HD 
 
 852& 
 
 $B 31 
 
 The Workers 
 and Peasants 
 :: of Russia :: 
 
 How They Live 
 
 By Augustine Souchy 
 
 PRICE 30 CENTS 
 
 Translated and Published by 
 
 INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD 
 
 tOOl W. MADISON ST. CHICAGO. ILL.. U. S. A. 
 
The Workers and 
 Peasants of 
 Russia and Ukraine 
 
 How Do They 
 
 By Augustine Souchy 
 
 it 
 
 :RNATIONAL RELATIONS 
 
 jity of California 
 
 Translated and Published by 
 
 Educational Bureau of the Industrial Workers of the World 
 1001 W. Madison St. Chicago, 111., U. S. A. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction 3 
 
 Author's Preface 11 
 
 Chart of Socialist and Anarchist movements 
 
 J an Russia and Ukraine 16 
 
 'THE, SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA.... 17 
 
 The*. Marxists (Social Democrats) 17 
 
 e\"The^Narodniks (National or People's Soc.) 19 
 
 1 Social Revolutionaries of the Right 19 
 
 Social Revolutionaries of the Left 19 
 
 The Maximalists 22 
 
 The Anarchists 24 
 
 The Syndicalists 25 
 
 The Nabat Anarchists 29 
 
 THE LAND 32 
 
 The economic position of the Peasants 34 
 
 The political position of the Peasants 42 
 
 THE CITY AND INDUSTRY 47 
 
 The Development of the Trade Unions 47 
 
 The organization of the Trade Unions 56 
 
 The opposition in the Trade Unions 62 
 
 Rationalization or Socialization? 65 
 
 Trust Building or Trustification 68 
 
 The Home Workers and their Co-Operative 
 
 Societies or Artels 72 
 
 Consumption 74 
 
 The Life of the Workers in the Cities 82 
 
 Workers' Insurance 86 
 
 National Finance 88 
 
 The Soviets or Councils 92 
 
 The Red Army 97 
 
 Education 103 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE .. 107 
 
 Machno Ill 
 
 The Socialist Movement in Ukraine 129 
 
 Communism and the Peasantry 133 
 
 The Economic Situation in Ukraine .. ..137 
 
Introduction 
 
 RUSSIA of the days of 1917, the inspiration of the world's pro- 
 letariat: What is transpiring behind its endless boundaries? 
 What forces are shaping themselves on its millions of square 
 miles? Those 180 millions of people; peasants and workers, 
 what of them? How have they fared since the November days 
 of 1917? Are the programs and slogans of those thrilling 
 November days being carried out or is it true that,the.initiative 
 and revolutionary ardor of the workers in RiissteJ nave bqen 
 stifled by the iron-rule of a party dictatorship?. How do the 
 workers and peasants, the great lower layer.-, oj: the- -Eusi^r. 
 masses, look upon their present government? Is it true that 
 the Russian Soviet Government is a party government and that 
 the workers have no voice in choosing or electing their dele- 
 gates to the Soviets? 
 
 Such questions as the above, were they asked a year or two 
 ago by any radical, would have been howled down as heresy. 
 But at the present day and on the eve of Russian recognition 
 by the capitalist powers, the questions above suddenly assume 
 great importance and demand an answer one way or another. 
 And they are being answered as all such questions are, in 
 various ways, depending on what influence prompts the reply. 
 Formerly the capitalist press carried its daily quota of polished 
 news depicting conditions in Russia. But generally these tales 
 were concerned only with the misfortune of the bourgeois 
 class, and lately there is noted from that source a sudden still- 
 ness about Russian atrocities and in its place appear conciliatory 
 articles that portend what? 
 
 During the time that has elapsed since 1917 a few people 
 have come from Russia carrying information with them which 
 has, however, only been of a general nature and political in 
 character. Such information because of its vague nature 
 served to create a false impression about Russian conditions, 
 until at present a sharp controversy is manifest between the 
 various elements of the radical movement. In the light of the 
 present day knowledge concerning Russia, even if it is slight, 
 it is beyond doubt that much of the information previously cir- 
 culated in America about Russia is misleading and some of it 
 basely false. Who needs to be reminded of the many tales 
 circulated about Russia, in which the conditions of the workers 
 there have been O. K.d and in which they have been reported 
 as masters of their destinies? Generally the whole text of the 
 
news that have been circulated seemed to concern itself with 
 describing the impossible qualities of certain Russian leaders. 
 What a strange coincidence it is that the real extent of the 
 power wielded by the Central Committee of the Communist 
 Party of Russia is never referred to and yet such a power could 
 not have escaped the notice of a sincere investigator. 
 
 It is quite likely that the description of Russia in this book 
 will be greeted in various ways. By some as a source of com- 
 parative knowledge; by others in a spirit of rage. Vilification 
 and praise will follow in its wake. 
 
 The Communists of America are now busy constructing a 
 great bogy with which they can silence and scare away the 
 critics of their program. They call this bogy "anarchist/* 
 "counter-revolutionary," etc. These tactics are peculiar to 
 parties of a political nature, but they are mere puffs of wind 
 .wjhich "stureth Jiot even the leaves." 
 
 : '...* It js/oiiiy: an" act of justice to the reader if we qualify the 
 .investigations -pf'.the author Augustin Souchy by telling 
 ' 
 
 Souchy is truly an "internationalist". Properly he is a 
 member of the German syndicalist movement, but his activities 
 in the European labor movement have taken him to most of 
 the countries of Europe, and whenever there is an important 
 meeting or a conference of the progressive forces of European 
 labor one can nearly always look for Souchy's name on the 
 list of delegates. The authorities of all countries keep their 
 eyes on him and he has been deported from several countries, 
 notably from Scandinavia. He was a delegate to the Second 
 Congress of the Communist International at Moscow in 1920 
 and also participated in the conference that organized the Provi- 
 sional Council of Trade and Industrial Unions, the forerunner 
 of the present R. L. U. I. In these conferences he opposed, on 
 philosophical grounds, the political theories that dominated 
 these conferences. The investigation of conditions in Russia 
 as set down in this book was made in the same period as his 
 attendance to the above mentioned bodies. (1920). 
 
