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.
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.
Removed by mod
I’ve read the page, you think I am arbitrarily applying analysis?
Removed by mod
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.”
Removed by mod
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.