SYNDICALISTSIN THERUSSIANREVOLUTION

G. P. Maximoff

This is a resetting of the pamphlet produced in 1978 bythe Essex Libertarian Conference of January that year.

Typeset in the UK by The Thirteenth Directoratemostly in Palatino LinotypeIf you find that sort of thing interesting

CONTENTSSyndicalists in the Russian Revolution 2

Grand Struggle 4

Centralism v Federalism 6

After October 9

Workers’ Control 10

Factory Committees 12

Seizure of Enterprises 14

Spontaneous Syndicalism 16

Factory Committees v Trade Unions 18

Sweep of Movement 21

Factory Committees Subordinated 22

Capture of Trade Unions 24

Centralism and Terror 27

The Author 32

1

"Discussing the activities and role of the Anarchists in theRevolution, Kropotkin said: 'We Anarchists have talked much ofrevolutions, but few of us have been prepared for the actual work tobe done during the process. I have indicated some things in thisrelation in my Conquest of Bread. Pouget and Pataud have alsosketched a line of action in their work on Syndicalism and the Co-operative Commonwealth.’

“Kropotkin thought that the Anarchists had not given sufficientconsideration to the fundamental elements of the social revolution.The real facts in a revolutionary process do not consist so much inactual fighting - that is, merely the destructive phase necessary toclear the way for constructive effort. The basic factor in a revolutionis the organisation of the economic life of the country. The RussianRevolution had proved conclusively that we must preparethoroughly for that. Everything else is of minor importance. He hadcome to think that Syndicalism was likely to furnish what Russiamost lacked: the channel through which the industrial and economicreconstruction of the country may flow. He referred to Anarcho-Syndicalism. That and the co-operatives would save other countriessome of the blunders and suffering Russia was going though."

Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia,on a visit to Peter Kropotkin at Dimitrov, July 1920.

2

Syndicalists in theRussian RevolutionThe Revolution shook all classes and strata ofRussian social life. A vast unrest had permeated alllevels of Russian society as a result of threecenturies of oppression by the Tsarist regime.

During the revolutionary explosion, this unrestbecame the force which cemented theheterogeneous elements into a powerful unitedfront, and which annihilated the edifice ofdespotism within three days, a brief revolutionaryperiod, unprecedented in history.

Within this movement, despite the fact that itscomponent forces were actuated by different, andoften mutually exclusive tasks and purposes,reigned full unanimity. At the moment of

3

revolutionary explosion the aims of those variousforces happened to coincide, since they werenegative in character, being directed at annihilatingthe superannuated absolutist regime. Theconstructive aims were not yet clear. It was onlyduring the further course of development, throughthe differing constructions placed on the aims andtasks of the revolution, that the hitherto amorphousforces began to crystallise and a struggle aroseamong them for the triumph of their ideas andobjectives.

It is a noteworthy feature of the revolution thatdespite the rather small influence of Anarchists onthe masses before its out break, it followed from itsinception the anarchistic course of fulldecentralisation; the revolutionary bodiesimmediately pushed to the front by the course ofrevolution were Anarcho-Syndicalist in theiressential character. These were of the kind whichlend themselves as adequate instruments for thequickest realisation of the Anarchist ideal - Soviets,Factory Committees, peasant land committees andhouse committees, etc. The inner logic of thedevelopment and growth of such organisations ledin November (October) 1917 to the temporaryextinction of the State and the sweeping away of thefoundations of capitalist economy.

I say temporarily, for in the long run the State andcapitalism came to triumph, the logicaldevelopment of the revolution having been openlyfrustrated by those who at first were instrumental inaccelerating its course of development. Uncheckedby the too trustful masses, whose aims and courseof action, though felt instinctively, were still farfrom being clearly realised, the Bolsheviks, to theextent that they gained the confidence of thosemasses, gradually enveloped the revolution with the

4

chilling atmosphere of State dominance and bruteforce, thus dooming it to an inevitable process ofdecay. This process, however, became noticeableonly six months after the "October revolution". Upto that moment the revolution kept on ripening. Thestruggle became sharper and the objectives began toassume an ever clearer and more outspokencharacter. The country seethed and bubbled over,living a full life under conditions of freedom.

Grand struggleThe struggle of classes, groups and parties forpreponderant influence in the revolution wasintense, powerful and striking in character. As aresult of this struggle there resulted a sort ofstalemate of forces; none was in a position tocommand superiority in relation to the rest. This inturn made it impossible for the State andgovernment - the external force standing abovesociety - to become the instrument of one of thecontending forces. The State, therefore, was

5

paralysed, not being able to exert its negativeinfluence on the course of events, the more so in thatthe army, due to its active part in the movement,ceased to be an obedient instrument of State power.In this grand struggle of interests and ideas theAnarchists took an active and lively part.