 In this book will be found a chapter dealing with Machno 
 who has been variously represented in this country as a bandit, 
 murderer, anarchist and a friend of the upper classes of the 
 Ukraine peasants. It is. certain that around this particular 
 person there will always be a fierce dispute as to his real 
 motive. His importance as a figure in the Russian revolution- 
 ary period will always base itself on the fact that he had a 
 large following among the peasants of the Ukraine. Historic- 
 ally his intentions and what he sought to accomplish will al- 
 ways be an open question. In short he will always have friends 
 and enemies. The author of the book Souchy pictures him 
 in a favorable light. He sees him as a friend af the lower 
 classes of peasants as against the higher element of that class, 
 even to the extent of carrying on open warfare against the 
 
 
Soviet Government. Perhaps he is justified by his observa- 
 tions in this stand. Be that as it may, his opinion is his 
 own, but his record of this historical figure is as much entitled 
 to consideration as those who tell a different story. 
 
 The writer of this introduction was a delegate from the I. W. 
 W. to the first Congress of the Red Labor Union International 
 at Moscow and personally witnessed a stormy debate at the 
 closing session over Machno which developed from the following" 
 circumstances : 
 
 During the first days of the sessions a movement was 
 launched by the syndicalist delegates of France and Spain to 
 secure the release of some anarchists who were then in Russian 
 prisons. As a result of a petition which was signed by many 
 of the delegates, an interview was arranged between some 
 of the leading figures of the Russian Soviet government (Lenin 
 was present) and a committee of delegates who had signed the 
 petition. At this meeting an agreement was reached that every- 
 thing possible would be done to have them released under the 
 condition that they would leave the country in the company of 
 the French delegates at the end of the congress, and it was 
 further understood that no issue would be made of this matter 
 in the Congress of the Red International. The delegates left 
 this meeting and said nothing more about it. Suddenly, on the 
 last day of the Congress, just before adjournment, Bukharin 
 appeared as a representative of the Central Committee of the 
 Russian Communist Party with a statement accusing the im- 
 prisoned anarchists of being "Machnovtzi" (members of Mach- 
 no's band) and raised some question about releasing all of 
 them. 
 
 Bukharin's appearance concerning the imprisoned anarch- 
 ists raised a fierce storm of protest especially from a part of 
 the French delegates who charged the Soviet government with 
 bad faith in bringing up the subject when they had formerly 
 agreed to keep it quiet. 
 
 Bukharin, representing the Central Committee of the Rus- 
 sian Communist Party, reported their action on the subject of 
 the imprisoned anarchists which accused them generally with 
 supporting Machno and indicating tHat they were in prison on 
 that account. Whether or not these anarchists were supporters 
 of Machno I cannot say, neither do I know whether these par- 
 ticular anarchists were ever released. I heard later that some 
 of them had refused to agree to leaving Russia when released 
 and were on a hunger strike. 
 
 Machno at that time was a strange name to me but his 
 prominence in this controversy on the floor of the Red Inter- 
 national Congress aroused my interest and I began to inquire 
 about him. But I soon realized that trying to find out who and 
 what Machno is was like trying to uncover the identity of the 
 devil. Thus, Machno was like a sore boil to the communist 
 elements and they emphasized him as a murderer, bandit and 
 
 5 
 
counter-revolutionist. By the non-communist element, anarch- 
 ists, many syndicalists, and others, Machno is highly praised. 
 Some again, anarchists, and even communists, described the 
 Machno movement as originally having good purposes, but 
 claimed that it had become permeated with elements who were 
 using it for their own particular purposes. When I left Moscow 
 and summed up what I had learned about Machno I was forced 
 to the opinion that this figure will never be quite understood 
 by anyone. His motives will be appreciated or condemned 
 according to the faction his appraisers adhere to. From this 
 viewpoint then, the subject of Machno is important only because 
 he presents one of the problems of the Russian situation. In 
 short, it is not the personal qualities of Machno that we are 
 concerned with, but the movement he has grouped around him. 
 
 There is abundant proof that the Russian revolution was 
 not the venture of one particular party, but that it was the 
 spontaneous outburst of the Russian masses. Only after the 
 crash of Czarism do we see the various political parties coming 
 out and manoeuvering for favorable positions. After a period 
 of political moves the Bolsheviki stepped into power on pro- 
 mises and slogans that do not exist today. In fact they are in 
 the same position now as when Kerensky's coalition govern- 
 ment assumed their short term of power. But the Bolsheviki 
 or Communists of Russia must undergo, because of their altered 
 revolutionary policy, the same critical examination as any other 
 group. That it still clings to revolutionary phrases is not a 
 cause for adopting a watch-and-wait policy. Conditions, not 
 words, are our chief concern, and only with a knowledge of 
 the conditions of the Workers and Peasants in Russia can we 
 apply the measure of the revolutionary yard-stick. 
 
 There are many ways of judging the Russian revolution at 
 its present stage. Many excuse the present policy of the Soviet 
 Government on the ground that the workers and peasants are 
 a dark depraved mass of low intelligence, floundering around 
 in a dumb state of mind, which makes them fertile ground 
 for White-guard activity. Because of this, a strong central 
 dictatorship is necessary to curb their aimless reactionary ten- 
 dencies. Therefore they have been stripped of every right 
 which they might even have enjoyed under such a rule as the 
 former Czar. But those who say this are as ignorant as they 
 claim the workers and peasants are. If this is the case then 
 the Bolsheviki would have never assumed power. Nor if we 
 judge the situation correctly would there have ever been a re- 
 volution. What is paradoxical about this argument is that the old 
 czarist regime acted on the assumption that the workers and 
 peasants were just the opposite and they likewise suppressed 
 them vigorously on the same grounds. But whatever they can 
 make out of the above argument, the communists in any 
 case will never explain away their fierce suppression and abo- 
 lition of all human rights from the very masses who lifted them 
 
 6 
 
into power. This will always be a blemish that will cling to 
 them like a birth-mark and like the legendary writing on the 
 wall can be never be wiped out. 
 
