Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Storozhevoy Mutiny

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 23 Apr 2014, 03:01
So, comrades, I was watching the following

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYQEl9OxnqM

And I was wondering if this issue has been discussed before. The film is your Western trite and can't seem to understand a socialist being sickened with the rotteness of Brezhnev and co and opting for proletarian revolution over bourgeois selling out.

I've read other pieces about the mutiny and like how the narrative is still the same: the great Sablin lead his sailors, good Soviet lads, to try and change the system. Seems good in my books as he was clearly a patriot and anti-imperialist interested in restoring the tenets of Marxism-Leninism even if his plans were focoist.

It also seems his two brothers remain Communist Party loyalists and activists to this day. We have comrades like Soviet78 who are Russian and so I'd like to learn more about their opinions on this
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 23 Apr 2014, 03:07
I posted about it in one of these threads, two of which were started by Loz:

viewtopic.php?f=107&p=781506
viewtopic.php?f=123&t=51392
viewtopic.php?f=110&t=42267

Oh right, it was this one: viewtopic.php?f=107&t=36338
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 23 Apr 2014, 03:26
Kirov wrote:
I posted about it in one of these threads, two of which were started by Loz:

viewtopic.php?f=107&p=781506
viewtopic.php?f=123&t=51392
viewtopic.php?f=110&t=42267

Oh right, it was this one: viewtopic.php?f=107&t=36338


Thanks for the links though they're kind of old.

I'm also interested in learning about his family who seem to remain communists, who they are, and what they're doing. Maybe even what they think of him.

Obviously, I think his methods were wrong. But what was he going to do in such a society? Clearly we can get the "Andropov path" but by that point in time he'd be old. It also relies on one man, and the weakness of a system that requires 1 dude for reform is as weak as that which requires 1 dude for revolution
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 23 Apr 2014, 07:25
Interesting links to past discussions. The Alan Woods article linked in some of those threads is quite remarkable: it slyly implies that Shablin was a Trotskyist, or at least that he wanted to read Trotsky to understand what was going on, without actually coming out and saying so. Is there any evidence of this, or is Shablin just the latest historical figure to be co-opted by Trotskyists, like Che and Tito?

By the way, someone should really tell Woods to ease up on all the cheap tugging at the heartstrings. His flowery prose and revolutionary romanticism is all the funnier when you consider that he is basically the arch-reformist of the Trotskyist movement.

I have yet to see the film linked here, so maybe it's answered there, but do we really know that Shablin had no recourse to do anything except this action? That his action was brave, but foolish is readily evident from the fact that his own men turned him in. Surprisingly, they were not willing to die for an abstract ideal. And of course the great revolutionary Alan Woods sees fit to denounce them all as a bunch of sycophants for this. Stupid, stupid workers. Just as he probably cries himself to sleep each night because the working class aren't flocking to the Labour Party en masse, but I digress.

In any event, mutiny is a severe crime. Of course, if it works, you're a great revolutionary. We must judge things politically, rather than simply looking at the formality of the law; but in this case it seems like it was just a quixotic two-man action, endangering the lives of their crew. If it is true that the penalty for mutiny in the Soviet Union was 15 years in jail, then executing him is unforgivable as well.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 23 Apr 2014, 12:29
No 14 wrote:
Interesting links to past discussions. The Alan Woods article linked in some of those threads is quite remarkable: it slyly implies that Shablin was a Trotskyist, or at least that he wanted to read Trotsky to understand what was going on, without actually coming out and saying so. Is there any evidence of this, or is Shablin just the latest historical figure to be co-opted by Trotskyists, like Che and Tito?

By the way, someone should really tell Woods to ease up on all the cheap tugging at the heartstrings. His flowery prose and revolutionary romanticism is all the funnier when you consider that he is basically the arch-reformist of the Trotskyist movement.

I have yet to see the film linked here, so maybe it's answered there, but do we really know that Shablin had no recourse to do anything except this action? That his action was brave, but foolish is readily evident from the fact that his own men turned him in. Surprisingly, they were not willing to die for an abstract ideal. And of course the great revolutionary Alan Woods sees fit to denounce them all as a bunch of sycophants for this. Stupid, stupid workers. Just as he probably cries himself to sleep each night because the working class aren't flocking to the Labour Party en masse, but I digress.

