Who is your hero from history?
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.
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.
You aren’t doing any material analysis, just vibes and idealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
I've read the page, you think I am arbitrarily applying analysis?
"Although the rebels did not expect a military confrontation with the government, tensions in Kronstadt grew after the arrest and disappearance of a delegation sent by the naval base to Petrograd to investigate the situation of strikes and protests in the city. Some of the base's communists began to arm themselves while others abandoned it.
On March 2, the delegates of warships, military units, and unions met to prepare for reelection of the local soviet. About 300 delegates joined in to renew the soviet as decided at the previous day's assembly. The leading Bolshevik representatives tried to dissuade the delegates through threats, but were unsuccessful. Three of them, the president of the local soviet and the commissars of the Kuzmin fleet and the Kronstadt platoon, were arrested by the rebels. The break with the government came about as a rumor spread through the assembly that the government planned to crack down on the assembly and send government troops to the naval base. 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. The assembly of delegates became the island's parliament, and met twice on March 4 and 11.
Part of the Kronstadt Bolsheviks hastily left the island. A group of them, led by the fortress commissioner, tried to crush the revolt but, lacking support, eventually ran away. During the early hours of March 2, the town, fleet boats and island fortifications were already in the hands of the PRC, which met with no resistance. The rebels arrested 326 Bolsheviks, about a fifth of the local communists, the rest of whom were left free. In contrast, the Bolshevik authorities executed forty-five sailors in Oranienbaum and took relatives of the rebels hostage. None of the rebel-held Bolsheviks suffered abuse, torture or executions. The prisoners received the same rations as the rest of the islanders and lost only their boots and shelters, which were handed over to the soldiers on duty at the fortifications."
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.
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."
This is your rendition of the events and you have the guts to call out others for no context or analysis
I hope you actually read the wikipedia page and are aware of the events, if not i encourage you to study and read more, the wikipedia page provides other sources.