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.
"Although the rebels did not expect a military confrontation with the government, tensions in Kronstadt grew after the arrest and disappearance of a delegation sent by the naval base to Petrograd to investigate the situation of strikes and protests in the city. Some of the base’s communists began to arm themselves while others abandoned it.
On March 2, the delegates of warships, military units, and unions met to prepare for reelection of the local soviet. About 300 delegates joined in to renew the soviet as decided at the previous day’s assembly. The leading Bolshevik representatives tried to dissuade the delegates through threats, but were unsuccessful. Three of them, the president of the local soviet and the commissars of the Kuzmin fleet and the Kronstadt platoon, were arrested by the rebels. The break with the government came about as a rumor spread through the assembly that the government planned to crack down on the assembly and send government troops to the naval base. Immediately a Provisional Revolutionary Committee (PRC) was elected, formed by the five members of the collegiate presidency of the assembly, to manage the island until the election of a new local soviet. The committee enlarged to 15 members two days later. The assembly of delegates became the island’s parliament, and met twice on March 4 and 11.
Part of the Kronstadt Bolsheviks hastily left the island. A group of them, led by the fortress commissioner, tried to crush the revolt but, lacking support, eventually ran away. During the early hours of March 2, the town, fleet boats and island fortifications were already in the hands of the PRC, which met with no resistance. The rebels arrested 326 Bolsheviks, about a fifth of the local communists, the rest of whom were left free. In contrast, the Bolshevik authorities executed forty-five sailors in Oranienbaum and took relatives of the rebels hostage. None of the rebel-held Bolsheviks suffered abuse, torture or executions. The prisoners received the same rations as the rest of the islanders and lost only their boots and shelters, which were handed over to the soldiers on duty at the fortifications."
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.”
This is your rendition of the events and you have the guts to call out others for no context or analysis
I hope you actually read the wikipedia page and are aware of the events, if not i encourage you to study and read more, the wikipedia page provides other sources.
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.
"Lenin himself admitted as much when he told the Tenth Party Congress on March 15 that in Kronstadt “they do not want the White Guards, and they do not want our power either.” Although he insisted that the emigres had an important role in the affair, Lenin recognized that the rising was not a mere repetition of the White movements of the Civil War. He looked upon it, rather, as a sign of the deep gulf which had come to divide his party from the Russian people. If the White Guards were involved, he said, “at the same time the movement amounts to a petty bourgeois counterrevolution, to petty bourgeois anarchistic spontaneity.” By this he meant that, at bottom, the revolt reflected the discontent of the Russian peasantry, the small proprietors who had no use for the state and its controls but wanted to be left alone to use their land as they saw fit. “Without doubt,” Lenin added, "this petty bourgeois counterrevolution is more dangerous than Denikin, Yudenich, and Kolchak put together. For we are dealing with a country in which peasant property has come to ruin, besides which the demobilization of the army has set loose vast numbers of potentially mutinous elements. "
"In practice, despite the government’s continued insistence that White Army generals were behind the Kronstadt rebellion, former tsarist officers were far more prominent among the Bolsheviks than the rebels. White Colonel Georg Elfvengren would confirm in an April 1921 report that there had indeed been White agents based in Petrograd plotting a coup of the Soviet government in February and March 1921, but he also reported that the Kronstadt revolt was “not the actions of the [White] organizations” and that the revolt “occurred spontaneously against [the Whites’] wishes.”
Can you provide source for Stepan Petrichenko joining the white army before the Kronstadt Rebellion? Can you also provide a small resume on each leader of the supperssion of the Kronstadt Rebellion and what they did in the following years? According to your own logic if they turned fascist we could argue that the whole repression was fascist-led. Considering this happened before fascist even rose to power in italy the term you are throwing around has a lose meaning. The activities fascists were involved in during these years in italy resemble to me these of the Bolsheviks repressive methods quoted in the conversation.
I believe the hero status is something reserved to people who did great or good with no injustice. I’m not arguing communism or marxist theory.
I never once said the Whites were behind the rebellion. I said the rebellion was supported by the West and the Whites, as in they agreed with it vocally, and the main leader tried to join the Whites beforehand and successfully joined afterwards.
Kronstadt: the 1921 Uprising of Sailors in the Context of the Political Development of the New Soviet State
Petrichenko tried to join the Whites before. You don’t just try to join the fascists then change your mind then change it again.
Secondly, fascism isn’t an “idea,” it’s Capitalism in decline, a violent defense of bourgeois interests. The Whites were fascists, even if the term hadn’t been coined.
Thirdly, the bolsheviks were the leaders of the Communist revolution, counter-revolutionary forces like the Whites, the Kronstadt rebels, the Black Guards, all were fighting against the Communist revolution towards bourgeois interests. Equating Communists with fascists is ahistorical, read Blackshirts and Reds.
Then Lenin either qualifies as a hero, or nobody does, and you should be arguing against everyone in this comment section. You clearly have an anticommunist agenda here, you specifically singled out Lenin as someone you oppose by carrying water for fascists.