The period from March (February) to November(October) 1917 was in its sweep and scope a mostresplendent one for Anarcho-Syndicalist andAnarchist work, that is for propaganda, agitation,organisation and action.

The revolution opened wide the door toAnarchist emigres returning from various countries,where they had fled to escape the ferociouspersecution of the Tsar's government. But evenbefore the emigres' return there arose, with theactive participation of comrades released fromprison and exile, groups and unions of Anarchists,as well as Anarchist publications. With the return ofthe Anarchists from abroad, this work began to pickup considerable momentum. Russia was coveredwith a thick, albeit too loosely connected, net ofgroups. Scarcely a sizeable city did not have anAnarcho-Syndicalist or Anarchist group. Thepropaganda took dimensions unprecedented forAnarchist activity in Russia. Proportionately, therewas a great number of Anarchist newspapers,magazines, leaflets, pamphlets and books. The bookmarket was flooded with Anarchist literature. Theinterest in Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarchismwas enormous, reaching even the remote corners ofthe faraway North.

Newspapers were published not only in thelarge administrative and industrial centres, likeMoscow and Petrograd, which had severalAnarchist newspapers (in Petrograd the circulation

6

of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Golos Trouda and theAnarchist Burevestnik was 25,000 each; the Moscowdaily Anarchia had about the same circulation), butalso in provincial cities, like Kronstadt, Yaroslavl,Nizhni-Novgorod, Saratov, Samara, Krasnoyarsk,Vladivostok, Rostov on Don, Odessa and Kiev. (In1918, Anarchist papers were coming out in Ivanovo-Vosnesensk, Chembar, Ekaterinburg, Kursk,Ekaterinoslav, Viatka.)

Oral propaganda was even more extensive thanwritten - it was carried out in the army, as well as infactories and villages. The propaganda stressed thecentral task of bringing out and carrying to theirlogical end the Anarchist principles and tendenciesinherent in the revolution. This propaganda,Anarcho-Syndicalist propaganda especially, wasvery successful with the toilers. The influence ofAnarchism, especially its Anarcho-Syndicalistvariety, was so great with the Petrograd workersthat the Social-Democrats were compelled to issue aspecial publication for the purpose of waging astruggle against "Anarcho-Syndicalism among theorganised proletariat." Unfortunately, this influencewas not organised.

'Centralism via federalism'The influence of Anarcho-Syndicalism showed itselfcreditably in the struggle for supremacy waged bythe Factory Committees against the trade unions.The Factory Committees were almost completelyswayed by a unique sort of Anarcho-Syndicalism;this is attested by all the conferences of thePetrograd Factory Committees, and by the All-Russian conferences of these committees. Moreover,the Bolsheviks in their drive towards seizure of

7

power and dictatorship, were forced to cast away(for the time being only, as subsequent eventsproved), their orthodox Marxism and to acceptAnarchist slogans and methods. Alas, this was but atactical move on their part, not a genuine change ofprogramme.

The slogans formulated by the Bolsheviks(Communists) voiced, in a precise and intelligiblemanner, the demands of the masses in revolt,coinciding with the slogans of the Anarchists:"Down with the war," "Immediate peace withoutannexations or indemnities, over the heads of thegovernments and capitalists," "Abolition of thearmy," "Arming of the workers," "Immediate seizureof land by the peasants," "Seizure of factories by theworkers," "A Federation of Soviets," etc. Wouldn'tthe realisation of these great slogans lead to the fulltriumph of Anarchist ideology, to the sweeping

8

away of the basis and foundations of Marxism?Wasn't it natural for the Anarchists to be taken in bythese slogans, considering that they lacked a strongorganisation to carry them out independently?Consequently, they continued taking part in thejoint struggle.

But reality soon proved that all the lapses by theBolsheviks from the revolutionary position were nocasual things, but moves in a rigorously thought-outtactical plan, directed against the vital interests anddemands of the masses - a plan designed to carryout in life the dead dogmas of a disintegratedMarxism. The true face of the Bolsheviks wasrevealed by the Commissar of NationalAffairs~Stalin (Dzhugashvili), who in one of hisarticles (April 1918) wrote that their aim is, "Toarrive at centralism via federalism." Persistently,cautiously, the revolution was being forced intoMarxist channels in accordance with a preconceivedplan. Such a channel is for every popular creed aProcrustean bed.

