Lord of the Trots

Photo

Fri, 03 May 2013 16:57:18 -0400

muirin007: All I see when I look at this is Nadir pulling a...

Fri, 03 May 2013 16:55:52 -0400

All I see when I look at this is Nadir pulling a Patrick and saying this to Erik.

And then getting the crap slapped out of him.

if you spend your time bringing up shit other bloggers you know literally nothing about did over a...

Fri, 03 May 2013 12:01:47 -0400

if you spend your time bringing up shit other bloggers you know literally nothing about did over a year ago you must lead the least fulfilling life and i feel sorry for you

since no one on tumblr realy actually knows about the leople with whom they jnteract thatseems to...

Fri, 03 May 2013 01:17:03 -0400

since no one on tumblr realy actually knows about the leople with whom they jnteract thatseems to create really ridiculous exlectations for peopl who are younger

dont expect a 16 year old kid not to be horny and a really raw marxist and then be a Condescending Grown Man who never did anything stupid ever

andrew lloyd webber y did u make phantom of the opera so sexual thats unnecessary i mean come on he...

Fri, 03 May 2013 01:02:38 -0400

andrew lloyd webber y did u make phantom of the opera so sexual thats unnecessary i mean come on he sobbed all over her when she kissed him on the forehead and just wants to sing songs and have a woman love him and i dont think he could rmotionally handle sex

have you tried being a hated and disgusting freak then tried to have fulfilling sex its difficult to not cry and apologize profusely to your partner for not being what they deserve

there once was a time when i thought it would be cool if there was a communist fandom but then it...

Fri, 03 May 2013 00:51:31 -0400

there once was a time when i thought it would be cool if there was a communist fandom but then it actually happened and now i am really creeped out can everyone stop its one thing to have an embarrassing crush on trotsky but this is too much and maybe if yall knew whqt you were talking about in important things i wouldnt care but no one does

PSA for anyone interested in historical fact

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:44:00 -0400

Assume anything mal says about Trotsky is wrong

Raoul from the animated version of Phantom of the Opera

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:51:21 -0400

Raoul from the animated version of Phantom of the Opera

what if every time sebby and i have been extensively separated upon being reunited i knock him over...

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:44:22 -0400

what if every time sebby and i have been extensively separated upon being reunited i knock him over hugging him

I don’t know how other trans guys feel about characters. Do others like having trans...

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:49:04 -0400

I don’t know how other trans guys feel about characters. Do others like having trans characters to relate to? I just sort of feel uncomfortable with trans characters but tend to very strongly relate to characters who are deformed cis men and find an emotional outlet in them (which is a major part of what draws me to Phantom of the Opera). That probably says a lot about how I view my transsexuality. How are other guys?

hey losers guess what sebby and i have been together a year

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:07:48 -0400

hey losers guess what sebby and i have been together a year

i found team erik shirts i quit i am so beyond done with this fandom

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:51:39 -0400

i found team erik shirts i quit i am so beyond done with this fandom

i love those days when papers are due oh man its great bc thats when i stay up late and watch...

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:44:11 -0400

i love those days when papers are due oh man its great bc thats when i stay up late and watch different versions of phantom of the opera before actually doing my schoolwork

Jean van Heijenoort, With Trotsky in Exile

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:23:41 -0400

Jean van Heijenoort, With Trotsky in Exile

lenintrotsky: Voroxilov, Trotsky, Kalinin, Frunze, Clara...

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:00:56 -0400

lenintrotsky:

Voroxilov, Trotsky, Kalinin, Frunze, Clara Zetkin

Budionni

i wonder if any bolsheviks i know and love ever read phantom of the opera it wasnt very popular when...

Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:20:39 -0400

i wonder if any bolsheviks i know and love ever read phantom of the opera

it wasnt very popular when it came out tho

ever since the phantom of the opera book came in the mail ive reached new levels of distaste for...

Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:18:23 -0400

ever since the phantom of the opera book came in the mail ive reached new levels of distaste for christine

Photo

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:14:52 -0400

redribbonarmy: trotscum: As far as the composition of the Kronstadt sailors goes in 1917 they sure...

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:03:13 -0400

redribbonarmy:

trotscum:

As far as the composition of the Kronstadt sailors goes in 1917 they sure were loyal revolutionaries but even Petrichenko acknowledged their origins. The Bolsheviks really did recognize the validity of their demands (except they weren’t about to share power bc that clearly hadn’t worked when they tried), and they didn’t want to crush them. Yes, it was a threat to the Bolshevik dominance and they were perfectly justified in defending that state control.

