Dead Anarchists Galore
85 years ago this week saw the start of the Kronstadt rebellion. For the past 85 years, anarchists the world over have whinged non-stop about the putting down of this uprising. Only last summer I was on the G8 alternatives campsite in Edinburgh, when anarchists scrawled 'remember Kronstadt' on the inside of the marquee owned by the local council.
(As an aside - they then moved on to their 'eco-camp' in Stirling. Eco-camp in this case is a euphamism - it means they were able to shit in a tree. Hilariously, large numbers of them were soon suffering from dysentery as a result of this.)
Leon Trotsky was getting exceedingly tired of this by 1938. In his outstanding Hue and Cry over Kronstadt he wrote:
So what had actually gone on that left this motley crew of counter-revolutionaries so wound up? Why did they focus on this particular event, rather than any of the other occasions when Lenin and Trotsky clashed with peasants, or even with sections of workers? The main antagonism was between peasants, who produced the bread, and workers, who consumed it. 3 years following the October revolution, resources were scarce. this led in places to fighting amongst workers, some of whom had stronger ties with the peasantry than others. This also affected the Red Army, with the effect that some regiments had to be disarmed.
How did this arise? By 1921 the Bolsheviks had successfully defended the revolution against 14 invading imperialist armies, and against the counter-revolutionary White Army. The civil war was over, but at great cost with industrial production reduced to one fifth of its pre-war level coal mining was at one tenth and iron production at one fortieth of pre-war averages. The collapse of industry and the decimation by war of the working class had plunged the towns into crisis. Unemployed workers returned to their families in the countryside. This meant the workers councils and Soviets could not function.
This explains the bread shortage - bread being necessary for the workers if they were to advance, and explains the tensions highlighted above. The peasants, who were granted their land by agreement with the Bolsheviks at the time of the revolution, were fighting for the right to sell their produce on the private market. The response of the Bolsheviks was War Communism - including most importantly the forced requisitioning of grain from the peasants. With the civil war over, peasants were no longer joining the Red Army and the Bolshevik Party that had defended the revolution. Armed peasants began to confront the Bolsheviks - these rebellions were swiftly put down. At the same time though, concessions were made to the peasantry, increasing the hardship of workers. By January 1921, the bread ration for Moscow and Petrograd was reduced by a third. Heavy snow and fuel shortages meant that in the first week and a half of February, no grain reached Moscow. This shortage led the workers to strike for bread.
Lenin wrote at this time of the conditions necessary for socialism to emerge victorious in Russia:
These conditions were not in place. The decisive fights for international socialism were not confined to Russia, but were taking place in Germany, where the revolution had not yet been defeated. The Bolsheviks were forced to concentrate on a peace treaty with Poland, and a trading agreement with Britain, in order to retain power long enough to inspire workers' struggle and revolution elsewhere.
This is the backdrop to Kronstadt. However, it is a lie when it is claimed the sailors who rebelled at Kronstadt were those who were key to defending the October Revolution. The majority of these, who had been conscipted largely from Petrograd, were killed and wounded, and what was in place in March 1921 was a large number of peasant conscripts, led in the uprising by Petrichenko, himself a Ukrainian peasant.
The effect of this was, unsurprisingly, a lack of consciousness. Peasants were quitting the party, membership in Kronstadt having halved within 6 months. This manifested itself as anti-semitism, the peasants singling out Trotsky and Zinoviev for attack. Vershinin, of the Kronstadt Revolutionary Committee, announced:
The backwardness was also manifested in the calls from the sailors for greater freedoms. But not only were they against the requisitioning of grain, they were also calling for the abolition of Bolshevik authority in the army, factories and mills. The sailors assumed that their anti-Bolshevik sentiment would be shared by the striking workers. In reality, the bread strikes were coming to an end, and the Petrograd workers were in support of the Bolsheviks.