Thus, during the period of the Bourgeois andBourgeois Socialist Government, the Anarchistsworked (not organisationally of course) hand-in-hand with the Bolsheviks. How were the Anarchistssituated during that period? The listing of the citieswhere Anarchist publications came out shows thatfreedom of the press was of the most extensive kind.Not a single newspaper was closed, not a singleleaflet, pamphlet or book confiscated, not a singlerally or mass meeting forbidden. Despite the seizureof rich private houses, like the Durnovo Villa andother mansions in Petrograd; despite the seizure ofprinting shops, including the printing shop ofRusskaya Volia, published by the Tsar's ministerProtopopov; despite open incitement toinsubordination and appeals for soldiers to leave

9

the fronts; despite all that, only a few cases whereAnarchists were manhandled might be construed asconnivance by authorities, or premeditated acts.True, the government, at that period, was not averseto dealing severely with both Anarchists andBolsheviks. Kerensky threatened many times to"burn them out with red-hot irons". But thegovernment was powerless, because the revolutionwas in full swing.

After OctoberHow did the position of the Anarchists change withthe triumph of the October revolution, in thepreparation and making of which they had takensuch a prominent part? It has to be pointed out thatduring the Kerensky period the Anarchists hadgrown considerably and that towards the Octoberdays their movement had already assumedconsiderable proportions. This growth became evenmore accelerated after the October revolution, whenthe Anarchists took an active part in the directstruggle against both the counter-revolution and theGerman-Austrian troops. Not only did the voice ofthe Anarchists command attention, but the massesactually followed the appeals and directives of theAnarchists, having come to see in them the concreteformulation of their age-long aspirations. That iswhy they backed demands of an Anarcho-Syndicalist character, carrying them out in the teethof hamstringing efforts, rather feeble at that time, bythe Bolsheviks.

Under the influence of Anarcho-Syndicalistpropaganda, there began in Petrograd aspontaneous process of socialisation of housing bythe house committees. This extended to entire

10

streets, bringing into existencestreet committees and blockcommittees, when entireblocks were drawn in. Itspread to other cities. InKronstadt it started evenearlier than Petrograd andreached even greaterintensity. If in Petrograd andother cities, dwellings weresocialised only on the triumph

of the October revolution, in Kronstadt similar stepswere taken earlier, under the influence of Yartchuk,who was enjoying great popularity in that town,and in face of the active resistance of the Bolsheviks.Measures of this kind were carried out in anorganised way by the revolutionary workers andsailors throughout the town. The Bolshevik fractionleft a session of the Kronstadt Soviet in protestagainst the socialisation of dwellings.

Workers' ControlIn the field of revolutionary struggle towardsimmediate abolition of the institution of privateproperty in the means of production, the influenceof the Anarchists was even more pronounced. Theidea of "workers' control", carried out through theFactory Committees, an idea advocated by theAnarcho-Syndicalists from the very outset of therevolution, took root among the city workers,gaining such a strong hold on them as to force itsacceptance, in a distorted form, of course, by theSocialist parties. The Social Democrats and the rightSocial-Revolutionists twisted this idea of workers'control into that of State control over industry, with

11

the participation of workers, leaving enterprises inthe hands of the capitalists.

As for the Bolsheviks, they were quite vagueabout the meaning of the term "workers' control",leaving it undefined, and making it a handy tool ofdemagogic propaganda. This is confirmed by A.Lozovsky (S. A. Dridzo), who writes the followingin his pamphlet Workers' Control (Petersburg, theSocialist Publishing House, 1918):

"Workers' control was the fighting slogan of theBolsheviks before the October days . . . but despite thefact that workers' control figured in all resolutions,and was displayed on all banners, it had an aura ofmystery about it. The party Press wrote very littleabout this slogan, still less did it try to implement it ina concrete way. When the October revolution brokeout and it became necessary to say clearly andprecisely what this workers' control was, it developedthat, even among the partisans of this slogan, there

12

existed great differences of opinion on that' score." (p.19.)

The Bolsheviks refused to accept the Anarcho-Syndicalist construction of the idea of workers'control; namely, taking control of production, itssocialisation and instituting workers' control oversocialised production through the FactoryCommittees. This idea won out, workers havingbegun expropriating enterprises while theBourgeois-Socialist government was still in power.The Factory Committees and various controlcommittees were already taking over the managingfunctions at that time. On the eve of the Octoberrevolution this movement assumed a truly masscharacter.