 Another way of judging the Russian situation is the theory 
 that as long as the present government retains a tight hold on 
 the powers of government they can at any period liquidate 
 the new capitalistic economic program for the benefit of the 
 Russian proletariat. This is a high-flown theory, as this book 
 in its discussion of Russia will demonstrate, not in a direct, 
 conscious manner perhaps, as the author did not have this 
 particular phase before him at the time of his investigations, 
 but by acquainting the reader with the development of the Rus- 
 sian revolution up to his time. The Russian revolution to date 
 shows one thing clearly: "that successful revolutions are not 
 the product of the abstract human will." Human will power 
 expressed only by the masses, counts as a factor in social changes. 
 Revolutionary tacticians flounder helplessly trying to regulate 
 social laws to fit their particular plans. They hide their failure 
 in such terms as "transition periods" or "economic retreats." 
 One is as vague as the other and neither means anything. 
 
 Whatever explanations are advanced on the Russian situa- 
 tion everybody must admit that for the present at least we can 
 dismiss from our minds any remaining hope that capitalism 
 has not been invited back to Russia, and from this viewpoint we 
 must then inquire why the Russian revolution was forced into 
 this position. Dismissing, too, any wrong idea that any set of 
 individuals were the direct cause, we must search amongst the 
 ruins for the reason and ask: What force obstructed the path 
 of the Russian masses in their surge towards emancipation? 
 And for those who read this book with a mind bent on in- 
 vestigation it is certain that much valuable information can be 
 obtained. Regardless of whatever antipathy the reader may 
 develop because this author holds certain views, there are 
 facts in this book that compel serious thought. 
 
 This book deserves praise mainly because it is a study of 
 conditions in Russia, and not men, leaders perchance, of a re- 
 volutionary government, because after all is said and recorded 
 about the personal qualities of this or that prominent person 
 in Russia, the Russian revolution cannot ever be correctly 
 judged unless the conditions of the great masses are known 
 and understood. Labor laws, regulations and libertarian de- 
 crees are, finally, nothing but dried ink and signify nothing. 
 Soviet institutions are corrupted by much the same methods 
 as any other governing body. 
 
 Particular notice is due to the chapters that describe the 
 many socialist parties of Russia as well as the Anarchists 
 and Syndicalists. These various factions are representative of 
 the sociological ideas that dominate the minds of the Rus- 
 sian people. The Chart on page 16, especially, makes a study 
 
of these movements more simple and assists the reader to a 
 clearer understanding of the following chapters. 
 
 Lest the point be missed it is necessary to call to the read- 
 ers' attention, that the principal point which the author has 
 sought to show is that the Soviet government has failed not 
 alone in the sphere of production, but also- in the field of 
 distribution. Thus it is that the Soviet government allows a 
 certain amount of latitude to the labor unions as producing 
 organs, but it liquidates entirely into the state the once power- 
 ful co-operative societies which were an integral part of the 
 Russian national life. These co-operative societies flourishing 
 and alive under their former mode of operation, in becoming 
 state organs for distribution, and henceforth bureaucratically 
 managed have withered like a cut flower and become lifeless. Free 
 trade inaugurated in the spring of 1921 is an indication of this 
 decay. 
 
 Some of the features of bolshevik rule described in this book 
 have now disappeared due to the rapid changes that are being 
 made in the policy of the bolsheviks, but each such feature 
 should be recorded and rescued from oblivion. The failures 
 and the mistakes of the bolsheviks are the red danger lanterns 
 along our own road and will save us in the future from running 
 into the same obstacle, just as the red lanterns hung out by 
 street pavers and sewer workers save us from running into 
 holes or piles of debris. The author of this book hangs out 
 these danger lanterns where everybody can see them. The 
 information the author gathered in 1920 will never be out of 
 date as long as we ourselves have not achieved the great social 
 transformation in this country. 
 
 Together with the publishing of this book in America comes 
 the news of a speech made by Lenin on October 17, 1921, in 
 which the prophetic writings of this book are verified. Lenin 
 says in the speech : 
 
 "Our new economic policy consists essentially in this, 
 that we in this respect have been thoroughly defeated and 
 have started to undertake a strategic retreat; before we 
 are completely defeated, let us retreat, and DO EVERY- 
 THING OVER AGAIN, but more steady. Communists can 
 not have the slightest doubt that we on the economic front 
 have suffered an economic defeat, and a very serious defeat 
 at that." 
 
 He also says, in connection with the former policy of food 
 requisition, the following: 
 
 "On the economic front we have, with the attempt to 
 go over to a communist society, suffered a defeat in the 
 spring of 1921, more serious than any previous defeat suf- 
 fered at the hands of Denekin, Kolchak or Pilsudsky, a 
 defeat which has taken expression in the fact that our 
 economic policy in its superstructure has proven to be cut 
 
 8 
 
off from the substructure and did not create the stimulation 
 of the productive powers, which in our party program is 
 recognized as the fundamental and immediate problem. 
 "The requisition system in the country and the commun- 
 ist method of solving the organization problem in the cities, 
 these are the policies that prevented the increase in the pro- 
 ductive powers and proved to be the main cause of the deep-, 
 going economic and political crisis with which we collided in 
 the spring of 1921. 
 
