Title: Articles on the Russian revolution.

Author: Various (Workers Solidarity Movement)

Date: 1991 - 1993

Description: A collection of articles and talks 
that discuss the Russian revolution and the 
anarchist opposition to Leninism.  We also look 
at one Leninist attempt to answer this criticism.

In three parts: part 2

Keywords: Russia, 1917, Soviets, Mhakno, 
Kronsdadt, Lenin, Bolshevik, Factory Committees.

Related material: See booklist at end.


WHOSE PARTY?

One could be forgiven for thinking that the party 
which had siezed power was not a party of the 
proletariat when it so clearly distrusted them, 
dissolved their workplace councils, suppressed 
the rising of the Kronstadt workers in 1921, when 
it gradually strangled criticism from within its 
own ranks, and when its own leader flatly 
instructed the workers in October 1921:

"Get down to business all of you!  You will have 
capitalists beside you, including foreign 
capitalists, concessionaries and leaseholders.  
They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to 
hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, 
operating alongside of you. Let them,  Meanwhile 
you will learn from them the business of running 
an economy, and only when you do that will you be 
able to build up a communist republic." Lenin, 
Ibid, Vol. 33 page 72.

Lenin knew too much about socialism to simply 
drop all talk of workers eventually running the 
economy.   As he once said, in a lucid moment: 
"The liberation of the workers can be achieved 
only by the workers' own efforts".  Lenin, Ibid, 
Vol. 27 page 491.  He was too little of one to 
actually allow them to do so.

Joe King


                 REVIEW

HISTORY OF THE MAKHNOVIST MOVEMENT by Peter 
  Arshinov.  (Freedom Press) #5.50

THE TREATY OF Brest-Litovsk concluded by the 
Bolsheviks in March 1918, which saw_Russia get 
out of the bloodbath of World War 1, handed most 
of the Ukraine over to the German and Austro-
Hungarian empires.  Needless to say, the 
inhabitants were not consulted.  Neither were 
they too pleased.  Various insurgent movements 
arose and gradually consolidated.  The 
Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine led 
by Nester Makhno, an anarchist-communist from the 
village of Gulyai Polye, quickly won the support 
of the South for it's daring attacks on the 
Austro-Hungarian puppet, Hetman Skoropadsky and 
the Nationalist Petliurists. 

This book is an extremely valuable eye-witness 
account from Peter Arshinov - one of the main 
participants and editor of their paper Put'k 
Svobode (The Road to Freedom).  Arshinov and 
Makhno were later to draw up the Platform of the 
Libertarian Communists in during their Paris 
exile in 1926 (see Workers Solidarity 34).

It may seem strange that the Revolutionary 
Insurgent Army of the Ukraine (its proper title) 
is constantly referred to as the "Makhnovists".  
Anarchists are the last people to engage in blind 
hero-worship.  At its height it had 30,000 
volunteer combatants under arms.  While all were 
inspired by anarchist ideas, only a small 
minority had worked-out anarchist views.  Through 
the army's cultural-educational section political 
discussion and learning was encouraged but the 
majority of combatants and supporters continued 
to call themselves "Makhnovists" and to this day 
the name has stuck.

ENEMIES ON ALL SIDES

Arshinov's book mainly consists of a blow-by-blow 
account of the movement along with some 
consideration of nationalism and anti-semitism, 
and short biographies of some of the main 
Makhnovists.  It's an easy non-academic read.  
However the book is an almost exclusively 
military account of the movement.  Arshinov makes 
no apologies for this.  Of necessity the 
Makhnovists spent most of their time in military 
engagements.  Over the three years 1918-1921 they 
had to fight the forces of the Hetman, White 
Generals Denikin and Wrangel, nationalists like 
Petliura and Grigor'ev and, of course, the 
Bolsheviks.

Makhno and his commanders won against odds of 
30:1 and more on occasion.  One example was on 
September 25th 1919 at the village of Peregonovka 
when the Makhnovists after retreating 400 miles 
found themselves surrounded by Denikin's army.  
They succeeded in turning Denikin flank with a 
tiny force of cavalry and in the ensuing panic 
Denikin's army were routed.  This action probably 
saved Petrograd from the Whites and was one of 
the most massive defeats inflicted on them.

Of course Makhno's military skill, his use of 
cavalry and mounted infantry to cover huge 
distances,  isn't directly of relevance to us.  
What is of interest is how the Makhnovists could 
fight and win as a revolutionary army with deep 
roots among the Ukrainian peasants and workers.  
The insurgent army was an entirely democratic 
military formation.  It's recruits were 
volunteers drawn from peasants and workers.  It 
elected it's officers and codes of discipline 
were worked out democratically.  Officers could 
be, and were, recalled by their troops if they 
acted undemocratically.  