Factory CommitteesThe Factory Committees and their Central Bureaubecame the foundation of the new revolutionarymovement, which set itself the task of making thefactories into Producer and Consumer Communes.The Factory Committees were to become the nucleiof the new social order gradually emerging from theinchoate elemental life of the revolution. Anarchisticin their essence, the Factory Committees mademany enemies. The attitude of all political partieswas restrained hostility, their efforts centering onreducing the Factory Committees to a subordinateposition within the trade unions. The Communistsfrom the outset showed their suspicion of this typeof organisation. It was only after they had becomeconvinced that the trade unions were too stronglydominated by the Social-Democrats to lendthemselves as instruments of Communist policythat, following the Anarcho-Syndicalists, they began

13

to centre their attention on the Factory Committees,aiming to place them under their control and,through those committees, ultimately to gain controlof the trade unions. Despite this attitude, theBolsheviks were forced by the course of events toassume a position toward the Factory Committeeswhich differed little from that of the Anarcho-Syndicalists. Only gradually did they assume thisposition. At first they combatted it.

"The Anarcho-Syndicalists entrenched themselvesbehind the Factory Committees. They created averitable theory around it, saying in effect that thetrade unions have died, that the future belongs to theFactory Committees, who will deliver the knock-outblow to capitalism, that the Factory Committees arethe highest form of labour movement, etc. In a word,they developed in regard to the Factory Committeesthe same theory which the French Anarcho-Syndicalists developed in regard to the trade unions.Under these conditions the divorce between the two

14

organisations (trade unions and Factory Committees)represents the greatest danger for the labourmovement of Russia.

"This danger is the greater, that even among activepeople of the Factory Committees who are notAnarcho-Syndicalists, we also see this tendency tooppose the trade unions to the Factory Committeesand even to' replace industrial unions and their localbranches with respective organisations of the FactoryCommittee type." - Lozovsky, Workers' Control (p. 37).

Seizure of enterprisesCharacteristically, only the Anarcho-Syndicalistpress correctly evaluated the role and significance ofthe Factory Committees. The first article in therevolutionary press on this problem, by the authorof these lines, appeared in the first issue of GolosTrouda. (Incidentally, the article did not express theopinion of Golos Trouda as a whole on this problem.)At one of the conferences of the Factory Committeesheld in Petrograd, during August, 1917, the articlewas hotly contested by the Bolsheviks, notablyLozovsky and others. But this idea, sound in itselfand answering the mood and needs of the workers,

became dominant even in theBolshevik Party. Even Lenindeclared in his speech at theAll-Russian Trade UnionConvention (held in the springof 1918) that "the factory is aself-governing commune ofproducers and consumers."

The results of this Anarcho-Syndicalist propaganda soonbore fruit. There followed awave of seizures of enterprises

15

and the organisation of Workers' Management. Thesebegan when the provisional government was still inpower and, it stands to reason, the Anarchistsplayed the foremost role in them. The most talked-of event of the kind at that period was theexpropriation under the direct influence of theAnarchist Zhuk, of the Shlisselburg gunpowdermills and agricultural estates, both of which werethen organised on Anarchist principles. Such eventsrecurred ever more frequently, and on the eve of theOctober revolution they came to be regarded as amatter of course. Soon after the triumph of theOctober revolution, the Central Bureau of theFactory Committees worked out extensiveinstructions for the control of production. Theseinstructions proved to be a brilliant literarydocument, showing the triumph of the Anarcho-Syndicalist idea. The significance of this incident isthe greater considering that the Bolsheviks werethen predominant in the Factory Committees.

How greatly the workers were influenced by theidea of Factory Committees being the executivebodies of the Factory-Communes - the cellular bodiesjoining into a federative organisation, which unitesall workers and creates the necessary industrialadministrative system - is shown by the uneasinessthe Bolsheviks revealed after the Octoberrevolution.

"In place of a 'Republic of Soviets', we are led to arepublic of producers' co-operatives (artels), intowhich the capitalist factories would bemetamorphosed by this process. Instead of a rapidregulation of the social production and consumption -instead of measures which, objected to as they may beon various grounds, do represent a genuine steptoward a socialist organisation of society - instead ofthat we are witnessing something which partakessomewhat of the Anarchist visionary dreams about

16

autonomous industrial communes." - I. Stepanov,From Workers' Control towards Workers' Administrationin the industries and Agriculture (Moscow, 1918, p. 11).

