Pavel Dybenko's "Decree on the Democritization of the Navy of the Russian Republic" January 1918

                           

The following is part of a continued effort to provide interested historians 

and others who enjoy historical minutia; 

an alternative understanding of matters regarding 

Pavel Dybenko. 

Pavel Dybenko's legacy, bestowed upon the public by the likes of Lenin and Trotsky, prohibits him from taking his place among histories lot of fighters for freedom.  In the year 1917, the sailors decades long experience of torment had come to an end.  The roguish actions of the officers of the Imperial Russian Navy had formulated a combustible setting.  Sailors of the Imperial Fleet were treated no better than the convict serving a sentence of hard labor.  Conditions of the Russian sailors were first shared with the Petrograd elite in B. Roustam Bek's writing "Panama de la Marine Russe"  published in 1908.   Having fashioned great scandal...the books circulation was unquestionably prohibited.  The writing not only shared the maltreatment of the sailors by the officers but it had also eerily prophesied the inevitability that these sailors would accomplish the most important part in the struggle for liberty.  That the sailors would be uncompromising revolutionists because they had endured real slavery and knew very well what the rule of the current elite meant.  

It was held in many a Russian heart and must never be forgotten that the revolutionary victories in the year 1917... was due chiefly to the activity, firmness and self sacrifice of the members/sailors of the Tsar's Baltic Fleet.  

The following Decree authored by Dybenko was first published in No. 6 of the Gazette of the Temporary Workers and Peasants Government on January 12, 1918.  

Dybenko demonstrates, in writing, his intentions and views calling for dignity and freedoms.  

Quite conflicting with the plans Lenin has for Russia and her citizens.   Additionally, Dybenko in paragraph 51 declares the fleets continued independence from the political vanguard.  Lenin reacts, demanding paragraph 51 be rewritten.  Lenin threatens to take off the table the Naval Boards request for its Ministry and education for its servicemen.   

An excerpt: 

                         Decree on the Democritization of the Navy of the Russian Republic 

                                                      On the Democritization of the Navy 

                                      Part 1-General regulation on the personnel of the Fleet

1)  The personnel of the Fleet of the Russian Republic consists of free citizens, enjoying equal civic rights. 

2) The designation by title, which has existed until now, and which expressed class distinction, are abolished, and all sailors of the Navy are to be called:

                                "Sailors of the Naval Fleet of the Russian Republic"

3) From the sailors of the Fleet of the Russian Republic there will be apportioned the commanding personnel, superintending the tactical and technical sections, working in conjunction with the committees for the management of the administrative section of the Navy. 

4) The political section is entirely in the administration of elected committees.

5) The commanding personnel is formed of persons, who are accepted into the service and performing this service in accordance with special rules expounded in Part 5. 

6) From persons not of the commanding personnel, on accordance with rules in Part 5, they are nominated according to their specialties foremen who are responsible aids of the specialists of the commanding personnel. 

7) All sailors have designations, answering to their specialties and position occupied:

For example, Commander, Mechanic, Artilleryman, Electrician, etc.

8) All titles are revoked and persons occupying positions of command, are designated by their duties, for example,--Citizen Commander, Citizen Mechanics, etc. 

9) A new style of clothing, general for all naval sailors, is to be designed by a separate, special commission.

10) All sailors of the Navy are granted the right to wear civilian clothing off duty.

11) All sailors of the Navy have the right to be members of any political, national, religious, economic or professional organization, society or union.  They have the right, freely and openly, to express and profess by word of mouth, in writing or in print, their political, religious and other views.

12) All sailors of the Navy are subject to the laws, general for all citizens, without any exceptions.  Correspondence must be delivered to the addressee without exception.

13) All sailors, not on duty, have the right to absent themselves from their vessels and sections in accordance with orders and rules, established by corresponding organizations, but on the condition that a sufficient number of persons must remain to serve the vessel or section.

14) The commanding personnel have separate accommodations for living and for work, on board ship and at shore-stations.

15) The commanding personnel are allowed servants who hire out at their own free will, at the expense of the person desiring to have same, or in time of war, by the appointment of orderlies, on a mutual (with the crew) agreement, and with a definite salary.

Paragraph 51

51) Instructions to vessels, detachments, and the fleet on operative and technical questions are issued by corresponding persons of the commanding personnel, on economic and administrative questions by the commanding personnel, together with the committee and on political questions by the committees: semaphore messages received and sent.

Note--All orders of the central organs of the naval administration as well as the general state, and also ordinances of any committees published for general information are subject to execution in the fleet and flotillas of the Navy only in the event of their confirmation by the Central Committee of the Sea through instructions published in accordance with No. 20 and the foot note. 

      

Without hesitation Lenin authors a draft 

Draft Decision for the Council of People's Commissars on...

The Order of Subordination of the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets(1)

Considering the wording of the note #51. to be inexact or based on a misunderstanding, since the text, if taken literally, implies a refusal to recognize the supremacy of the Soviet state authority(2), the C.P.C asks the Navy's legislative organ to revise the wording of this note.