Wherever they appeared they were welcomed by the 
local population who supplied food and lodging as 
well as information about about enemy forces.  
The Bolsheviks and Whites were forced to rely on 
massive campaigns of terror against the 
peasantry, with thousands being killed and 
imprisoned.  

The speed at which areas changed hands in the 
Ukraine made it virtually impossible for them to 
do engage in widescale constructive activity to 
further the social revolution.  "It seemed as 
though a giant grate composed of bayonets 
shuttled back and forth across the region , from 
North to South and back again, wiping out all 
traces of creative social construction".  This 
excellent metaphor of Arshinov's sums up the 
difficulty.  However, unlike the Bolsheviks, the 
Makhnovists did not use the war as an excuse for 
generalised repression and counter-revolution.  
On the contrary they used every opportunity to 
drive the revolution forward.

THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION

The Makhnovist movement was almost exclusively 
poor peasant in origin.  The very existence of a 
revolutionary peasant movement made a mockery of 
Trotsky's and Lenin's conception of the peasants 
as automatically reactionary.  Peasants who made 
up the vast majority of the USSR's population 
were seen as a brutalised and unthinking mass who 
could not organise collectively.  When not faced 
with bayonets and forced requisitions they 
related naturally towards the workers in the 
towns and cities.  The Makhnovists provided a 
unifying force encouraging and protecting peasant 
expropriations of landlords and large farmers 
(kulaks).  They spread the idea of voluntary 
collectives and tried to make links with urban 
workers.  Their motto was "worker give us your 
hand".

Around Gulyai-Polye several communes sprang up.  
These include the originally named communes 1,2 
and 3, as well as the "Rosa Luxembourg" commune 
with 300 members.  Several regional congresses of 
peasants and workers were organised.  A general 
statute supporting the creation of 'free soviets' 
(elected councils of workers', soldiers' and 
peasants' delegates) was passed though little 
could be done towards it's implementation in much 
of the Ukraine because of the constantly changing 
battlefront.  

The Makhnovists held the cities of Ekaterinoslav 
and Aleksandrovsk for a few months after their 
September 1919 defeat of Denikin.  In both cities 
full political rights, freedom of association and 
press freedom were established.  In Ekaterinoslav 
five political papers appeared, including a 
Bolshevik one.  Several conferences of workers 
and peasants were held in Aleksandrovsk.  Though 
workers liked the idea of of running their own 
factories, the nearness of the front and the 
newness of the idea made them cautious.  The 
railway workers did set up a committee which 
began investigating new systems of movement and 
payment but, again, military difficulties 
prevented further advances.  Ekaterinoslav, for 
example, was under constant bombardment from the 
Whites just across the river. 

IVORY TOWERS

Arshinov attacks the Russian anarchists for 
almost totally ignoring the Makhnovists.  The 
Bolsheviks saw them as important enough to send 
in 15,000 troops in 1921 to wipe them out.  Too 
many of the anarchists "slept through" events.  
It is absolutely vital that this be acknowledged 
and learnt from.  

The only significant number of anarchists to 
participate as a group were those of the Nabat 
(Alarm) Confederation.  These included the famous 
Russian anarchist Voline who wrote the preface 
for this book.  They worked mainly in the 
cultural-educational section, though some fought 
in the army.  Unfortunately, more than few 
anarchists were content to remain in ivory towers 
of theoretical abstraction.  Their sole 
contribution was to whine about the military 
nature of the movement.  As we have seen the 
Makhnovists had no choice in this regard.

They constantly acknowledged that they were weak 
on theory, mainly due to lack of education.  It 
was essential for all who called themselves 
anarchists to get stuck in.  It is a sad 
reflection on the political and organisational 
weaknesses of Russian anarchism  that they failed 
to do so.  Though they were in a minority, well 
organised intervention in groups like Makhno's 
might have had an important influence on the 
course of events in the revolution.  Arshinov 
rightly accuses them of total disorganisation and 
irresponsibility leading to "impoverished ideas 
and futile practice".

A  NEW SET OF CHAINS

Above all this book is a tragic indictment of 
Bolshevik leadership and mis-rule.  The 
Bolsheviks clung to the theory that the masses 
couldn't handle socialism.  Workers and peasants 
proved them wrong by continually throwing up 
their own organs of democratic economic control.  
If the facts didn't fit the theory then the facts 
had to be disposed off.  Once again impoverished 
theory led to impoverished practice.