In any event, mutiny is a severe crime. Of course, if it works, you're a great revolutionary. We must judge things politically, rather than simply looking at the formality of the law; but in this case it seems like it was just a quixotic two-man action, endangering the lives of their crew. If it is true that the penalty for mutiny in the Soviet Union was 15 years in jail, then executing him is unforgivable as well.


Don't believe anything by Alan Woods. At the same time, it appears there was a (limited) amount of work by Trotsky and Bukharin in the Lenin school; not just the documentary but the English-language book "The Last Sentry" also says this. Not that it means he was a Trotskyist, just that he wasn't completely confined to Soviet apparatchik works.

At the same time I find it funny Stalinists always accuse "co-option" before doing so themselves to other figures including dubious ones like Gaddafi (and no, I don't buy half the Western propaganda on him that doesn't stop him being a sketch bag who ensured a restoration of capitalism). I'd also point out it was the official position of the 4th International that Tito was still a Stalinist, just a nice one.

Also Sablin's name is with an "C" in cyrillic, not the "sh" sound. Just so you know


However that aside the method was wrong. I'm not debating that, it could be heroic but wrong and fundamentally his men were confused and wanted to ensure they were OK after it was all over. That didn't stop many of them being proud, even today, of what they tried to do.

Also I don't see why you're whining about Alan Woods. I don't like him much either yet you're stooping to personal attacks about what he does or doesn't do. He doesn't denounce the mutineers, he denounces the 8 officers who refused to go along with the plan, in particular the medical officer. There's nothing about stupid workers; if anything, he fails to even mention how quickly many of them reversed their stories. And wow, nice sideways dig at his incorrect approach. I guess the orthodox M-L's cry themselves to bed because workers either don't flock to anything, flock to the X-Factor, or join misguided semi-Trot movements like RESPECT?


Anyways, I agree it was an action by a few ringleaders. That they were so charismatic and capable of motivating people stands to the strength of their character; however it was a bad choice. So was the one to execute him at the last second by Brezhnev.

You said to judge politically. Indeed, this is true. Clearly it was very hard to get to the top and change things "from within" so he made the calculation that he could lead. And who knows what would happen if his message got out there? There were alternatives to this act, of course, but history is 20/20
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 26 Apr 2014, 11:56
Who co-opted Gadhafi? Indeed, who would want to? The CPGB-ML maybe? Nothing very representative, in any case. As for Alan Woods, I guess I just think he's an idiot.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 26 Apr 2014, 15:59
No 14 wrote:
Who co-opted Gadhafi? Indeed, who would want to? The CPGB-ML maybe? Nothing very representative, in any case. As for Alan Woods, I guess I just think he's an idiot.


"If it's not me, it's not representative"

No, most Stalinists were crying their eyes out for him in Canada as well. And Brazil... a lot in fact so please don't say "b-but we're better than that fool Woods!"

Sectarianism effects almost all equally
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Apr 2014, 16:20
Why are you No14 calling Woods an idiot?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 02 May 2014, 15:07
somewhat wrote:
"If it's not me, it's not representative"

No, most Stalinists were crying their eyes out for him in Canada as well. And Brazil... a lot in fact so please don't say "b-but we're better than that fool Woods!"

Sectarianism effects almost all equally


That depends on how you define sectarianism, which is one of the most abused words in the left. According to many leftists, you are guilty of "sectarianism" whenever you criticise a(nother) left sect. You can imagine what that does to discussion. But the proper meaning of sectarian is one who demands theoretical purity and refuses to work with broader parts of the workers' movement.

Of course anyone can commit the latter mistake, even (or especially, considering Maoists, Hoxhaists, etc.) those who call themselves ML (or "Stalinist" if you will). ML is not some kind of football team that I must support no matter what they say or do. It's a theoretical toolkit. Anyone on the internet can call themselves ML without ever having read either Marx, Engels, or Lenin, without ever having done an ounce of political work. In fact, one such person could become an ML blogger, or an infamous, beloved and loathed Youtube personality. Two more such people with an internet connection can call themselves an ML party, and indeed such "parties" are a dime a dozen online.

But as it is, I've never heard of any organisation trying to "co-opt" Gadhafi. Some may have supported him, some may have argued (as well they should) that whatever was wrong with Gadhafi, his death was an act of murder by obscurantist shits, made possible only by NATO bombings. All of which has nothing to do with co-optation.

