreement with the Communists, neither of which is true. The reality of the situation was Civil War, where multiple sides fought for their own interests and ideals, the Anarchists were in no way a neutral faction.

“Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, in April, 1921, at which Lenin declared open and merciless war not only against Anarchists but against “all petty bourgeois Anarchist and Anarcho-Syndicalist tendencies wherever found. It was then and there that began the systematic, organised, and most ruthless extirmination of Anarchists in Bolshevik-ruled Russia. On the very day of the Lenin speech scores of Anarchists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, and their sympathisers were arrested in Moscow and Petrograd”

Yes, after the previous events had happened. Ie, the millitant Anarchists had been fighting against the Comnunists. It was a Civil War, and Anarchists opposed the Communists. Had the Anarchists won against the Communists, perhaps some Marxists would be making the same argument that you’re making, that the Communists were innocent and the big bad Anarchists repressed them, and they would be equally guilty of misframing the context of a civil war. Again, many Anarchists joined the Communists, the ones who didn’t stood violently opoosed to them.

All i said is that i wouldn’t consider heroic lenin involvement in the Kronstadt rebellion which was suppressed with blood. You praising repressive methods that resemble that of fascists has bigger implications if you ask me.

Is it fascist to be antifascist? You have an uprising led by a fascist in the middle of a Civil War, and you’re siding with the fascist? Or do you think the Communists should have let the fascist-led anticommunist rebellion continue in the middle of a civil war?

In all this time, you’re specifically quoting Bolsheviks Shooting Anarchists, without any added context or framing. You’re suggesting that the Communists were simply evil people killing peaceful anarchists well into the USSR, and not in the context of armed conflict in the middle of a civil war where 14 capitalist nations had invaded them. It’s a myopic and idealist, rather than materialist, framing of history.

Some of them were fighting against a government that engaged “anarchists” in this fashion: “the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow and by the use of machine guns and artillery “liquidated” the whole organisation”

The Communists fought against the Black Guards, a millitant organization that was anti-bolshevik, after the Cheka believed them to be planning a major strike against the Communists. These were not simply random, innocent Anarchists reading theory and making tea, but a millitant organization opposed to the Communists in the middle of a Civil War.

You claim Lenin to be your hero from history so i asked your thoughts on his involvement in the Kronstadt rebellion which was suppressed with blood. It’s the first example that came to my mind of one of his shady actions that i personally wouldn’t consider heroic.

For clarity, this implies you would have supported the fascist-led rebellion in the middle of a Civil War, while Russia was being invaded by a dozen Capitalist nations. I hope I am misinterpreting your words here.

I answered. The vast amount that Lenin contributed to Marxist Theory and his vital role in creating the first Socialist State, which uplifted hundreds of millions of people and supported numerous anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements the world over, is absolutely worthy of praise. He managed to contribute meaningfully to Leftist theory and put it to practice.

The subset of Anarchists that decided to fight the world’s first Socialist State, rather than join the other Anarchists in supporting it, were certainly not innocent, as proven by high-profile leaders being aligned with the fascist White Army.

I just find it disingenuous that you use Lenin’s indirect involvement with suppressing a rebellion led by a fascist against a newborn Socialist state during the Civil War it was still solidifying its existence to be disingenuous. What was your purpose in asking? “Just asking questions?” If I am mistaken, please let me know.

Interesting to hear the Anarchist’s perspective, still doesn’t change my analysis. The Anarchists weren’t simply “true leftists” and the bolsheviks “fake leftists,” they disagreed entirely on Marxism vs Anarchism and as such some Anarchists decided to take up arms against the Communists. It’s a complicated situation, but it’s also important to note that many Anarchists joined the Bolsheviks, it wasn’t a case where 100% of Anarchists detested the Marxists.

If I were to be equally as disingenuous, I would ask you your feelings on Stepan Petrichenko, who tried to join the fascists and succeeded in joining the fascists after failing to overthrow the Communists during the Kronstadt Rebellion. I won’t, though, because that’s pointless. I suggest you read accounts from the Marxists as well as the Anarchists, the Marxists were not guilty of failing to be Anarchists because they never intended to be.

Even if the ideals of the rebellion were founded in good intentions, fighting against the newborn Socialist State played into counter-revolutionary hands and aided the fascist White Army in the middle of a brutal civil war. The Anarchists placed ideals over material reality in this instance. It was also led by Petrichenko, who one year prior tried to join the White Army, and joined the White Army after the rebellion failed and the sailors turned on the rebellion.

Had it been a time of peace with no internal or external pressure and the same measures employed, my feelings would be different on the matter, but the facts are that the stated aims and the methods employed by the rebels were at direct contradiction in the middle of a civil war.

It’s not like Lenin hated Anarchists especially, Kropotkin was given a large State funeral and the largest rail station, Kropotkinskaya, was named after him. The Kronstadt Rebellion also factored in the transition between War Communism into the NEP.

Lenin, architect of the first successful Socialist revolution and state.

Quit trying to pretend “tankie” means “communist” and not “authoritarian bootlicker.”

As soon as Liberals stop using it to mean Communist.

I dunno know what the Marx quite has to do with King. Very different kinds of revolution, the main one being non violent.

MLK Jr.'s march was more violent than the BLM protests were, and MLK Jr. was the moderate option compared to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. MLK Jr.'s radicalism is intentionally blunted and obscured.

Furthermore is kind of tragic what happened with Lenin’s legacy, his thought being blunted similarly into stalinist autocracy

It was more Kruschev onward where the Soviet system started to meaningfully diverge from Lenin.

Where are you seeing Lemmygrad?

Communist movements have absolutely existed though, nobody fears Upper-Stage Communism which hasn’t existed yet, but the movements and states guided by said movements towards Communism.

So you think that what I meant by “I’m more worried about [some people who] make other communists look bad” was that I’m an anti-communist? That seems highly unlikely. If I were anti-communist, surely I’d love those people precisely because they make communists look bad?

“Left” anticommunism is a thing. People who claim to be leftists yet bash leftists.

Literally your first response to me in this entire thread was uncivil condescension.

I don’t agree.

Yeah that’s not what I mean by Tankies, and it’s not what most people mean by tankies. Not all marxist-leninists are tankies, for example. In fact I’d go out on a limb and say most aren’t. But those who try to sweep under the rug the bad things that nominally-communist states have done are tankies, and they give other communists, other marxists, other marxist-leninists, and indeed all other leftists a bad name. (As an aside, most of the time those things were done by state-capitalist governments, not communist ones.)

Mind explaining what “state-capitalist governments” that are supposedly supported by “tankies?” This is where I believe you’re going for the “left” anticommunist bit. The whole “no true Communist movements” idea is “left” anticommunism.

I’m actually from the Global South. I can promise you the US state department is full of shit. As are most Americans who speak about it, including most American leftists.

Cool, that doesn’t mean you can’t be a “left” anticommunist.