 "There you have the cause of what has happened, 
 which, from the viewpoint of our general policy, cannot be 
 called anything else than a thorough defeat and a retreat." 
 
 But the defeat that Lenin admits and which he terms 
 "our defeat" should not be construed to mean a defeat of all 
 revolutionary principles. It is wholly, and only, a defeat of 
 the political theory of revolution. 
 
 Bukharin is perhaps the frankest of all when he says in an 
 article entitled, "The Soviets' New Policy": 
 
 "When the state apparatus is in our hands we can 
 guide it in any desired direction. But unless we are at the 
 helm we can give no direction at all. 
 
 "Consequently we must seize power and keep it and 
 make no political concessions. But we may make many 
 economic concessions. But the fact of the matter is we are 
 making economic concessions in order to avoid making 
 political concessions. 
 
 "We shall agree to no coalition government or anything 
 like it, not even equal rights to peasants and workers. We 
 cannot do that." 
 
 The above quotations are but proof that when defeats are 
 spoken of they are meant as defeats of political centralism; 
 of party policies. The reasons of these defeats are shown by 
 the contents of this book. 
 
 GEO. WILLIAMS. 
 Feb. 10th, 1922. 
 
Author's Preface 
 
 WHEN the Russian Revolution broke out and czarism was 
 overthrown, there was not a socialist who did not greet 
 this revolution with joy. All, from the most moderate state 
 socialist and reformist to the most radical anarchist, yes, even the 
 liberals of Europe, saw progress in the overthrow of czarism. 
 When later Kerensky wanted to steer the wreck of the Russian 
 ship of state into the safe harbor of the entente, and continued 
 the war against Germany, dissatisfaction arose among the Russian 
 masses, for was it not peace that the revolution was going to 
 bring them! When Kerensky, with the coalition Miljukov and 
 Gutschkov, threw himself in the arms of the entente, he, natur- 
 ally, could not fulfill the peace wishes of the Russian people. It 
 was evident that the revolutionary wave would not stop but keep 
 on rolling further in the direction of peace. For that reason, the 
 party that put peace on its program had the greatest prospect 
 of winning,.' And that party was the bolsheviks. 
 
 The political reasons for a bolshevik victory were at hand. 
 To these political reasons were added psychologic and economic 
 reasons. 
 
 The psychologic reasons: The Russian people had for cen- 
 turies lived under the rule of czarism. The autocracy at the top 
 did everything to keep alive the respect for authority at the bot^ 
 torn. This respect for authority has penetrated so deeply into 
 the life of the people that it even had set its mark on the rela- 
 tions between the peasants themselves in their daily life. Sym- 
 bolic of this is the word "Little Father." One of the strongest 
 factors for preserving this respect was religion. The Catholicism 
 of the Orthodox Greek Church has even today its strongest sup- 
 port in Russia. The revolution has shaken faith in czarist author- 
 ity, but has not completely eradicated it. Faith in authority 
 continues to live in Russia and is even to-day stronger than in 
 England or America. For this reason it was natural that the new 
 political system would become authoritarian to the extent that 
 faith in authority still existed. Bolshevism is an authoritarian 
 system. Theoretically it professes to be Marxian, i. e. y authori- 
 tarian-socialist. 
 
 The economic reasons: Already during the Kerensky period 
 dissatisfaction grew, and with it the demand for independence 
 grew also among the workers. The workers, represented by the 
 Workers' Councils or the Factory Committees, did not want to re- 
 main the wage slaves of the factory owners any longer. They 
 
 10 
 
wanted to dispossess the factory owners and take over the factories 
 themselves. After ,a long-drawn struggle they finally succeeded 
 in this, in a favorable moment. But, as they were in no way 
 prepared to take over production, and as they had no unions, 
 which could have undertaken that task, the first period after 
 the taking over of the factories by the workers was notable for a 
 general break-down. The workers did work for themselves but- 
 not for society. They had no industrial unions of their own; 
 what little organization they had was too little developed, and, 
 consequently, in this general break-down, a strong centralistic 
 party was the only power that could in any way combat chaos. 
 One might even say that it was lucky that the bolshevik party was 
 at hand and was vigorous enough to undertake it. Otherwise, 
 perhaps, a non-socialist party, the Cadets, might have payed the 
 way for immediate reaction. Thus, as it happened, the ideal of 
 socialism was not realized, but under the given circumstances it 
 was the only way out. Another economic factor was the support 
 of the effort made by the peasants to take the land away from the 
 large land owners. The economic factors in city and country were 
 consequently, favorable to a bolshevik victory. 
 
 To-day there are numerous socialists who disapprove of bol- 
 shevik rule in Russia. They are adversaries of the bolsheviks 
 because the conditions in Russia under bolshevik rule are not 
 socialistic. And, to be true, if we put the measuring stick of social- 
 ism or communism on Russian conditions, then it is really not 
 difficult to find that in Russia no socialism or communism exists, 
 and from that high observation point one can then condemn bol- 
 shevism. 
 
 We can distinguish three kinds of opponents of Bolshevism. 
 