The predominance of the Bolsheviks makes evenmore remarkable the successes achieved by ourcomrades, especially that of W. Shatov, in theirwork carried on within the Factory Committees.(Shatov led the attack on the Winter Palace,Petrograd, in October 1917. He left the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement and became in fact aBolshevik from the very moment when the capitalwas moved to Moscow early in 1918. He wasarrested and probably shot without trial during thepurges in the late 1930s.) Even though dominatedby the Bolsheviks, the Factory Committees of thatperiod were carrying out the Anarchist idea. Thelatter, of course, suffered in clarity and purity whencarried out by the Bolsheviks within the FactoryCommittees; had the Anarchists been in themajority they would have tried to eliminatecompletely from the work of the committees theelement of centralisation and State principles.

Spontaneous SyndicalismWe are not out here to give a detailed history of theRussian trade union movement, or a chronicle of thestruggle of various political parties and groupswithin the trade unions. Ours is a purelyinformatory task. We want to stress those momentsin the life of the trade union movement highlightedby the work of the Anarcho-Syndicalist minority.The labour movement, like the revolution itself,arose spontaneously. It set aside trade unions,basing itself mainly on the Factory Committees andtheir associations, especially in Petrograd.

17

Although the Russian proletariat was, as awhole, entirely ignorant of the ideas ofRevolutionary Syndicalism, and despite the scarcityof Anarcho Syndicalist literature, as well as analmost total lack of representatives of thismovement among the Russian workers; despite allthat, the labour movement of all Russia went alongthe road of decentralisation. It chose spontaneouslythe course of a unique Revolutionary Syndicalism.Unlike other periods, the one following theFebruary revolution of 1917 was characterised bythe active participation of Anarcho-Syndicalists -workers who had returned to Russia from theUnited States, where they had taken part in thestruggles of the Industrial Workers of the World(IWW).

18

Factory Committees v tradeunionsUntil January 1918, that is until the First All-RussianTrade Union Convention, the labour movementsailed under the banners of the Factory Committees.These waged a fierce struggle against the bourgeoiselements that fought silently for supremacy, asagainst the trade unions. This struggle assumed anespecially strong character after the Third All-Russian Trade Union Conference, which clearlyrevealed the gulf between the tactics and aims of thetrade unions and those of the Factory Committees.The latter, united first in Petrograd, then throughoutRussia, singled out their own central bodies andgave the keystone to the course of the revolution.The Anarcho-Syndicalists took an active part in both

the Factory Committees and thetrade unions. There was nounanimity in Anarcho-Syndicalistranks about which of the twoorganisations should be preferred.The movement headed by theauthor o£ these lines was far frombeing supported by the rest of theAnarchists. It was not evenaccepted by the group publishingGolos Trouda. Likewise, manyBolsheviks were averse to theviewpoint favouring the Factory

Committees as against the trade unions. At one ofthe conferences of the Petrograd FactoryCommittees, Lozovsky subjected this view, and themovement backing it, to a cruel and unscrupulousattack.

On the whole, however, the Anarcho-Syndicalistelements showed a preference for the Factory

19

Committees, having concentrated their forces in thatdirection. They were represented in manyindividual Factory Committees, as well as in thePetrograd Bureau and the All-Russian CentralBureau of Factory Committees. Likewise theinfluence exercised by the Anarcho-Syndicalists onthe work of the conferences of the FactoryCommittees, whose paper, Novy Put, was stronglycoloured with a unique kind of Anarcho-Syndicalism, though no Anarcho-Syndicalists wereon its staff.

In view of this direct and indirect influence ofAnarcho-Syndicalists, the bourgeois and socialistpapers began to voice alarm: the newspapers Dien(bourgeois), Novaya Zhizn (socialist), IzvestiaPetrogradskogo Obshtchestva Zavochikovy Fabricantov(bourgeois), Izvestia Tzentralnogo Ispolnitelnogo

20

Komiteta (socialist), Rabochaya Gazeta (socialist), etc.The Social-Democrats issued a special publication(Rabochaya Mysl) to combat Anarcho-Syndicalistinfluence among the organised proletariat.

In vain, however. The Anarcho-Syndicalistswere conquering the masses with the slogan of"Workers' Control". Ever greater masses of workerswere swept under Anarcho-Syndicalist influence,which impelled them to proceed with the seizure offactories. The influence of the Anarcho-Syndicalistslogan "Workers' Control" showed itself in theManual for the Carrying Out of Workers' Control ofIndustry, edited and published by the CentralCouncil of the Petrograd Factory Committees andwhich met a sharp rebuff from the Bolsheviks andMensheviks at the First All-Russian Trade UnionConvention. (See The First All-Russian Convention ofTrade Unions, Stenographic Report. Also A. Lozovsky(Dridzo), Workers' Control.)

