How accurate is Trotsky's account of the causes of the Kronstadt rebellion?

Plan of investigation

The subject of investigation, as stated in the title is to determine how accurate Leon Trotsky's account of the Kronstadt rebellion is.

I intend to carry this task out by collecting and studying primary sources - and as many other sources as possible - on the issue at hand, subsequently, all the sources are to be tested and evaluated.

Summary of evidence

Source 1: Declaration of the Kronstadt rebels

In this source the rebels state that the glorious proletarian state that was talked of with so much verve during the fall of the tsarist regime, has been replaced by a prison like state in which the worker is forced to work long and hard by militarised trade unions. The rebels declare that the uprisings of the peasants and workers - that occur simply due to the terrible circumstances of their lives - are responded to with "mass executions", and "bloodthirstiness", which the rebels claim is worse even than that of the tsarist generals. The rebels say that the aim of the rebellion is to liberate the workers "from the three-year violence and oppression of communist Domination".

Source 2: Lenin on causes of the Kronstadt Rebellion

Lenin claims that the Kronstadt Rebellion - aimed at replacing the government - that was carried out by the Social Revolutionaries and the middle-class counterrevolutionaries was only disguised as an attempt to promote soviet power. He declares that the Mensheviks took advantage of the gaps in the communist party simply to support the Kronstadt rebels, Social Revolutionaries and the White Guards.

Source 3: Lenin on the importance of the Rebellion

Lenin writes that the Kronstadt rebellion was of very little significance and posed no threat what so ever to the Soviet state. He also writes that there is nobody to take the place of the soviets because, he claims, "there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia - a government by soviets or government headed by a tsar."

Source 4: Trotsky on the Kronstadt Rebellion

Trotsky says that the most loyal and honourable sailors did not take part in the Kronstadt rebellion. He says that only the uneducated took part in it. He says that the rebellion occurred because the rebels wanted privileges over the rest of the starving country (i.e. more food). He claims that the ideas behind the revolution were "deeply reactionary" and showed the hostility of the peasants towards the worker, the arrogance of the sailors and soldiers and the hatred of the middle class for revolutionary discipline.

Source 5: An analysis of the Communists' ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source 4: Trotsky on the Kronstadt Rebellion

Source 5: An analysis of the Communists' strategy at Kronstadt

This source claims that Bolshevik politics was a badly paired mix of capitalistic ideologies and communist/socialist ideologies. It claims that this "state capitalist society" denied the working class their rights to be involved in the decision making of matters that concerned them.

The source maintains that both Lenin and the Bolsheviks realised that this rebellion could lead to the establishment of an authentic "Proletarian democracy" which would destroy the party's "monopoly power", and that for this reason, Lenin chose to extinguish the Kronstadt rebellion.

Source 6: The importance of the Kronstadt rebellion

This source argues that the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion by the Bolsheviks brought with it the end of true Bolshevism, and brought about the "true character of the communist dictatorship." The source claims that revolution showed the idealism, moral purity, generosity and higher humanity of the worker soldiers and sailors. It further states that the revolution was an attempt at "liberation from the yoke of state socialism".

Evaluation of sources

Source 1: Declaration of the Kronstadt rebels

This source comes directly from the workers, soldiers and sailors who took part in the rebellion and so should give an extremely accurate recording of the aim the rebellion. However, the causes given for the rebellion may be subject to bias and exaggeration.

The workers first argue that they are forced to work long and hard by militarised trade unions, and that the soviet democracy promised to them as vanished without a trace. This could very well be true, because if we look into the past we see that all throughout the abolition of the tsarist regime there was talk of the great proletarian democracy ahead, they was even a taste of it with the establishment of the Duma. Also if we look into later years we see the communist dictatorship that was established; hence perhaps it was already rearing its ugly head at this time.

Secondly, the rebels allege that all the uprisings that take place due to the lack of food, terrible working conditions etc. are responded to with "mass executions", and "bloodthirstiness". Here I am forced to be slightly sceptical. Yes, it is true that the Bolsheviks crushed all the uprisings that took place. But were their methods of crushing them as severe as the methods described? Perhaps it would be advisable to tone the remarks down to come to the real story?

Ultimately, the rebels claim that the aim of the rebellion was to liberate the workers "from the three-year violence and oppression of communist Domination". This is an extremely reactionary statement and to some extent unmasks the disguised attempt to promote soviet power that Lenin talks about; It does this by showing the rebels desire to gain control as everyone did in Russia at the time. I believe that it illustrates the rebel's resentment towards the Bolsheviks and jealousy towards them for not getting to the "throne" first.

Also this source is taken from What We Are fighting For, News of the Kronstadt Temporary Revolutionary Committee, and may be subject to propaganda aimed at getting the rebels rallied up for the rebellion ahead.

Source 4: Trotsky on the Kronstadt Rebellion

The aim of this case study is to determine how accurate Trotsky's account of the Kronstadt Rebellion; Trotsky is obviously partial to bias in favour of the Bolsheviks consequently this must be taken into consideration.

Trotsky first says that the most loyal and honourable sailors did not take part in the Kronstadt rebellion and that only the uneducated took part in it. This could very well be possible, however with the evidence I posses it is impossible to determine. After that, Trotsky writes that the rebellion occurred because the rebels wanted privileges over the rest of the starving country (i.e. more food). This I believe was indeed one of the reasons for the rebellion, because if there was shortage in food and they believed that they had privileges of the rest of the population, it is only natural that they try and retrieve these privileges.

Lastly Trotsky argues that the ideas behind the revolution were "deeply reactionary" and showed the hostility of the peasants towards the worker, the arrogance of the sailors and soldiers and the hatred of the middle class for revolutionary discipline. This is an extremely begrudged statement; it is as if Trotsky is angry with the rebels for not embracing in the reign of the Bolsheviks and not patient in waiting for the good things that could have come had Lenin not died and he not exiled from the country.

Analysis

I am asked now, to determine at what point history becomes worth writing about. This is an extremely tricky thing to do. Who is to determine what is important and what is not? Something could be important for one set of people, and irrelevant for the next.

What significance does the truth of Trotsky's account of the Kronstadt rebellion have on anything? Well, firstly, if Trotsky is proven to be bias here then he could also be bias in other things he wrote. If he is proven to be truthful in this case then perhaps he can be counted as a reliable source in discovering what really took place in the years when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. But why must we find out what really took place in the years when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia? Simply because in finding out what happened in significant periods of the worlds history, we can sometimes determine what might occur in present situations in the world or in the future. This moralism, this passing on of information from one generation to the next is in fact "the primary survival characteristic of the strongest animal on earth".

Conclusion

Is Trotsky's account of the Kronstadt rebellion accurate? Very nearly. All of what Trotsky has written - except for his show of resentment in writing that the ideas behind the revolution were "deeply reactionary" and showed the hostility of the peasants towards the worker, the arrogance of the sailors and soldiers and the hatred of the middle class for revolutionary discipline - appeared to be very possible. However the problem with deciding whether Trotsky's account of the Kronstadt rebellion is accurate is that Trotsky does not write much. Most of what he writes seems to be true, nevertheless, he does not write much.

So in conclusion, yes Trotsky's account of the Kronstadt rebellion does appear to a certain extent to be accurate.