 The first are the representatives of capitalism and the capit- 
 alist order of society. These are all the states which during the 
 war formed the entente against Germany and Austria-Hungary 
 and which now have united in the League of Nations, and besides 
 there is America. Add thereto capitalist Germany. All these 
 combat bolshevism, not because it did not bring them what they 
 had hoped for they were, on the contrary, enemies of bolshevism 
 i from the start but because they felt themselves threatened by 
 it; they fear that a bolshevik Russia may be a constant revo^ 
 lutionary danger to all other countries. But above everything else 
 th?y fear a revolution in their own country, as they would then 
 Jose their privileges, and first of all their private property, on 
 which rests the whole social order of to-day. In addition to these 
 general, international, capitalist interests there are special na- 
 tionalistic interests. Thus, France belongs to-day to the bitterest 
 opponents of bolshevism, because French capitalists more than all 
 others are interested with their money in Russia. They want, 
 under all circumstances, to get the money back that they had 
 lent to czarist Russia. Although the bolsheviks time and again 
 declared that they were willing to do this 'at the start the bol- 
 
 11 
 
sheviks cancelled all the debts of czarism the French capitalist* 
 are not satisfied; they also want to do business in the future witt 
 Russia, so rich in natural resources. And this applies also to al 
 other capitalist states. For these reasons they fight Soviet Russic 
 with all the means at their disposition : through open or secret war 
 and through support given to the Russian counter-revolutionaries 
 
 The second kind of opponents of bolshevism are the moder- 
 ate and reformist social-democrats. These were, in the first place 
 opponents from the start to bolshevik revolutionary tactics, i e. 
 of the bolshevik approval of the dispersion of the Constituenl 
 Assembly by the anarchists (the bolsheviks were, to some ex- 
 tent, implicated in this dispersion) ; in the second place, they latei 
 became opponents of the anti-democratic and anti-humanitariar 
 measures of the bolsheviks, such as, the suppression of the free- 
 dom of the press and assembly. They were also opponents bj 
 principle to the immediate and absolute expropriation of the cap- 
 italists and of the land owners without compensation. According 
 to their opinion the bolsheviks should have sought co-operation 
 with the democrats of the West. They invoked the aid of Marx 
 and said that socialism could only come about by a development 
 through capitalism. Politically, there should first have com(. 
 democracy in Russia after the overthrow of czarism, and econom- 
 ically, capitalism. Thereupon, after this development had slowly 
 taken place, Russia would be ripe for socialism. Socialism must 
 come through a progressive development; it is a product of evolu- 
 tion. Russia was not yet ripe for socialism. They also oppose 
 the liberty-crushing tendencies of the bolsheyiki, their extra- 
 ordinary commissions, etc. But when they are in power, they by 
 no means allow themselves to be guided by humanitarian view- 
 points in their policies. A Noske, who is one of this group, as 
 minister of defense, has not behaved more humanely, but perhaps 
 more hypocritically, than the bolsheviks. On the whole, this group 
 of social-democrats, social patriots and reformists, or whatever 
 you call them, turn down the principles, methods and tactics 
 of the bolsheviks, because the bolsheviks are too radical for them. 
 These social democrats, furthermore, combat the bolsheviks sec- 
 retly or openly mostly secretly with all the means of force. 
 They help the armed counter-revolution, support the blockade 
 against Russia, etc. During the social democratic reign in Ger- 
 many that government did all it could against bolshevik Russia. 
 
 To the third kind of opponents of the bolsheviks belong, 
 finally, the anti-authoritarian socialists, the anarchists and the syn- 
 dicalists. While the two first-mentioned are opponents of the 
 revolution as such, this third kind are entirely revolutionary. 
 And they are not adversaries of bolshevism in the same sense as 
 the two former. They are rather opponents of bolshevik teach- 
 ings, opponents of the bolshevik authoritarian world philosophy; 
 they are philosophical opponents. They fight the bolsheviks on 
 the intellectual field. While the reformist socialists are against 
 the bolsheviks, because they went too far, the syndicalists and 
 
 12 
 
the anarchists take a negative position towards the bolsheviks, 
 because for them they did not go far enough. They make the 
 objection against the bolsheviks that their methods do not remove 
 the foundations of the old world order of the state and capitalism 
 radically enough, that they have made too great concessions to 
 the spirit of authority, to the discretion of the state, and to the 
 system of wage slavery, and that they in this manner have hin- 
 dered the revolution in its further development. They reproach 
 the bolsheviks that they have set up a new state and thus led 
 the revolution into the wrong channels. They show the bolsheviks 
 the inconsistency of their position, when they, on ftie one hand, 
 maintain that the state is an institution of oppression and class 
 rule, and that a free society only can exist without the state, but, 
 on the other hand, concentrate all their power on making this 
 class state as powerful as possible, as formidable as it ever was, 
 and perfect it through the strongest kind of centralism. The rev- 
 olutionary syndicalists and anarchists furthermore say that the 
 bolsheviks through the establishment of this state and this cen- 
 tralism are not getting nearer to liberty but are getting further 
 aivay from it. As opponents of the conquest of political power 
 they make the objection to the bolsheviks that, through the con- 
 quest of political power, they have become power-seeking politi- 
 cians and have pushed the more important side of socialism and 
 communism in the back-ground. When they once struck out on the 
 path leading to political power, they were compelled to it. From 
 this follows suppression of the other socialist parties and ten- 
 dencies, suppression of the right of free press and assembly, 
 etc. They are also opponents of bolshevik methods of con- 
 quering political power, of centralism and of state socialism. 
 But it is hardly necessary to state that they, like the bolsheviks, 
 are bitter enemies of private property, capitalism, bourgeois dem- 
 ocracy and any kind of a national assembly. 
 
 As will be easily understood, the capitalists and social- 
 reformists are the strongest opponents and political adversaries of 
 the bolsheviks. The anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists, on 
 the other hand, are also opponents on principle of the bolshevik 
 methods, but if the bolsheviks really honestly desire the destruc- 
 tion of the state, then they ought to approach them and the oppo- 
 sition might grow into a fighting alliance. As the matter now 
 stands, the anarchists and the revolutionary syndicalists take a 
 negative position towards the bolsheviks, when it is not downright 
 hostile. 
 