21

The Anarcho-Syndicalists at that time had theirgroup organisations outside the unions and werepublishing newspapers and magazines. InPetrograd Golos Trouda, Kharkov Rabochaya Mysl,Krasnoyarsk Sibirsky Anarchist, in Moscow arevolutionary Syndicalist organ Rabochaya Zhizn, etc.The Anarcho-Syndicalists were represented innumerous Factory Committees and trade unions,where they were carrying on intensive propaganda.The great majority of Anarcho-Syndicalists believedthat, by working within the trade unions, theywould succeed in imparting to the latter anAnarcho-Syndicalist direction.

Sweep of movementBefore the First All-Russian Trade UnionConvention, the Anarcho-Syndicalists succeeded inorganising on the platform of the American IWWbetween 25 and 30 thousand miners of theDebaltzev district in the Don Basin. The Cossackmassacre, which led to the murder of comradeKoniayev, the organiser of this union, and thesubsequent civil war, destroyed those beginnings.The same was true of Anarcho-Syndicalist work inthe Cheremkhovo mine, before the Czechoslovakrebellion. In Ekaterinodar and throughoutNovorossiysk province the labour movement wasadopting the Anarcho-Syndicalist platform. Thismovement was headed by B. Yelensky, KatiaGorbova and others. The movement embraced theentire Chernomorsky province, with the citiesEkaterinodar and Novorossiysk. The maincontingents in this movement were portworkers andcement workers. In Moscow the Anarcho-Syndicalists had a dominant influence among the

22

railway workers, perfumery workers and others.(The movement was carried on by comradesincluding Preferansov, N. K. Lebediev, Kritskaya.)To translate this influence into terms of definitenumbers is difficult. We can only point out that, atthe First All-Russian Trade Union Convention, therewas an Anarcho-Syndicalist faction. It included afew Maximalists and other sympathizers totallingtwenty-five people. And since the basis ofrepresentation was on the average of one delegateper 3,000 - 3,500 members, one may say that thenumber of organised Anarcho-Syndicalist workersreached 88,000. This figure, however, might safelybe increased two or three times to form an adequateidea of the actual sweep of the movement.

Factory CommitteessubordinatedAt the First Trade Union Convention, immediatelyafter the October revolution, the Bolsheviks and LeftSocial-Revolutionists were in the majority. Itsignified the final victory of the trade unions overthe Factory Committees. The Bolshevikssubordinated the Factory Committees, which werefederalist and anarchistic by nature, to thecentralised trade unions. With the help of the tradeunions, the Bolsheviks succeeded in making theFactory Committees a tool in their policy ofdomination over the masses. Having achieved that,the Bolsheviks proceeded to strip the Committees ofall their functions. And by this time the FactoryCommittees fulfilled only one function, the policerole imposed on them by the Bolsheviks.

In 1918, the Bolshevik terror still spared the tradeunions. And thus we saw the development of an

23

Anarcho-Syndicalist movement in the bakers' unionof Moscow, Kharkov and Kiev (very energetic workwas carried on among the Kiev bakers by A. Baron,who if not executed by now [1940] is still being keptin prison or exile; ever since 1920, he was switchedback and forth from various prisons to places ofexile), and among the Petrograd postal andtelegraph workers. At the All-Russian Conventionof Postal and Telegraph Workers, the Anarcho-Syndicalists exercised a powerful influence, morethan half the delegates following their lead. (Theprincipal Anarcho-Syndicalist workers in this unionwere Milhalev, Bondarev and others. The extent ofAnarcho-Syndicalist influence in the union can bejudged by reading the stenographic report of theconvention held in 1918.) The Petrograd branch ofthis union marched under the banners of Anarcho-

24

Syndicalism. Its publication, Izvestia Pochtovo-Telegrainikh Sluzhashtchikk Petrograda was edited byAnarcho-Syndicalists. The same was true of theUnion River Transport Workers of the Volga Basinwhere, due to the work of comrade Anosov, theunion publication took a definite Anarcho-Syndicalist stand.

Capture of trade unionsAll that, however, was destroyed by the Bolsheviks.The industrial principle underlying the process ofmerging unions into large units became a usefulweapon in the Bolshevik struggle against Anarcho-Syndicalism. In the first place the Bolsheviks beganto consolidate those unions which they deemedunreliable, from the viewpoint of their own basicdrive for domination. The move was to merge suchunions in the general mass and scatter the leading

Anarcho-Syndicalist workers in unionsconsidered "reliable" from their point of

view. Thus went down a numberof Anarchist-minded

trade unions; theunion of

telegraph workers inPetrograd, of perfumery workers in Moscow, ofwater transport workers in Kazan, the organisationsof some important railroad junctions of Moscowand Kursk, where comrades like Kovalevich andDvumjantzev played an important role.