A mass meeting of sailors and soldiers in Kronstadt on March 1 put into power an unelected Provisional Revolutionary Committee. In effect, the sailors of Kronstadt declared war on the Bolshevik state. More recently, a Memorandum on the Question of Organising an Uprising in Kronstadt, from January 1921, has surfaced in the Columbia University Russian Archive. It details plans of White Army and French government support for the Kronstadt sailors, with the express purpose of undermining the Bolsheviks:
This shows that is wasn't only the Bolsheviks who saw Kronstadt as endangering the revolution. Ruling classes across the world saw this as a key fight. This is the context in which Lenin and Trotsky were forced to put down the uprising. Strategically, this had to be done quickly, as the Gulf of Finland, where Kronstadt lies, would only be frozen for 2 more weeks.
The first attacks on Kronstadt by the Red Army ended in failure, however a regroupment including 320 delegates from the Bolshevik Tenth Party Congress succesfully broke through. 8,000 rebels fled to Finland, where a number of them revealed their close ties with the White Army.
It is key to note that there was not some anti-anarchist sentiment running through the Bolshevik Party. By contrast, the likes of Victor Serge were accepted into its ranks. Serge criticized the anarchists for being unable to offer anything other than criticism and opposition to the regime, and it was this counter-revolutionary nature that meant a number of them had to be repressed during the civil war. Had the uprising been successful, it is not the peasants whoi would have taken power, rather, far more reactionary forces would have filled the gap. Indeed, during the Spanish Revolution we were able to see first-hand the shortcomings of this anarchist opposition to all regimes and governments, in the failure of the CNT to take power. Those members of the CNT who argued for the need to take power were expelled.
This shows why the putting down of the Kronstadt rebellion was important. It is also something that brings a smile to my face whenever I am confronted with shitty anarchistic arguments within united fronts. Although for Trotsky it was a tragic necessity, to me it is a reminder of the counter-revolutionary nature of many strands of anarchism and autonomism, and why they must be smashed. And that's why, when I see grafitti saying 'Remember Kronstadt', I smile to myself and think 'yeah, it was bloody fantastic!'
(As an aside - they then moved on to their 'eco-camp' in Stirling. Eco-camp in this case is a euphamism - it means they were able to shit in a tree. Hilariously, large numbers of them were soon suffering from dysentery as a result of this.)
Leon Trotsky was getting exceedingly tired of this by 1938. In his outstanding Hue and Cry over Kronstadt he wrote:
One would think that the Kronstadt revolt occurred not seventeen years ago, but only yesterday. Participating in the campaign with equal zeal and under one and the same slogan are Anarchists, Russian Mensheviks, left Social Democrats of the London Bureau, individual blunderers, Miliukov’s paper, and, on occasion, the big capitalist press. A ”People’s Front“ of its own kind!
So what had actually gone on that left this motley crew of counter-revolutionaries so wound up? Why did they focus on this particular event, rather than any of the other occasions when Lenin and Trotsky clashed with peasants, or even with sections of workers? The main antagonism was between peasants, who produced the bread, and workers, who consumed it. 3 years following the October revolution, resources were scarce. this led in places to fighting amongst workers, some of whom had stronger ties with the peasantry than others. This also affected the Red Army, with the effect that some regiments had to be disarmed.
How did this arise? By 1921 the Bolsheviks had successfully defended the revolution against 14 invading imperialist armies, and against the counter-revolutionary White Army. The civil war was over, but at great cost with industrial production reduced to one fifth of its pre-war level coal mining was at one tenth and iron production at one fortieth of pre-war averages. The collapse of industry and the decimation by war of the working class had plunged the towns into crisis. Unemployed workers returned to their families in the countryside. This meant the workers councils and Soviets could not function.
This explains the bread shortage - bread being necessary for the workers if they were to advance, and explains the tensions highlighted above. The peasants, who were granted their land by agreement with the Bolsheviks at the time of the revolution, were fighting for the right to sell their produce on the private market. The response of the Bolsheviks was War Communism - including most importantly the forced requisitioning of grain from the peasants. With the civil war over, peasants were no longer joining the Red Army and the Bolshevik Party that had defended the revolution. Armed peasants began to confront the Bolsheviks - these rebellions were swiftly put down. At the same time though, concessions were made to the peasantry, increasing the hardship of workers. By January 1921, the bread ration for Moscow and Petrograd was reduced by a third. Heavy snow and fuel shortages meant that in the first week and a half of February, no grain reached Moscow. This shortage led the workers to strike for bread.
