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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
“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”
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.
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.
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.
I’m suggesting you that executing anarchists as bandits without trial or hearing is far from being heroic
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.
Who did they arrest and why? Who led the Bolsheviks? How was the rebellion suppressed?
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.