Due to this measure and to intensifiedcentralisation, coupled with unscrupulous juggling

25

of votes and, in some places, the severe measuresapplied by the authorities, the administrative bodiesfell into the hands of Communists. The Second All-Russian Convention of Trade Unions (1919)furnishes an apt exampleof this process ofcapturing the tradeunions. At thatconvention the numberof Anarcho-Syndicalistand sympatheticdelegates was only 15.That is, they representedonly 52,950, at a momentwhen the workers'sympathies for Anarcho-Syndicalism werenoticeably on theincrease, a fact

26

accentuated by a concurrent lowering of thestanding of the Bolsheviks in the eyes of theworkers. The standing rules of the conventiondeprived the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the right tohave their own speaker on the important questionson the agenda. At the third convention, in 1920,there were only 10 Anarcho-Syndicalist delegates(including sympathisers) representing only 35,300people.

Those conventions fully demonstrated thefailure of the tactics advocated by GolosTrouda, which carried weight with theAnarcho-Syndicalists of Russia. (The authorwas on the staff of Golos Trouda, but this doesnot deter him from acknowledging the errorsmade by the paper.) The lack of purelyrevolutionary unions hastened the destructionof the Anarchist and Syndicalist movements.Scattered throughout the Bolshevik unions,the Anarcho-Syndicalist forces could notshow any resistance and were flattened by theiron policy of the "Dictatorship of theProletariat".

At the beginning of 1920 only one union inMoscow held out for the Anarcho-Syndicalistline. This was the Bakers' Union, whoseAnarcho-Syndicalist orientation was due tothe work of our comrade N. I. Pavlov. (Thelatter, however, recanted his Anarcho-

Syndicalist views under the pressure of the GPU,this being the price paid by him for his liberty.Pavlov made the statement disavowing hisAnarchist views on release from prison). Acontributing factor to the persistence of Anarcho-Syndicalist influence in the Bakers' Union was thework of the Maximalists, Niushenkov andKamyshev.

27

At the Second All-Russian Convention, theBakers' Union delegation contained a "Federalist"faction numbering ten to fifteen people, whosefollowing extended to nearly a third of the unionmembership. At that convention, the first attemptwas made (Maximoff, Niushenkov, Pavlov) toorganise an underground revolutionary Federationof Food Workers. This was to be the first steptowards organising a Russian GeneralConfederation of Labour. The move was to havebeen a genuine attempt by the Executive Committeeof Russian Anarcho-Syndicalists to carry out thebasic points of its programme. In view of therepressions which soon began, the committee of theabove-mentioned comrades, elected at the meetingof the faction of the convention, did not even get achance to start its work, as planned at the meeting.This was the last vivid manifestation of the strugglewaged by Anarcho-Syndicalism within theCommunist State-controlled trade union

Centralisation and terrorThe programme of the Russian trade unionmovement wasas follows:centralisation,compulsorymembership,compulsorydisciplineimposed bydisciplinarycourts, thetutelage of thepolitical party(theCommunist

28

Party in this case), militarisation of labour,compulsory labour service, labour armies, theattachment of workers to their places of work,nationalisation of production individualmanagement (instead of collective administration)graduated wage scales (36 categories), introductionof sweatshop system, Taylorism, piecework,bonuses, premium systems, etc. Workers controland workers' management were proscribed andunconditional support of the government was

demanded.

The policy and programme of the tradeunions was wholly determined (and still is)by the policies and programme of the"Communist Government". At present,and this has been true for a number ofyears, the unions, or rather theiradministrative centres, have nothing in

common with the proletarian masses.They only mirror the policy of thegovernment, fulfilling all its demands at

the expense of the working class.

The Soviet State has kept up its terroristicmethods in suppressing all opposition withinunions, meting out brutal punishment to anyone

violating government decrees, which areinimical to the workers. In this respect the

unions proved to be one of the manygovernment repressive agencies,

working in close collaboration with theother punitive organs of the State: the Che-

Ka, People's Courts, the GPU, etc.

The following is an apt illustration of thisterrorist policy towards workers. Krasny Nobatand Uralsky Rabochy reported the followingcases: for taking an unauthorised three-day

29

leave from his factory, one of the workers wassentenced to unload 5,000 pounds (801 tons), duringten days. All that to be done after his regularworkday. Many other workers were sentenced tocompulsory prison work for the same "crime" ofabsenting themselves during work. This slaveholding policy flourished, especially in the Uralregion, during the administration of Trotsky andPiatakov.

