• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      47·
      10 hours ago

      Even if the ideals of the rebellion were founded in good intentions by the sailors, 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 sailors placed their own interests over the broader soviet people. 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. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council leading the rebellion, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.

      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.

      Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:

      1. To abolish all Political Departments, because no single party may enjoy privileges in the propagation of its ideas and receive funds from the state for this purpose. Instead of these Departments, locally elected cultural-educational commissions must be established and supported by the state. This is the reason for the inclusion of this document in a collection otherwise devoted entirely to official publications.

      2. All ‘cordon detachments” are to be abolished immediately.

      3. To abolish all Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various Communist guards at factories. If such detachments and guards are needed they may be chosen from the companies in military units and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers.

      They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal.

      1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not represent the will of the workers and peasants, to re-elect the soviets immediately by secret voting, with free canvassing among all workers and peasants before the elections.

      They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn’t like how they were made up. Further, the sailors that returned to the soviets were quite literally allowed to go to those meetings in 1936.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
        51·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        Yeah, for sure, totally.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          14·
          10 hours ago

          Are you being serious with this response? The Kronstadt sailors didn’t want more worker control, they were unhappy that the bolsheviks had majority support and sought to eliminate the ability to elect bolsheviks in the soviets. In other words, they were upset at the rest od the working classes for rallying behind the bolsheviks. They also sought to, as I quoted, abolish all communist fighting detachments and cordons. This would have led to an immediate loss of the civil war to the White Army. I thought you sought the “objective truth about anything and everything,” not “whatever conforms to my existing biases.”

          As for Lenin and anarchists, he disagreed with them vehemontly, see Theses on Anarchism, but at the same time he praised “red anarchists” that fought alongside the red army and even joined it. He also respected Kropotkin, even meeting with him during the revolution. They disagreed, but Kropotkin ultimately hesitantly and critically supported the revolution as it was, though not what he wanted, still the siezure of worker power from the Tsar.

          Also, Kropotkinskaya.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              16·
              10 hours ago

              The majority of the anarchists sided with the socialists over the Tsarists. Major figures like Kropotkin were protected even after the revolution. Anarchists were not hunted systematically, the ones that took up arms against the rest of the working classes were met with force, as is natural in a civil war.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
                  34·
                  10 hours ago

                  Are you allergic to addressing the points I make, by any chance? Fighting between anarchists and socialists absolutely did happen, but this wasn’t a blanket order to terrorize anarchists in particular. The bolsheviks ideologically struggled against anarchism, which itself was not as popular as Marxism in Russia (the opposite of the layer Spanish civil war, where anarchism was dominant). Anarchists by and large accepted socialism, with some deciding to go against the socialists and take up arms, which was definitely met with force.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    231·
    19 hours ago

    The funniest part is despite being deified and the US constitution immortalized they didn’t except nor plan for it to last even a century, it was literally made by a bunch of inexperienced people who expected it to be replaced.

    • goferking (he/him)English
      171·
      16 hours ago

      this should be a living document that is constantly updated and amended

      Founders

      we must only go by what the founders would have thought and not deviate at all

      Conservatives and Supreme Court

      • deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zipEnglish
        11·
        14 hours ago

        Even funnier, both of these viewpoints are losers. The Constitution is so difficult to amend that many of the most dramatic developments were simply the supreme Court deciding that some part of it should actually mean something else.

        For example, it states that the federal government has authority over, specifically, inter-state commerce. This was never changed or amended. The reason the federal government has authority over ALL commerce now is because the supreme Court simply decided that all commerce has inter-state ramifications, and thus is basically inter-state commerce.

        These fuckers can literally just say the constitution says whatever they want and they’ve done that so much over the last 240 or so years that one cannot read it and understand what the law actually is. Certain parts simply don’t apply anymore, or mean something different, or are said to “imply” other parts that don’t technically exist, but the supreme Court said they basically do. The legislature can technically amend the Constitution, but that’s a bitch to do. And what the fuck does it matter when these 9 people, more than half of them very bribable, get to say the document means whatever they feel like it means, even if their reasoning is “the constitution is very correct and smart, so obviously it says things that are correct and smart. The correct and smart thing would be for it to include this policy, so it probably does.”

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        61·
        14 hours ago

        Not only that many of the founders outright said that it should be completely replaced one a generation, Thomas Jefferson famously said

        “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”