Arshinov documents the re-emergence of minority 
class rule.  He describes the Bolshevik 
nationalisation of production as with uncanny 
accuracy as"a new kind of production relations in 
which economic dependence of the working class is 
concentrated in a single fist, the State.  In 
essence this in no way improves the situation of 
the working class".

The Bolsheviks did realise the political 
significance of the Makhnovists.  Any autonomous 
movement posing the idea of direct economic 
control and management by workers and peasants 
was a political threat.  From 1917 onwards the 
Bolsheviks responded to such threats in one way, 
physical annihilation.

This book explodes the long list of falsehoods 
and myths about the Makhnovists.  It serves as 
further evidence (is any more needed?!?) of the 
authoritarian role of the Bolsheviks in the 
Russian revolution.  Most of all, it serves as an 
inspiration to all serious class struggle 
anarchists.  It poses clearly the need for 
anarchists to organise and win the battle of 
ideas in the working class.  This is how we can 
finally begin to fight to make anarchism a 
reality.

Conor McLoughlin


                 Kronsdadt 1921  
        (Review of International Socialism
          article In defence of October) 

We have been insisting on the need for the far 
left to re-appraise the tradition of the Russian 
revolution and in particular the role the 
Bolsheviks played in destroying that revolution. 
One of the most detailed responses to the 
anarchists critique of Bolshevism was  published 
in the winter issue of International Socialism 
the journal of the Socialist Workers Party (the 
largest Leninist group in England).

Unfortunately the article fails to seriously 
address the criticisms of Lenin, preferring 
instead to repeat more sophisticated versions of 
old slanders and distortions. Due to space 
considerations we cannot cover the entire article 
(80 pages) here, however in looking at John Rees 
(the author) treatment of the Kronstadt rising of 
1921 a useful impression of the flaws in his 
approach can be gleaned.

The Kronstadt rising of 1921 represented the last 
major upsurge of working class resistance to the 
by then consolidated Bolshevik dictatorship. 
Kronstadt itself was a naval town on an island 
off the coast of Petrograd (St Petersburg). In 
1917 it had been the heart of the Russian 
Revolution, although it had never been under 
Bolshevik party control.

Because of Kronstadt's leading role in the 1917 
Revolutions Leninists have always insisted that 
the revolutionaries in Kronstadt in 1921 were not 
the same ones that had been there in 1917. The 
revolutionaries had been replaced at this stage 
with "Coarse peasants". The evidence Rees musters 
for this point is a useful indication of the 
general Leninist method when it comes to the 
Russian revolution. The quote below is in Rees 
article on page 61.

"In September and October 1920 the writer and the 
Bolshevik party lecturer Ieronymus Yasinksky went 
to Kronstadt to lecture 400 naval recruits. They 
were 'straight from the plough'. And he was 
shocked to find that many, 'including a few party 
members, were politically illiterate,worlds 
removed from the highly politicised veteran 
Kronstadt sailors who had deeply impressed him'. 
Yasinsky worried that those steeled in the 
revolutionary fire' would be replaced by 
'inexperienced freshly mobilised young sailors'.

This quote is referenced to a book called 
Kronstadt 1917-21 by Israel Getzler, an academic 
but useful look at Kronstadt throughout this 
period. Rees account is a fair version of the 
first half of Yasinskys report. The quote however 
continues exactly as reproduced below.

"Yasinsky was apprehensive about the future when, 
'sooner or later, Kronstadt's veteran sailors, 
who were steeled in revolutionary fire and had 
acquired a clear revolutionary world-view would 
be replaced by inexperanced, freshly mobilised 
young sailors'. Still he comforted himself with 
the hope that Kronstadt's sailors would gradually 
infuse them with their 'noble spirit of 
revolutionary self-dedication' to which Soviet 
Russia owed so much. As for the present he felt 
reassured that 'in Kronstadt the red sailor still 
predominates".1

Rees handy 'editing' of this quote transforms it 
from one showing that three months before the 
rising that Kronstadt had retained its 
revolutionary spirt to one implying the garrison 
had indeed been replaced. Rees then goes on to 
contradict himself about the composition of the 
Bolshevik party at the time. On page 61 he says 
"The same figures for the Bolshevik party as a 
whole in 1921 are 28.7% peasants, 41% workers and 
30.8% white collar and others". On page 66 
however he says the figures at the end of the 
civil war (also 1921) were 10% factory workers, 
25% army and 60% in "the government or party 
machine". A note at the back says even of those 
classed as factory workers "most were in 
administration".