A government inspection of the sanitary andtechnical conditions prevailing in the Central CoalDistrict revealed a ghastly picture, by which eventhe most frightful capitalist exploitation pales incomparison. In the name of the "commonwealth",that is the benefit of the State, workers had to livemiles away from the mines in ramshackle barracksbuilt of thin boards, and lacking elementaryconveniences, where even doors and windows hadfallen into disuse. In the winter the barracks gavehardly any protection against frosts and icy winds.There were no toilets, workers being compelled touse cesspools surrounding the barracks.

Mineworkers were getting half-a-pound of breada day - on condition that they fulfilled their dailywork norm. Failing that, they were deprived of thisration. In addition, overtime was exacted from theworkers, who were paid for it with one meal a day.Workers who did not fulfill their norm were kept inthe mine until they completed their daily task. Andthis leaves out the account of the flagrant tyrannyand high-handed actions characterising the attitudeof the administration to the workers. (This data istaken from the unpublished report of the doctorswho were carrying out this investigation. The reportis kept among the materials of the Department ofSafeguarding Labour, at the Labour Commissariat.)

30

Such conditions were especially prevalent in thelife of the Ural workers during the administration ofTrotsky and Piatakov. At the Izhevsk plant, forinstance, an anarchist worker named Gordeyev wasshot for failing to submit to work discipline (seeGolos Rossiyi for the first half of 1922, Berlin). InEkaterinburg (now Sverdlovsk) workers of the mintwere sentenced to hard prison labour, their "crime"being "violation of labour discipline".

What was the Anarcho-Syndicalist programme,as opposed to that of the government-controlled"communist unions"? Briefly, it was that the State -even the so-called benevolent State - is the enemy ofthe working class. It follows, therefore, that the firsttask of the trade unions should be to emancipatethemselves from State captivity, to emphasise thesignificance of industrial organization. Inaccordance with this premise the Anarcho-Syndicalists built their programme and tactics in theRussian trade union movement.

Emma Goldman delivers theeulogy at the funeral of Pe-ter Kropotkin, 13th February1921.

31

Freedom withoutSocialism is privilegeand injustice;Socialism withoutFreedom is slaveryand brutality.

Michael Bakunin

32

The AuthorGREGORI PETROVICH MAXIMOFF was born onNovember 10, 1893, in the Russian village ofMitushino, province of Smolensk. After studying forthe priesthood, he realised this was not his vocationand went to St. Petersburg, where he graduated asan agronomist at the Agricultural Academy in 1915.He joined the revolutionary movement, while astudent, was an active propagandist and, after the1917 revolution, joined the Red Army. When theBolsheviks used the Army for police work and fordisarming the workers, he refused to obey ordersand was sentenced to death. The solidarity of thesteelworkers' union saved his life.

He edited the Anarcho-Syndicalist papers GolosTrouda (Voice of Labour) and Novy Golos Trouda(New Voice of Labour). Arrested on March 8, 1921,during the Kronstadt revolt, he was held with othercomrades in the Taganka Prison, Moscow. Fourmonths later he went on hunger strike for ten and ahalf days and ended it only when the interventionof European Syndicalists, attending a congress ofthe Red Trade Union International, secured for himand his comrades the possibility to seek exileabroad.

He went to Berlin, where he edited Rabotchi Put(Labour's Path), a paper of the Russian Syndicalistsin exile. Three years later he went to Paris, then tothe U.S., where he settled in Chicago. There heedited Golos Truzhenika (Worker's Voice) and laterDielo Trouda-Probuzhdenie (Labour's Cause-Awakening) until his death on March 16, 1950. Hiswritings include The Guillotine at Work (1940), afully-documented history of 20 years' Bolshevikterror in Russia, extracts from which form the

33

present pamphlet; Constructive Anarchism (1952) anda comprehensive selection from the writings ofMichael Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin-Scientific Anarchism (1953). The last two werepublished posthumously.

Maximoff died while yet in the prime of life, asthe result of heart trouble, and was mourned by allwho had the good fortune to know him. He was notonly a lucid thinker, but a man of stainless characterand broad human understanding. And he was awhole person, in whom clarity of thought andwarmth of feeling were united in the happiest way.He lived as an Anarchist, not because he felt somesort of duty to do so, imposed from outside, butbecause he could not do otherwise, for hisinnermost being always caused him to act as he feltand thought.

Rudolph Rocker

34