Also when I said Trotsky wasn’t very personally involved I mean that more in the sense of while he did order it he wasn’t standing there demanding they be shot and covered in their blood (as I’ve seen people say he was).

What I presented was more the context of Kronstadt than a specific sequence of events, but that context is vital to understanding why the Bolsheviks took the measures they did. I don’t know the scope of your paper so I have no way to judge how much you address that.

As far as sources go, I have a bunch I can give you and I collected them but they’re on the other computer that I can’t access now and I don’t remember the names of all the books I used, I apologized. I know there was one that was a collection of Lenin and Trotsky’s writing on the subject and the introduction was very informative, I had some books on the civil war, another book on the NEP, uhhh Victor Serge, but I can’t tell specific things except like if you wanted dates on the Japanese army (those are the only things I can remember exactly and immediately recall where I found the information).

well honestly, my paper doesn’t even have anything to do with my opinion on the matter (although i’m sure it’s easy to see who’s side i’m on). i’m writing it for this class i’m taking called The Art of War, the assignment is to take any historical battle and analyze it through one of the war theorists we’ve studied (i’m using Clausewitz). i tried to present both perspectives in an equally positive light, but it’s hard for me to understand the Bolshevik justifications for it.

the rebels never wanted any violence or bloodshed, they just wanted the workers at Petrograd to have some food and shoes. they didn’t really even directly threaten Bolshevik dominance, their persistence just kind of implied that they thought the workers had final say on things, not the Bolshevik party. i’ve only been using two books for this though, neither of which hold the Bolsheviks in high esteem (one of them is Emma Goldman’s My Disillusionment in Russia, but the main one is Emanuel Pollack’s The Kronstadt Rebellion). for me though, the primary source documents from the sailors themselves really say it all. they remained completely loyal to the Soviet system and the socialist revolution all the way to their deaths. all they really asked for was free speech for workers (especially those at Petrograd), the release of political prisoners who were members of other socialist parties, self-governance of workers, and equal rations for everyone. i think they would have even settled for just a couple of those. i don’t think that warranted such harsh measures.

Ooooooh that sounds fascinating! I would love to take a class like that. How is it?

Well now that I know your sources I can see why you have a problem in seeing the Bolshevik justification. First of all, it’s probably hyperbolic (such as citing the death toll as a number higher than there were sailors in the entire Baltic fleet). Second, Emma Goldman doesn’t look at why they had to do things she just whines about the fact that they happened. It’s very frustrating and she does it all the time. The Bolsheviks knew perfectly well in seizing control over the state they would have to do things they really didn’t want to do in order to defend the revolution. The Bolsheviks didn’t want to do it, I’ve read their letters and diaries trust me they didn’t. They shed tears, they lost sleep night after night, but they’d been hardened by revolution and understood the broader context of the event. If you’ll look at subsequent policy changes many of the sailors’ in principle completely correct demands were met. For the Bolsheviks their actions were in many ways motivated by the same forces. For example, had they lost control over the state they wouldn’t have been able to transport the grain to the cities,and as I’ve previously stated that was an issue due to concurrent unrest.

redribbonarmy: trotscum: redribbonarmy: trotscum replied to your post: trotscum replied to your...

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:56:00 -0400

redribbonarmy:

trotscum:

redribbonarmy:

trotscum replied to your post: trotscum replied to your post: …

partially because that doesnt address what permanent revolution actually is but also because you seem to show a really weak understanding of who the kronstadt sailors were and why the bolsheviks shut them down

can you explain to me, then, who they were and why they were slaughtered? i’m actually writing a paper on it as we speak, and from my understanding the demands of the Kronstadt sailors were perfectly in line with communist ideology and a threat to nothing but the dominance of the Bolsheviks.

First of all, many of the Kronstadt sailors by 1921 had come directly from fighting the Bolsheviks in Ukraine and then when they lost they promptly enlisted in the Soviet navy. Also, even though the sailors themselves weren’t necessarily directly linked to White emigres or foreign capitalists there was particularly damning evidence that they were involved, such as the fact that the French press talked about the insurrection two weeks before it happened.

