There are three leeches who suck the people’s blood: the emperor,
the rich, and the big landowners … The big boss of the present
government, the emperor, is not the son of the gods as your pri-
mary school teachers and others would have you believe. The
ancestors of the present emperor came forth from one corner of
Kyushu, killing and robbing people as they went. They then
destroyed their fellow thieves, Nagasune-hiko and others … It
should be readily obvious that the emperor is not a god if you but
think about it for a moment. When it is said that [the imperial dynasty] has continued for
2,500 years, it may seem as if [Emperor Meiji] is divine, but
down through the ages the emperors have been tormented by for-
eign opponents and, domestically, treated as puppets by their own
vassals … Although these are well-known facts, university professors
and their students, weaklings that they are, refuse to either say or
write anything about it. Instead, they attempt to deceive both others
and themselves, knowing all along the whole thing is a pack of lies.
Uchiyama Gudō (1874–1911), In Commemoration of Imprisonment
Uchiyama Gudō was a Japanese Soto Zen Buddhist priest and anarcho-socialist. He wrote numerous radical leftist tracts denouncing capitalism, the Imperial regime as well as the Buddhist religious hierarchy and several aspects of traditional Buddhist theology that he saw as distortions invented by the ruling class. He was executed in 1911 under charges that he was a member of a plot to assassinate Emperor Meiji after a government raid on his temple aimed at shutting down his underground printing press also claimed to have found explosive materials.
Rather ridiculous to not consider the objective, material conditions of the RSFSR as determinant when said action was taken. More importantly, in times of crisis - especially when it comes to the defence of the interests of a workers’ state or people’s democracy - state power has the necessity of electing personnel that it knows are more closely aligned to the interests/objectives of the communist party. Those who consider this a “controversial statement” usually have a very idealised view of how the world reacts to socialism in power and assume a decentralised system of governance is somehow able to make a stand (history says the opposite).
Soviets (local government) that opposed Soviet power, such as Mensheviks or SR majorities, were stopped because they were counter-revolutionaries/anti-communists. Such was the case during the Civil War where counter-revolutionaries tended to threaten workers and especially peasants with reprisals if they did not support anti-Bolshevik forces.
There were, however, issues with Soviets located in Central Asia Soviet Republics, especially on the question of religion and it’s true that Russian Bolsheviks, on that matter, often forced themselves to assume some level of hegemony but that was in part corrected during the 30’s
There is no justification for factionalism, i.e. putting of one’s own faction above the interests of the party. Democratic centralism is based on free debate on what should be done, followed by an unified effort once a decision has been achieved. Said decision can then be discussed on following meetings to be either upheld, changed, or abandoned, but so long it is in place it must be executed.
To defend factionalism is going back to the 1920’s when Trotskyists would oppose the party’s majority, concede defeat, and then espouse clandestine terrorist work against the party majority, then have their activity exposed, apologise for it and ‘recant’, only to continue doing so with more effort. In 1927 they [Trotskyists] had an underground printing press, carried out only what the faction leader dictated - instead of the party - and organised demonstrations on the tenth anniversary of the GOSR calling for the end of the line of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B).
“Banned all other revolutionary parties and groups” is a not a very good assessment since there was no a single page of Soviet legislation or law that outlawed other parties. The Bolsheviks themselves coalitioned with the Left SRs after the revolution, until that party rebelled over Brest-Litovsk. What happened is simple: those parties that opposed soviet power discredited themselves through collaboration with the counter-revolution. Many of their members left to join the Bolsheviks. Thus the Mensheviks for example simply faded away around 1923.
But like we state before, there were issues in Central Asia Soviet Republics where, for instance, Muslim workers attempted to organise their own communist organisation they were faced with direct opposition from Russian Bolsheviks.
“Instituted one man management of factories and militarisation of the workforce” is partially true, but what exactly is wrong with one man management given the conditions that it was based on?
One-man management ensured maximum accountability and discipline at enterprises. The manager was to be appointed by state institutions and to fulfil state directives, while the workers were to check on their performance and see whether or not they were complying with state tasks. Without one-man management both accountability and discipline would have suffered as workers would feud over responsibilities for failures, etc.
This happened against the background of needing to industrialise as fast as possible. And material evidence had already shown that one-man management during the Civil War had been more effective at meeting the targets set by the state, opposed to “self-management”. As Maoists we understand the historic necessity of one man management as a temporary setback based on the material conditions of the state, we obviously do not advocate such as a proper economic model for a socialist country.
It was Trotsky who suggested that the workforce should be militarised but Lenin himself opposed such.
All states have secret political polices, why shouldn’t a workers’ state have one? Cheka was born of the Civil War, in great part due to the White Terror. Before the Cheka was in place workers reacted to the assassination of revolutionary figures by seizing people on the streets and killing them. Cheka was the means to organising such actions to more specifically defend against counter revolution.
“Violently suppressed working class strikes and leftist anti-bolshevik protests”, once again objective/material conditions. Workers struck during the NEP with no restriction, considering they were striking against NEPmen. Strikes during the Civil War, when Mensheviks and other parties attempted to use them as a means to overthrow the Soviet government and preyed on the discontentment of material scarcity created by the imperialist blockade and counter-revolutionary were obviously opposed.Strikes during the Stalin Era rarely happened because enterprise managers knew their head was on the line if they failed to meet the demands of workers.There were strikes in the post-Stalin era as well, especially from workers who opposed revisionism.