this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024

132 points (99.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43494 readers

1478 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

132

Who is your hero from history? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 2 days ago by IceHouse@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For me it has to be Malcom X, I'm not American, but I read his autobiography when I was young and it left a life long impression on me about justice and resiliency. He grew up in an extremely oppressive society, his dad was murdered and his mother was sent to the loony bin and he was clearly lost and traumatized. When he went to jail he was smart enough to be like what the hell, why am I here? Educating himself and channeling his energy into caring about others and justice transformed him into one of the most powerful and well respected leaders of his time.

He is often denigrated by Americans as violent and contrasted with King Jr. but by all accounts whenever he was in a position to project violence he chose de-escalation like during the Harlem riots and saved lives as there were people in the US in positions of military power who would have loved an excuse to do to them what they did to the indigenous across the entire country.

He was angry but principled and really set a template for me about how to be a leader and help me process my own anger and channel it into something more positive.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You’re suggesting that

I'm suggesting you that executing anarchists as bandits without trial or hearing is far from being heroic

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The rebels had arrested and silenced the Communists in their area, and they were led by a fascist.

Who did they arrest and why? Who led the Bolsheviks? How was the rebellion suppressed?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I've read the page, you think I am arbitrarily applying analysis?

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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."

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

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.