Loz, in brief, I blame the man for using romantic revolutionary rhetoric to lure politically interested young people into the cul-de-sac of working within hopelessly reactionary social-democratic parties. To be honest, I think the true idiots are his followers. The man himself may in fact be pretty smart, come to think of it.
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 06 May 2014, 10:30
No 14 wrote:
The Alan Woods article linked in some of those threads is quite remarkable: it slyly implies that Shablin was a Trotskyist, or at least that he wanted to read Trotsky to understand what was going on, without actually coming out and saying so. Is there any evidence of this, or is Shablin just the latest historical figure to be co-opted by Trotskyists, like Che and Tito?
I don't know why somewhat replies to this by citing some parties praising Gaddafi, unless he can give any evidence that said parties implied that Gaddafi's politics were influenced by Marxist-Leninist texts.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 06 May 2014, 19:44
Ismail wrote:
I don't know why somewhat replies to this by citing some parties praising Gaddafi, unless he can give any evidence that said parties implied that Gaddafi's politics were influenced by Marxist-Leninist texts.


Better yet are the people who legitimately believe the confoundingly stupid notion that Hoxha was a good Marxist

:P

Anyways, please, tell me more about the great Marxism-Leninism of Tito and the evil Trotskyites who co opt him. All while the "M-Ls" praise the Great Leader Kim Il-Sung

Alan Woods is bollocks. I know. I like how I didn't even post his article because I don't consider it useful and folks are more interested in taking sectarian pot-shots at insulting him than discussing the topic at hand
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 06 May 2014, 21:23
somewhat wrote:
Better yet are the people who legitimately believe the confoundingly stupid notion that Hoxha was a good Marxist
Hoxha never claimed that the New Deal was a practical example of socialism in the USA, unlike your hero Tito.

Quote:
Anyways, please, tell me more about the great Marxism-Leninism of Tito and the evil Trotskyites who co opt him. All while the "M-Ls" praise the Great Leader Kim Il-Sung
The Trotskyites tried to get the Yugoslav CP to join the Fourth International. Also,

"2) Most reprehensible is the refusal of the Chinese to favor the de-Stalinization moves taken in the Soviet bloc since 1956. The continued cultivation of the Stalin cult and antagonism toward the liberalization of authoritarian rule places them at odds with the most progressive forces and anti-bureaucratic tendencies within the Soviet bloc and the Communist parties. This serves to counteract the support which revolutionary militants might otherwise be disposed to give to the Chinese criticisms of Moscow's line.

This reactionary attitude is symbolized on the state level in Peking's unprincipled bloc with Hoxha's Albania, one of the most despicable Stalinized regimes in Europe. In the factional fight against Khrushchev the Chinese may also be giving aid and comfort to the discredited Stalinist die-hards in the Soviet Union headed by the deposed Molotov 'anti-party' group.

Mao stands at the opposite pole in this respect to Castro who has not only supported the de-Stalinization processes in the Soviet bloc but has taken prompt and energetic steps to check any spread of the bureaucratic infection in Cuba.

3) While Peking praises Albania as a model Marxist-Leninist state, it unwarrantedly dismisses Yugoslavia as a capitalist state which should be ejected from the 'socialist camp.' Yet the internal regime of Communist Yugoslavia is much freer than the unmitigated despotism of its Albanian neighbor....

Since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the quick withering of the 'hundred-flowers-bloom' experiment in 1957, the Mao regime has been very apprehensive of opposition and has maintained rigid control over all domains of social and political activity. Its refusal to abandon such Stalinist practices not only offends powerful progressive currents in the Soviet bloc but runs counter to its own conduct in the dispute with Moscow."
(Warde, William F. Moscow vs. Peking: The Meaning of the Great Debate. New York: Pioneer Publishers. 1963. pp. 10-11.)

Trots have praised Tito, Mao, Khrushchev, Castro, and pretty much everyone other than Stalin, Hoxha, or other "Stalinists" like Rákosi and the like.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 06 May 2014, 21:32
Ismail wrote:
Hoxha never claimed that the New Deal was a practical example of socialism in the USA, unlike your hero Tito.

The Trotskyites tried to get the Yugoslav CP to join the Fourth International. Also,

"2) Most reprehensible is the refusal of the Chinese to favor the de-Stalinization moves taken in the Soviet bloc since 1956. The continued cultivation of the Stalin cult and antagonism toward the liberalization of authoritarian rule places them at odds with the most progressive forces and anti-bureaucratic tendencies within the Soviet bloc and the Communist parties. This serves to counteract the support which revolutionary militants might otherwise be disposed to give to the Chinese criticisms of Moscow's line.