Rees also attempts blame the decline in the 
number of Bolshevik party members in Kronstadt to 
the Civil war but in fact the fall in numbers in 
1920 was due to purges and resignations from the 
party. The attitude of the remaining party 
members is demonstrated by the fact that during 
the rising three veteran Kronstadt Bolsheviks 
formed a Preparatory Committee of the Russian 
Communist party which called upon local 
communists not to sabotage the efforts of the 
Revolutionary committee. A further 497 members of 
the party resigned from the party2.

Getzler also demonstrates that the crew of the 
battleships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol which 
formed the core of the rising, were recruited 
into the navy before 1917, only 6.9% having been 
recruited between 1918 and 1921. These figures 
are on the same page as the earlier quotes Rees 
uses but are ignored by him. The remainder of the 
section on Kronstadt relies on more traditional 
smear tactics. Much is placed on the fact that 
the whites thought they might be able to gain 
from the rebellion. The fact that Petrochenko an 
ex-Bolshevik and chair of the Revolutionary 
committee was later to join the whites and 
attempted to contact them at the time of the 
rising is mentioned, the fact that the 
Revolutionary Committee itself constantly warned 
against any idea of an alliance with the whites 
is not.

Any real examination of what happened at 
Kronstadt has look at what the real balance of 
forces were at the time and what the actual 
demands of Kronstadt were. The work of academics 
like Israel Getzler in uncovering Soviet records 
of the period have demonstrated that of those 
serving in the Baltic fleet at the time at least 
75.5% were recruited before the 1917 revolution. 
The majority of the revolutionary committee were 
veterans of the Kronstadt Soviet and the October 
revolution.

So why did these revolutionaries who were the 
backbone of the 1917 revolution rise against the 
Bolsheviks in 1921. At the time Lenin  said 
"White general, you all know played a great part 
in this. This is fully proved"3. Later day 
Leninists are more subtle and try to place the 
root of the rising at discontent with the 
economic policies of the day. As far as I am 
aware no Leninist publication has ever reproduced 
the Kronstadt programme. This is probably because 
only 3 of the 15 demands are economic the rest 
are political demands designed to replace 
Bolshevik dictatorship over the working class 
with the direct rule of the working class4. 

In any case the New Economic Plan introduced by 
the Bolsheviks in 1921 went far beyond the 
granting of the economic demands of Kronstadt. 
The crushing of Kronstadt was followed by what 
the SWP has referred to as "unilateral killings" 
5ie executions of many revolutionaries and the 
expelling of over 15,000 sailors from the fleet. 
Thousands more were sent to the Black sea, the 
Caspian and Siberia. Even the Kronstadt soviet 
was never re-established. This demonstrates that 
even after the rising the Bolsheviks feared the 
political demands that had been raised in its 
course.

The real danger of Kronstadt was not a military 
one, it was a political one. Kronstadt had to be 
brutally suppressed in case its call for a third 
revolution had succeeded in mobilising the 
workers of Russia. The Bolshevik party by 1921 
was a counter revolutionary one composed even by 
their own figures of more bureaucrats than 
workers. Leninism was not the sole cause of the 
defeat of the October revolution, the whites 
played a major part as well. Whether or not 
Kronstadt could have led to a successful 
revolution is one of the 'What if's' of history. 
It did however represent the last hope of setting 
the revolution back on course.

 It is unfortunate that the SWP has chosen to 
continue the Leninist tradition of lying, even to 
their own members about the Bolsheviks role in 
defeating the Russian revolution. Rather then 
learning from a critical look at the mistakes of 
the Bolsheviks they have chosen to do a crude 
plastering job and are hoping no-body examines it 
too closely. Similar methods aided the western 
communist parties to build a castle, but the 
events of the last couple of years demonstrate 
what happens when you build on sand. 

1. Kronstadt 1917-21, Israel Getzler, p. 207.
2. Ibid, p218-219.
3. Lenin, report to 10th congress of the RCP, 
1921. Selected works, Vol IX, p98.
4. Ida Mett, The Kronstadt uprising, p37-38.
5. Abbie Bakan, Socialist Worker Review, Issue 
136, page 58.


Further reading
If you want to find out more about the where the 
revolution failed these are some books available 
from the W.S.M. Bookservice worth getting
- The Bolsheviks and Workers control by Maurice 
    Brinton.
- The Kronstadt Uprising by Ida Mett
- Anarchism by Daniel Guerin.
- History of the Makhnovist movement (1918-21) by 
    Piotr Arshinov. 

Workers Solidarity Movement
PO Box 1528
Dublin 8
Ireland
Andrew Flood

anflood@macollamh.ucd.ie
Phone: 706(2389)