 To take refuge behind the cloak of "objectivity" often signi- 
 fies cowardice, for nobody is capable of free judgment without 
 any subjective views, and least of all when personalities are con- 
 cerned. For that reason I freely admit that I am a revolutionary 
 syndicalist. But when I, like those sharing my views, do not 
 approve of all the methods and the tactics of the bolsheviks, it 
 would be tactless in the highest degree for the bolsheviks to brand 
 us as counter-revolutionists, as they are so inclined to do, in 
 
 13 
 
order to discredit the revolutionary syndicalists and' anarchists 
 before the revolutionary workers. Before the outbreak of the 
 revolution, and before the war, it would not have occurred to any 
 Russian bolshevik to label a revolutionary syndicalist and an 
 anarchist as a counter-re volutipnist, only because he rejected the 
 state, the dictatorship of the proletariat and centralism as well 
 as capitalism. On the contrary, at that time, the anarchist and 
 syndicalist would have had far more right to give the bolsheviks 
 that surname. But, of course, he did not call the bolsheviks by 
 any such name. But now the matter has changed. The bolshe- 
 viks are the ruling party. Their theories, their methods and their 
 tactics are now no longer platonic ; they have become a cold reality 
 which often is quite perceptible to the Russian people. The the- 
 ories and methods which formerly were more or less useful 
 material for discussion in the papers, are to-day in Russia regula- 
 tions, decrees and laws for the Russian people. When we to-day 
 enter into polemics against these theories and tactics, we are also 
 compelled to take a stand on the decrees. But when we do this 
 the bolsheviks brand us, if our criticism happens to be disapprov- 
 ing, as counter-revolutionaries. We can, of course, just as little 
 abstain from this criticism now as before. But the difference is 
 that we to-day have a concrete basis while we formerly worked 
 with only an hypothesis. One thing is necessary to note, how- 
 ever: the difference between decrees and laws and regulations 
 which spring from the theories, and those which can be traced to 
 conditions in Russia. A criticism of the latter would be a criti- 
 cism of the revolution itself, seeing that the bolshevik party is a 
 revolutionary party. But such a criticism we cannot yet enter 
 into, particularly as revolutionaries. A criticism of the former 
 we hold to-day to be just as necessary as formerly the discussion 
 between the different socialist groups. But, besides, we must in- 
 vestigate the effects upon the people of both kinds of decrees and 
 laws, those that spring from theories, and those that are traceable 
 to the conditions. As little as we believe in decrees and laws, still 
 we must admit that they produce a reaction among the people. The 
 popular reaction to these decrees is partly friendly, partly hostile, 
 according to their nature and the wishes of the people. For there 
 are decrees that release the revolutionary powers of the people 
 and stimulate them, and there are decrees that dam them up a 
 annihilate revolutionary initiative. 
 
 iX^, 
 
 3re 
 pie 
 nd 
 
 ,si- 
 
 Such an investigation is very difficult, however. The classi- 
 fication of the decrees and the laws into such as originate in the 
 theories and such as are traceable to the conditions is, namely, in 
 practice not possible in the case of all of them. A number of 
 decrees are the result of a mixture of both elements. If the effects 
 are altogether or partially stimulating to the revolution or are 
 hostile to liberty, and the people reacts accordingly, then one 
 could easily get in the peculiar position of wanting to approve 
 of 60 per cent of them and condemn 40 per cent. But a social 
 revolution is no problem in arithmetic ; it is a question of whether 
 
 14 
 
one accepts of the revolution (and then also the unbeautiful 
 things) or one does not accept of it at all. 
 
 But for our purpose it is not at all necessary to undertake 
 such an impossible analysis of social events by which we would 
 ascertain the percentage of every component part. It is not here, 
 in the first place, a question of criticizing bolshevism, but the 
 question is of getting a clear understanding of the revolution in 
 Russia and what it has given to us. The main purpose is that ^e 
 revolutionary workers, for whom this book is written, may learn 
 a lesson from it, and that they, at the outbreak of a revolution 
 in their own country, may have the experiences of the Russian 
 revolution at their disposition. The purpose of this book is, conse- 
 quently, not counter-revolutionary but revolutionary. If the 
 workers after a true and exact description of the conditions in 
 Russia should come to a partial or entire rejection of such con- 
 ditions for their own country, it should not be allowed to mean 
 a rejection of the social revolution, but only a lesson, how not to 
 do it ivhen revolution breaks out in their own country. This is 
 the main purpose of this book, and the descriptions from Russia 
 which I give, true to facts and without coloring or concealing, 
 should be subordinated to this purpose. 
 
 If conditions in Russia are not such as many a man has 
 hoped, or as he had pictured to himself the advent of the social 
 revolution, he should consider that the Russian revolution did 
 not come at a time when the Russian workers and peasants in 
 their great masses were prepared to organize their economic and 
 political life according to the principles of liberty, but that the 
 revolution found the ivorkers entirely unprepared. Adding thereto 
 the comparatively low technical development of the Russian work- 
 er, one might thereupon ask oneself whether one had imagined 
 that the revolution would come in the forms it took in the brain 
 of a few theorists or far-advanced revolutionaries. 
 
 Let us put this question to ourselves : Being that the Russian 
 revolution did not bring what we had hoped for, would we rather 
 wish that it had not come? Only an anti-revolutionist could have 
 such a negative wish. But every revolutionary must stand by the 
 revolution like a soldier with rifle at his side, with his heart, with 
 his whole feeling and sympathy. And how could we otherwise? 
 We, who have always striven for, hoped for, and worked for the 
 revolution, should we now, when she has come, whom we have 
 sung about in our songs, draw back from her, like a loveless 
 mother from a misshapen child? No, the revolution is here. 
 It is not what we had hoped. It is a deformed, perhaps partly 
 substituted child. But it is our child. We are the parents. It is 
 up to us to recognize the child, to take care of it, to bring it up, 
 to change its form and to make it into as strong and free and 
 proud a child as possible. 
 
 AUGUSTINE SOUCHY. 
 
 Berlin in December, 1920. 
 
