💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000251.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:24:07.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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)