The C.P.C. takes into consideration the statement by representatives of the Navy that the note in question in no way signifies any repudiation of the central Soviet authorities, and instructs comrades Proshian and Lunacharsky to draw up on behalf of the Council of People's Commissars a well reasoned memorandum to the legislative organ of the Navy clarifying the point of view of the Council of People's Commissars.

Notes

1) This draft, written by Lenin, was endorsed at a meeting of the C.P.C. on January 15(28), 1918.

2) This refers to paragraph 51 of the "Regulations for the Democritization of the Navy" endorsed by an order of the Supreme Naval Board on January 8 (21), 1918.  It stated that "all orders of the central bodies, both those of the naval department and the state authorities, as well as the orders of any committees whatsoever...shall be fulfilled in the fleet or sea flotillas only if confirmed by the Central Committee of the Navy..."

Central Party Achives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U.

Lenin also requests that People's Commissar Dybenko send his deputy for the meeting of the Smaller Soviet of the People's Commissars that will take place at Smolny Palace at the Red Hall on January 18th at 6PM or in case he fails to do so paragraph 8920 can be taken off the meetings agenda.

Agenda

Of the meeting of the Smaller Soviet for January 1918.

H. About granting a special credit of 250,000 rubles for the sailors' educational needs (Dybenko)

I. Solicitation of the Supreme Naval Board to allow the credits for the Naval Ministry

(Dybenko) 

Dybenko holding on to the fruits of October...Lenin moving to destroy them.

Pavel Dybenko: Lenin’s February 23rd is fabrication!

Why “Lenin’s version” regarding the events of February 23rd holds no water.

In previous writings I have attempted to illuminate the struggles between Pavel Dybenko and Lenin.
I have been met with indifference at best frowned upon at worst.
Seems contemporary historians such as Suvorov, who writes without citation, and Archdeacon Kuraev continue to espouse Lenin’s historical account.  Or worse yet, Dr. Zubov’s steadfast belief, although incorrect, in the often illuminated abuse of spirits by the sailors.
Oh that rascal Dybenko!
American writer Louise Bryant (witness of events in 1917) shared a contradictory picture of the morality the sailors under Dybenko held themselves.  And it wasn’t just Bryant, a number of intellectuals, politicos, sailors, Generals and Admirals all have written about Dybenko as being keen witted, respectful, and one whose character demonstrated strength and courage.
When reflecting upon the events of 1917 one can not dismiss the decades long pursuits or historical actions taken by the Tsars sailors on behalf of the Russian citizenry.
In 1917, largely due to the armed might of the sailors a Tsar would abdicate his throne.  As spring came to Russia, the sailors organized under Pavel Dybenko’s leadership so as “the sailors one voice could be heard by the government.”
Dybenko’s leadership did not buckle under the attempts by the Kerensky led government to subordinate the sailors to the latter’s authoritarian desire.  In fact this refusal by Dybenko to neuter the sailors lawful organization Tsentrobalt would be the creation of conflict between Dybenko and Kerensky.
Lenin openly declared his successful insurrection would be impossible without the support of the Baltic fleet!
Often historians share Dybenko was a Bolshevik and therefore the sailors were nothing more than fanatics of Lenin’s designs.  Yet how did the sailors go from a decades long confrontation with the Tsar culminating in abdication and declaring the replacing government ineffectual to supporting a non democratic leader such as Lenin?
How does the “Soul of the Baltic Fleet” go from a highly respected hero to coward and drunkard?
Lenin largely rode the path to power on Dybenko and the sailors determination.
Controlling this “armed fist” was imperative for whomever would lead Russia.  Lenin wanted to be ruler Dybenko had to go!

There were numerous signs...
Kerensky declaring to General Krasnov that Dybenko was his enemy meaning the enemy of the existing governmental structure.
The Dybenko Cossack accord agreeing to Lenin and Trotsky’s removal from government.
Lenin, according to Podvoisky, wanted Dybenko to face a Military Tribunal immediately.  Such a move was premature...in due time.
Dybenko receives more votes than Lenin cast for representation to the Constituent Assembly.
Later in November, at the Sailors All Russian Conference, Lenin is witness to the devotion and admiration the sailors, the armed fist, had for Dybenko.
The writers of the times also spoke to Dybenko as the hero of the revolution...that of course had to change!
The year 1918 comes to pass, the harvest that was supposedly “October” would slowly fade away.
The disparaging of Pavel Dybenko commences!
Dybenko will be promoted to an uneducated buffoon who without Kollontai couldn’t write a coherent sentence...a drunkard with a faulty compass... an unreliable loose cannon!
Contradicting everything known about Dybenko.

Lenin reacts bitterly by decreeing if Dybenko’s “Democratization of the Fleet” is not changed due mainly to the fleets maintaining its independence from government, he would disallow funding for the Naval Ministry and educational programs for the sailors.
The fleet must be subordinate.

The assassination of two former Provisional Government Ministers blamed on the sailors although Dybenko authored a published condemnation and its was widely held that the so called assassins came directly from Dzerzhinsky’s offices.

Lenin’s refusal to allow Dybenko to speak during the government’s discussions on the Treaty of Brest Litovsk.