Lenin wrote at this time of the conditions necessary for socialism to emerge victorious in Russia:
Here industrial workers are in a minority, and the petty farmers are the vast majority. In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries... The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds state power, and the majority of the peasant population.
These conditions were not in place. The decisive fights for international socialism were not confined to Russia, but were taking place in Germany, where the revolution had not yet been defeated. The Bolsheviks were forced to concentrate on a peace treaty with Poland, and a trading agreement with Britain, in order to retain power long enough to inspire workers' struggle and revolution elsewhere.
This is the backdrop to Kronstadt. However, it is a lie when it is claimed the sailors who rebelled at Kronstadt were those who were key to defending the October Revolution. The majority of these, who had been conscipted largely from Petrograd, were killed and wounded, and what was in place in March 1921 was a large number of peasant conscripts, led in the uprising by Petrichenko, himself a Ukrainian peasant.
The effect of this was, unsurprisingly, a lack of consciousness. Peasants were quitting the party, membership in Kronstadt having halved within 6 months. This manifested itself as anti-semitism, the peasants singling out Trotsky and Zinoviev for attack. Vershinin, of the Kronstadt Revolutionary Committee, announced:
Enough of your "hoorahs", and join with us to beat the Jews. It's their
cursed domination that we workers and peasants have to endure.
The backwardness was also manifested in the calls from the sailors for greater freedoms. But not only were they against the requisitioning of grain, they were also calling for the abolition of Bolshevik authority in the army, factories and mills. The sailors assumed that their anti-Bolshevik sentiment would be shared by the striking workers. In reality, the bread strikes were coming to an end, and the Petrograd workers were in support of the Bolsheviks.
A mass meeting of sailors and soldiers in Kronstadt on March 1 put into power an unelected Provisional Revolutionary Committee. In effect, the sailors of Kronstadt declared war on the Bolshevik state. More recently, a Memorandum on the Question of Organising an Uprising in Kronstadt, from January 1921, has surfaced in the Columbia University Russian Archive. It details plans of White Army and French government support for the Kronstadt sailors, with the express purpose of undermining the Bolsheviks:
A breakdown in morale would be inevitable if the insurgent sailors were not to receive assurances of sympathy and support from the outside, in particular from the Russian Army commanded by General Wrangel. Further, the rising was seen as 'a very rare opportunity-an opportunity that probably will not be repeated-to seize Kronstadt and inflict upon Bolshevism the heaviest of blows, from which it may not recover.
This shows that is wasn't only the Bolsheviks who saw Kronstadt as endangering the revolution. Ruling classes across the world saw this as a key fight. This is the context in which Lenin and Trotsky were forced to put down the uprising. Strategically, this had to be done quickly, as the Gulf of Finland, where Kronstadt lies, would only be frozen for 2 more weeks.
The first attacks on Kronstadt by the Red Army ended in failure, however a regroupment including 320 delegates from the Bolshevik Tenth Party Congress succesfully broke through. 8,000 rebels fled to Finland, where a number of them revealed their close ties with the White Army.
It is key to note that there was not some anti-anarchist sentiment running through the Bolshevik Party. By contrast, the likes of Victor Serge were accepted into its ranks. Serge criticized the anarchists for being unable to offer anything other than criticism and opposition to the regime, and it was this counter-revolutionary nature that meant a number of them had to be repressed during the civil war. Had the uprising been successful, it is not the peasants whoi would have taken power, rather, far more reactionary forces would have filled the gap. Indeed, during the Spanish Revolution we were able to see first-hand the shortcomings of this anarchist opposition to all regimes and governments, in the failure of the CNT to take power. Those members of the CNT who argued for the need to take power were expelled.
This shows why the putting down of the Kronstadt rebellion was important. It is also something that brings a smile to my face whenever I am confronted with shitty anarchistic arguments within united fronts. Although for Trotsky it was a tragic necessity, to me it is a reminder of the counter-revolutionary nature of many strands of anarchism and autonomism, and why they must be smashed. And that's why, when I see grafitti saying 'Remember Kronstadt', I smile to myself and think 'yeah, it was bloody fantastic!'