This reactionary attitude is symbolized on the state level in Peking's unprincipled bloc with Hoxha's Albania, one of the most despicable Stalinized regimes in Europe. In the factional fight against Khrushchev the Chinese may also be giving aid and comfort to the discredited Stalinist die-hards in the Soviet Union headed by the deposed Molotov 'anti-party' group.

Mao stands at the opposite pole in this respect to Castro who has not only supported the de-Stalinization processes in the Soviet bloc but has taken prompt and energetic steps to check any spread of the bureaucratic infection in Cuba.

3) While Peking praises Albania as a model Marxist-Leninist state, it unwarrantedly dismisses Yugoslavia as a capitalist state which should be ejected from the 'socialist camp.' Yet the internal regime of Communist Yugoslavia is much freer than the unmitigated despotism of its Albanian neighbor....

Since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the quick withering of the 'hundred-flowers-bloom' experiment in 1957, the Mao regime has been very apprehensive of opposition and has maintained rigid control over all domains of social and political activity. Its refusal to abandon such Stalinist practices not only offends powerful progressive currents in the Soviet bloc but runs counter to its own conduct in the dispute with Moscow."
(Warde, William F. Moscow vs. Peking: The Meaning of the Great Debate. New York: Pioneer Publishers. 1963. pp. 10-11.)

Trots have praised Tito, Mao, Khrushchev, Castro, and pretty much everyone other than Stalin, Hoxha, or other "Stalinists" like Rákosi and the like.


Please, tell me more about how I worship Tito. When I have done nothing to say how awesome his regime is. For God's sake, he aided Rhodesia in the 1970's! I am not a Trotskyite and their unprincipled past opportunism was as pigheaded as the weak isolationism and stupidity of the Albanian "party of Labour" which you keep on saying collapse because "materialism" rather than the incompetence of the leadership of Hoxha and co.

Also you seem to be stating all Trotskyites are homogenous, which they aren't. There are Hoxhaites on the internet praising Tumblr-tier privilege checking on this very board yet you're not the same as them? If you are, then disgusting, but if you aren't, too bad, your logical fallacy still applies. I'm also pointing out many of the internet Stalinites want to worship Kim Il Sung or the like while disparaging "evil co-option." Wow, turns out sectarians are pretty damn similar.

Hoxhaism is the hipster lovechild of Stalinism designed to take an intellectual shit on everyone else despite its total intellectual bankruptcy based on a shitehole lead by a douchebag.
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 06 May 2014, 22:50
Quote:
I am not a Trotskyite and their unprincipled past opportunism was as pigheaded as the weak isolationism and stupidity of the Albanian "party of Labour" which you keep on saying collapse because "materialism" rather than the incompetence of the leadership of Hoxha and co.
The Soviet revisionists, as well as the West, Chinese and Yugoslavs tried to overthrow the Albanian leadership. The Albanians never cut off diplomatic relations, their enemies did.

And you're moving away from your idiotic claim that "Stalinists" try to "co-opt" Gaddafi, as if you can find a single "Stalinist" who claims that Gaddafi was an "unconscious Marxist-Leninist" or whatever.

And good job referring to Albania as a "shithole." On what basis? Because it wasn't an imperialist power?
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 06 May 2014, 23:05
Ismail wrote:
I am not a Trotskyite and their unprincipled past opportunism was as pigheaded as the weak isolationism and stupidity of the Albanian "party of Labour" which you keep on saying collapse because "materialism" rather than the incompetence of the leadership of Hoxha and co.
The Soviet revisionists, as well as the West, Chinese and Yugoslavs tried to overthrow the Albanian leadership. The Albanians never cut off diplomatic relations, their enemies did.