Dybenko’s public opposition to the Treaty and his view points as part of a group of intellectuals who wrote in dissent of Lenin’s stance in the gazette “The Kommunist”.

To ensure that Dybenko and the revolutionary mindset of the sailors would be destroyed one only
has to look closely at the negotiations of the Treaty and its affect on the Russian Navy.

Plenty of news accounts setting the table for Dybenko and his followers to be looked at as anarchists and against Lenin’s wishes.

Which brings us to Lenin’s coup de grace...the nonsense that becomes the “written word” of the events of February 23rd.

The first fact one has to consider when supporting Lenin’s version is the historical written word of Bonch Bruyevitch after having viewed the sailors detachment being sent to Narva “Not impressed”and “rag tag bunch”.   What Bonch-Bruyevitch, Lenin and subscribing historians don’t share is that this very group led by Dybenko were none other that the heroic sailors of the Northern Flying Squad sent in December to defend the newly formed Soviet regime in battle at Orenburg against Ataman Dutov.  Heroic deeds preserved in memorial by monument at the Field of Mars.  Even it’s leader, Pavlov, was among those sailors who appeared with Dybenko.

Lenin and supporting historian’s don’t share that commander P M Bulkin’s retreating detachment from Revel joined Dybenko’s men.  That headquarters according to Pavlov failed to adequately supply detachment with artillery or men...

Narva would be lost giving Lenin and Trotsky the reason to completely control the military and more specifically the fleet.

At first government publications decried Dybenko would be arrested for his opposition to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, then for Dybenko’s haphazard retreat from Narva, then added to Protocol 82...Krylenko’s indictment against Dybenko: drunkenness and terror!

Of course first Minister of Justice Shteinberg who would go on to defend Dybenko at his upcoming trial without hesitation stated Dybenko’s arrest and subsequent trial had nothing to do with the events of Narva!  Political differences with those in power were the real reasons.

Cui Bono?
Lenin ruled Russia...Trotsky goes on to rule the military and Dybenko is unceremoniously removed from government and the consciousness of Dybenko and the sailors would forever be swept under the rug of historical significance.

Until now.....

Where have you gone Pavel Dybenko?

Today, in the U.S., workers have no seat, no say nor representation at the table regarding the machinations of business.  The business communities assault on workers for the last forty plus years has broken the will of many men and women.  There are others who (against their own interest) advocate during conversation, "to alter the existing economic system would be disastrous for all".
By accepting the current economic structure (the distribution of wealth) suggest to the ruling classes the american worker is willing to suffer ever more.  Which leaves little doubt further abuses, much harsher than exists now, will be "sold" as expanded and "beneficial" to whatever plan is in place.

Welcome to America in the winter of 2020!  Where the stock market is hitting new heights and where workers are not sharing in on the great economic success so often touted.

Unfortunately, Francois Babeuf was quite clear when he spoke to bending tolerance beyond reproach.  Continuing to send individuals to congress who won't even argue Workers should have representation in all trade agreements is disastrous for the working classes.  We are their constituents, not the donor classes!  The will of the workers can and should be spoken now...without hesitation!
By advancing the current economic climate...the inevitable outcome should well be avoided.

I often hear (via internet, tv, radio) various collective views or discussions on the topics of secession or revolution.  Most often by groups who feel disconnected, apart from the current conversation of the American fabric.  From far left idealism's to far right...the thread that combines all these groups who suffer from perceived grievances are economic and lack of opportunity.  The past 40 plus year program to dissociate and disregard labor demonstrates well demonstrates as to the planned lack of future for many. As Alan Greenspan referred to in 1997,
             "Suppressed wage-cost growth as a consequence of job insecurity can be carried only so far.  At some point in the future, the trade off of subdued wage growth for job security has to come to an end."

That was more than twenty years ago, One's future is set in the path of ones' past.

For instance,

When one has no seat at the table--it is if (workers) don't exist.  To have no opportunity to deliberate for wages, pensions and other necessary benefits and protections...indicates a marginalization of the entire working class.  Yet...our labor laws are enshrined with ethnic based or identity based idealism that is inherently in violation of our constitution.  Many view this "lawful" protection of the so called minorities only works to separate the workers.
The "protected" classes in the labor laws should well be comprised of "all" the workers.  That is the distinction!...Labor vs Management, the age old agitation. 

As I write this I pray the ruling classes pull it together and allow for labor to take a seat at the table of business...greed knows no bounds.  The continued path of disingenuous and neglectful arrogance toward the working classes results in no positive outcome.

Pavel Dybenko once said,
                         "It is better to die for freedoms and dignity rather than to live without them"

I cringe to even think about those who call for revolution...the amount of bloodshed resulting from such activity is a horrific reality that most can not envision.  I call on all wise men to use discussion, deliberation and compromise, fine American qualities, in charting out a path for a fairer distribution of wealth that benefits all.  A process that denies men like Pavel Dybenko from appearing.  Men whose plight would be to lead the disenfranchised to forcefully convince the ruling classes to submit to a more favorable society.

Although, at the end of the day...one may ask oneself, Where have you gone Pavel Dybenko?