 15 
 
Diagram of the Socialist and Anarchist 
 Movements of Russia and Ukraine 
 
 'Union y^laxi 
 
 alists 1005 
 feadetffieffein 
 
 ijj of 
 3he Proletariat * 
 
 ^narcKists(i9P3)Divided into 
 
 Pan. 
 CUtiivewalist) 
 Anarchists 
 
 1918 
 
 Individualist 
 Anarchists 
 1903 
 
 Communist 
 Anarchists 
 
 1903 
 
 Syndicalists 
 1903 
 
 \ / 
 
 Anarchists 
 oFUkrainc 
 VabAt"l918 
 
 See chapter, "The Socialist Movement in Russia", pages 17 to 31 
 also chapter 'The Socialist Movement in Ukraine", pages 129 to 1 
 
 If a book is worth reading it is worth studying. 
 
 16 
 
Workers and Peasants in Russia 
 and Ukraine 
 
 The Socialist Movement in Russia 
 
 AS the main purpose of this book is to give a presentation 
 of the Russian revolution and the conditions It has created, 
 the socialist parties or movements which exist in Russia 
 will be described only to the extent that it is necessary for an 
 understanding of Russian conditions and the revolution. 
 
 The Marxists (Social-Democrats) 
 
 The Russian socialist movement was in the beginning not 
 social-democratic. Even the kind of socialism that Bakunin repre- 
 sented had not arisen on the ground of social-democratic theories. 
 It was a kind af socialism that grew out of the particular agri- 
 cultural character of the country. This socialism called itself the 
 movement of the Narodniks. This movement was a special 
 Russian school of socialism. Later there also arose in Russia, 
 under West-European influence, a special social-democratic school 
 of socialism. Principal founder of this school was Pleckcmov, 
 who formed his views under the influence of Marx and Engels. 
 Thus there were formed in the year 1883 the beginnings of the 
 social-democratic-marxist party. As this school did not fetch the 
 corner stones of its theories from the tendencies of the Russian 
 labor and peasant movement but from other countries and de- 
 veloped particularly by leaning on the German labor movement, 
 its principles and theories will be familiar to the West-European 
 workers and to the German workers in particular. It is Marxism. 
 Under the rule of the Russian knout a revolutionary fighting 
 spirit has, naturally, flourished among them, like among all Rus- 
 sian revolutionaries, as they were compelled to be radical against 
 czarism. 
 
 The social-democratic party of Russia became, however, 
 very early divided in a right and a left wing. In the year of 
 1905 it came to an open break and a split between the two wings. 
 The radicals were in the majority and called themselves "The 
 Majority" or Bolsheviki. The moderates were in the minority, in 
 Russian Mensheviki. With the minority, the mensheviks, re- 
 mained Plechanov, and to them belonged also Martov and Abramo- 
 
 17 
 
vitch. The leader of the bolsheviks was Lenin. Plechanov died 
 soon after the outbreak of the Russian revolution. He was con- 
 sidered the father of Russian social-democracy. 
 
 The program of the m.ensheviks is similar to that of the left 
 wing of German social-democracy or the right wing of the inde- 
 pendents. They consider themselves of the same standpoint as the 
 right of the Independent Socialist Party of Germany. (U. S. 
 P. D.) 
 
 We are here more interested in the program of the bolshe- 
 viks, because that party is in power and has become the ruling 
 party of Russia. It is, consequently, their program which is more 
 or less realized. And even if we cannot trace the Russian condi- 
 tions completely to their program, as life always turns out dif- 
 ferent from the wording of the program, still, the program of this 
 party has, without doubt, had influence on the development since 
 the bolsheviks took the power, as well as on the present situa- 
 tion, if we admit at all that man can exert influence on social 
 events. If we now pick out the most important points in the bol^ 
 shevik program, we have in a sense a criterion on, to what extent 
 the conditions in Russia are traceable to the politics and the the- 
 ory of the bolsheviks and to what extent they are traceable to the 
 revolution itself. 
 
 To the fundamental principles of the Russian bolsheviks be- 
 longs the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the conquest of political 
 power through the social-democratic party, which is falsely said 
 to mean through the proletariat; the confiscation of the factories, 
 mines, shops, furnaces, in short, of the whole industry as well as 
 the land, and transforming it into state property; the organ- 
 izing of economic life through the state. It says word for word 
 in their program: "The state power ceases to be a parasitical 
 apparatus which stands above the process of production; it be- 
 gins to change into an organization which easily fills the function 
 of managing the economic life of the country." The suspension 
 of the political rights of the exploiting class, as well as all other 
 curtailments of freedom which proved to be necessary for the es- 
 tablishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the organizing 
 of consumption through the obligatory membership of all citizens 
 of the state in the Consumers' Unions, are necessary consequences. 
 These are then state organs. 
 
 We have now briefly sketched the principles and the program 
 of the bolshevik party, which later, after it had conquered the 
 power, took the name of the Communist Party. According to 
 Lenin's explanations it took the name of (< The Communist Party" 
 because it wished to differentiate itself from the social-democrats 
 and at the same time wanted to draw over the workers which be- 
 fore ivere in the anarchist and revolutionary-syndicalist move- 
 ment. We shall later have the opportunity to see to what extent 
 the party has been able to impress its program upon the social 
 life of Russia. 
 
 18 
 
The Narodniks (National or People's Socialist) 
 The Social-Revolutionaries of the Right 
 
 While the Marxists, the bolsheviks as well as the mensheviks, 
 are a foreign growth on Russian soil, the socialism of the narod- 
 niks is of a purely Russian origin. Narod means ' 'people." The 
 socialism of the narodniks was the socialism of the people, a spe- 
 cial national product. One of the first and most prominent men 
 in this movement was Lavrov. Tschemitschevsky also belonged 
 to them. This movement is older than the Marxian movement. 
 Later they called themselves also the Social-Revolutionary Party. 
 While the Marxians, in accordance with their theory, ascribe a 
 greater importance to the city proletariat, the Social-Revolution- 
 ary Party was mainly a peasant party. It was more a peasant 
 socialism than a socialism of the city proletariat. As Russia is ,an 
 agrarian country it was natural that the Social-Revolutionary 
 Party was the most popular among the population, which to more 
 than 80 per cent consists of peasants. To this party belonged the 
 Grandmother of the Revolution, Breschkovskaja, "Babuschka" 
 as she was called, who after she was freed from Siberian im- 
 prisonment through the revolution, went abroad, after the fall of 
 the Kerensky government, and made common cause with the 
 American capitalists. 
 