The problem with the demands of the Kronstadt sailors wasn’t that what they demanded was wrong on principle, it wasn’t. It becomes dangerous given the context. At the time the country was in crisis, While the war was winding down and fighting had ceased, troops had not withdrawn and foreign capital still looked greedily on Russian resources and prevented peace treaties from being signed. There had already been extensive uprisings in Ukraine and sabotage in Siberia. Much of this was on the part of the SRs, whose program in many ways coincided with that of the Kronstadt sailors. By 1921, the Bolsheviks faced the problem of feeding the country when the most fertile lands were controlled by hostile elements and vital transportation was destroyed. It was an unstable, chaotic state, and the Bolsheviks alone provided what Russia really needed most: stability.

The demands of the Kronstadt sailors also coincide with many of the reforms that took place with the NEP. It is often incorrectly said that Kronstadt caused the NEP, but in reality the 10th Party Congress at which it was adopted was halfway over when the uprising began. It had the effect of lessening opposition. The Bolsheviks thus faced a rather undesirable situation. No one wanted to crush the Kronstadt sailors. They gave them several days to negotiate and surrender peacefully, but when that did not happen they were left with no choice. As is characteristic of Trotsky, he tried as far as he could to avoid bloodshed, but once that was impossible he ruthlessly and resolutely accomplished the task at hand (it is also worth mentioning that Trotsky had very little personal involvement in the campaign and didn’t even attend the 10th Congress in its entirety. As President of the Petrograd Soviet, Kronstadt was mostly Zinoviev’s jurisdiction).

that’s not really how i understand what happened, and i’d like to see sources (they’d be useful for my paper). from what my sources tell me, the sailors at Kronstadt were actually crucial to the success of the revolution. according to my sources, the rebels were completely willing to come to a compromise, and never denounced the soviet system itself. you can see that in both the resolution they drafted 7 days before the first cannons were fired, which was in support of the strikers at petrograd (who were striking for equal rations and shoes), and in the publications they attempted to distribute during the battle. they constantly emphasized their support of the soviet socialist revolution and expressed solidarity with their working brothers and sisters. the reason Kronstadt was attacked wasn’t that they wouldn’t compromise or deliberate, it was because the sailors refused to remain silent, refused to willfully ignore the prison camps filled with political prisoners or the silencing of the petrograd workers. their military strategy was in no way aggressive against the bolsheviks, even though it would have made the rebellion last a LOT longer. the island fortress at Kronstadt was designed to defend against naval attacks from the west and to fall easily against attacks from the mainland in case an enemy were to capture it. on top of this, kronstadt had limited supplies. if they would have seized Oranienbaum, they would have had the storage supplies that were meant for Kronstadt and a defense against attacks from the mainland. instead, they decided at great strategic expense to fight a completely defensive battle. trotsky personally ordered the attack. on top of that, he was the one who stationed General Kozlovsky at Kronstadt in the first place, who the Bolsheviks later tried to pin as a White Army sympathizer. again, according to my research the sailors at Kronstadt didn’t even want a battle. they immediately apologized after repelling the first soldiers that marched across the frozen gulf of finland, saying that they only did so because they had no choice. it was either fight or face annihilation. from what i can see, the sailors were killed because they constituted a threat to bolshevik dominance. they challenged bolshevik rule and suggested that the bolsheviks might have to share power with other socialist parties. this, of course, was unacceptable for the bolsheviks, hence the slaughter of 14,000 loyal revolutionaries.

sorry for not separating this into paragraphs or organizing it well, like i said i’m writing a paper and typed this up real quick.

As far as the composition of the Kronstadt sailors goes in 1917 they sure were loyal revolutionaries but even Petrichenko acknowledged their origins. The Bolsheviks really did recognize the validity of their demands (except they weren’t about to share power bc that clearly hadn’t worked when they tried), and they didn’t want to crush them. Yes, it was a threat to the Bolshevik dominance and they were perfectly justified in defending that state control.

Also when I said Trotsky wasn’t very personally involved I mean that more in the sense of while he did order it he wasn’t standing there demanding they be shot and covered in their blood (as I’ve seen people say he was).

What I presented was more the context of Kronstadt than a specific sequence of events, but that context is vital to understanding why the Bolsheviks took the measures they did. I don’t know the scope of your paper so I have no way to judge how much you address that.

As far as sources go, I have a bunch I can give you and I collected them but they’re on the other computer that I can’t access now and I don’t remember the names of all the books I used, I apologized. I know there was one that was a collection of Lenin and Trotsky’s writing on the subject and the introduction was very informative, I had some books on the civil war, another book on the NEP, uhhh Victor Serge, but I can’t tell specific things except like if you wanted dates on the Japanese army (those are the only things I can remember exactly and immediately recall where I found the information).