And you're moving away from your idiotic claim that "Stalinists" try to "co-opt" Gaddafi, as if you can find a single "Stalinist" who claims that Gaddafi was an "unconscious Marxist-Leninist" or whatever.[/quote]

http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secNam ... ementId=39

There you go. "Victory to the Revolution, Victory to Gaddafi"

Pretty straightforward

inb4 "but they aren't Marxists"
inb4 "b-but they didn't say they didn't say he was a Marxist" (as if the majority of the Trotskyites said this about Tito and there wasn't a debate leading to one of the innumerable schisms)

And you still failed to

a) Discuss this mutiny
b) Discuss the incompetence of Hoxha and co.
c) "Their enemies did it! Rather than them just acting retarded and causing it as much as having it caused"

It's almost like imperialism is some kind of massive conspiracy that plots every move and is incapable of miscalculating, while it is equally incapable of somewhat negotiating

Sorry, mate, Albania sucked balls as exemplified by its ignominious and total collapse with low levels of remaining nostalgia.
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 07 May 2014, 01:27
somewhat wrote:
inb4 "but they aren't Marxists"
inb4 "b-but they didn't say they didn't say he was a Marxist" (as if the majority of the Trotskyites said this about Tito and there wasn't a debate leading to one of the innumerable schisms)
The majority of Trotskyites expressed their sympathy with the Titoites and attacked the Soviet Union under Stalin for denouncing Yugoslav revisionism.

Quote:
b) Discuss the incompetence of Hoxha and co.
I don't see how Hoxha was incompetent considering he led a country that fended off both superpowers and achieved significant economic and social progress. Tito by contrast accrued billions of dollars in debt and created a federal system that, due to its anti-Marxist nature, concluded in wars and genocides.

Quote:
c) "Their enemies did it! Rather than them just acting retarded and causing it as much as having it caused"
So what "retarded" actions did the Albanians commit? Refusing Soviet revisionist demands that they rehabilitate Yugoslav puppets and eschew industrial development in favor of becoming Khrushchev's "orchard garden of the socialist bloc"? Refusing to praise the "Three Worlds Theory" of the Chinese revisionists? And what "retarded" actions did the Albanians commit in-re the West besides liquidating the exploiting classes and asserting Albania's territorial integrity?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 21 May 2014, 02:49
Quote:
I blame the man for using romantic revolutionary rhetoric to lure politically interested young people into the cul-de-sac of working within hopelessly reactionary social-democratic parties.


This is really not how it works.

Also I think the article is pretty good, so here it is for people who can't be bothered to look for it:

http://www.marxist.com/leninist-valery- ... ctober.htm
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 31 May 2014, 10:10
Quote:
I don't see how Hoxha was incompetent considering he led a country that fended off both superpowers and achieved significant economic and social progress. Tito by contrast accrued billions of dollars in debt and created a federal system that, due to its anti-Marxist nature, concluded in wars and genocides.

The main reason for Yugoslavia's collapse lay in the institutional reforms introduced in 1974.. After Tito's death it was decided that the Central Committees of the federal republics would elect the members of the central Central Committee by secret ballot, and that the Executive Committee (Presidium, Politburo...) would be elected by secret ballots by the central Central Committee.. This all sounds great; inner-party democracy and all. The catch was this; Tito did not want a communist leader in the mold of those in the other Eastern European countries, so he introduced term limits for the post of Chairman of the Central Committee (the party leader); a leader could sit a for a single two year terms (thats not enough in a communist system; notice that every communist leader used two to three years to consolidate their position).. When Tito died the central committees of the federal republics were able to reduce term limit of the federal party head to a one year term (a person could not have more then one term). The problem was that this, while increasing inner-party democracy, curtailed the powers of the federal party. Another problem, while election by secret ballots was a good idea, since Yugoslavia had a festering problem with nationalism; many of the elected central CC members used their term to defend the interest of their own republic, instead of actively finding a solution to the economic crisis taking hold over the country.. Why was this? Since Croatia and Slovenia were much richer than Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia etc, the policies which would have improved the overall economic situation would have hurt Croatia and Slovenia in the short run (and the nationalists could support such a position because one, then they wouldn't be reelected in the next central Central Committee election, two because there was no centralizing power strong enough to unite the party)... Yugoslavia is peculiar because of this; there aren't many other systems which have weakened the central powers of the leadership to such an extent as to make the whole system unworkable.. While this didn't directly lead to Yugoslavia's collapse, it led the stage to it; the nationalists in the republics were given more playing room then ever (and since no centralizing figure, or institution, was strong enough to put them back in place, as Tito had done, the system slowly unravelled).. Its tellingly that the League of Communists of Yugoslavia collapsed because delegates from Slovenia and Croatia walked off from the last party congress because they didn't support the position of Milosevic (no one at this point, either a person or an institution, could unite the party; nationalism had taken hold of the party)... THis is the only communist party in history which has tried to solve the centralism vs democracy problem with too much democracy; all the other parties have solved it with too much centralism...
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.