 As was the case with the Marxians, this party also devel- 
 oped a left and a right wing. 
 
 The right wing was in favor of the constituent assembly, 
 i. e., it was parliamentarian, like the mensheviks. Its intellectual 
 leader was Tschernov. They also had other things in common 
 with the mensheviks, although they were not Marxians, nor are 
 so yet. They were for a coalition government with the Constitu- 
 tional Democrats (Cadets), and they formed, together with the 
 cadets Gutschkov and Miljukov and the mensheviks, the coalition 
 government under Kerensky. Kerensky himself belonged to the 
 right wing of the Social-Revolutionary Party. According to the 
 program of the social-revolutionaries of the right the National 
 (Constituent) Assembly should have the power to decide over the 
 constitution of the country as well as over socialization and all 
 important questions. It was and is the program of a bourgeois 
 democracy. 
 
 The Social-Revolutionaries of the Left 
 
 Different was the Left Wing of the social-revolutionaries. 
 These revolutionaries were the old Terrorists against the czarist 
 system. They are still terrorists to-day but differ from the bol- 
 sheviks in this that they recognize only the personal terror but 
 reject the systematic, organized terror. They are in favor of 
 murdering a despot (the czar) but against the use of deterrent 
 measures through a special institution formed for that purpose, 
 as the Ochrana was during the czar and The Extra-ordinary Com- 
 mission (Tscheka) during bolshevik rule. 
 
 19 
 
The revolutionary process accelerated the split in the large 
 Social-Revolutionary Party. Even after the revolution, up to No- 
 vember, 1917, the left wing, the party opposition, took a stand 
 against the coalition government; it represented, principally, the 
 international standpoint, and, finally, in November, 1917, it con- 
 stituted itself The Social Revolutionary Party of the Left. 
 
 This new party was formed mainly by the active peasantry, 
 and their intellectual leaders strove to pull the masses of the 
 peasantry away from the influence of the Social-Revolutionary 
 Party of the Right. Besides, it wished to pull those elements into 
 the revolutionary process who were strange to Marxism and which 
 had mainly developed in the Russian school of the "Narodnit- 
 schestvo" : federalism, the ethical viewpoint and activism. Up to 
 the peace of Brest-Litovsk the party of the left social-revolution- 
 aries worked in solidarity with the bolsheviks in all Soviets and in 
 the government. Of the seven People's Commissariats it took over 
 Agriculture, which is of such great importance in Russia, In order 
 to carry into effect the law of socialization of the land. 
 
 As the party, in connection with the peace of Brest-Litovsk, 
 could not agree with German Imperialism, it stepped out of the 
 government. From the time the party ceased to be a government 
 party, the politics of the Soviet Government were dictated solely 
 by the bolsheviks. Now began the system of terror, the system 
 of forcible requisition of bread from the peasants, the supremacy 
 of the police organs and the re-introduction of capital punishment. 
 All these measures the Social-Revolutionary Party of the Left dis- 
 approved of, the same as other socialist parties. In July, 1918, 
 at the time of the V. Soviet Congress, the party already had 40 
 per cent of the mandates. At that time, however, the party wished 
 to turn with all their might against bolshevik co-operation with 
 German imperialism. This took expression in the act of murder- 
 ing Count Mirbach, the German ambassador in Moscow. 
 
 This act gave the bolsheviks cause and pretense for a settle- 
 ment with the competing party, and they started a system of per- 
 secution, which extends to the present, that is, over two years. 
 All party papers were suppressed, many members were shot and 
 hundreds and thousands of soviet delegates who belonged to that 
 party were excluded from the Soviets. The result of this was that 
 the party became illegal, and their most active members came in 
 prison, whereby the party lost the possibility of influencing the 
 masses, especially the work-village. The active peasantry, which 
 in the soviet representatives no longer saw representatives of 
 their class, was driven to a course of desperate insurrections. But 
 the peasant rebellions were suppressed with force and led still 
 closer to the abyss which separates the bolshevik power from the 
 village. 
 
 I have given this description of the development of this party 
 after the account of one of its leaders, who in the first period 
 after the overthrow of the Kerensky government was a member 
 of the Council of People's Commissars, Isaak Steinberg, who had 
 
 20 
 
the People's Commissariat of Agriculture in charge. Also in the 
 presentation of their program I shall follow his account. 
 
 The sot-called period of transition does not appear to this 
 party as an epoch which in principle differs from the socialist 
 epoch. The period of transition ought not, in its initial forms, to 
 realize any other principles than those which are intended for 
 socialist society. If one speaks of "the dying out of the state," 
 one must not allow state ideology and state compulsion to be rea- 
 lized in the highest degree. One must not depend on the provi- 
 sional character of these periods of transition, for world history 
 has already often enough proven that the provisional has perpet- 
 uated itself. 
 
 The Social-Revolutionary Party of the Left does not believe 
 in accomplishing the social revolution by means of a daring mi- 
 nority, perchance a communist party. It takes the standpoint 
 that, insofar as the social revolution means not only the transfer 
 of the means of production from the hands of one owner into the 
 hands of another owner, but also a radical overturning of all 
 social and intellectual habits of men, as well as the remodeling 
 of the process of production and distribution, the result of the rev- 
 olution can be made safe only by means of the free and active 
 participation of the masses themselves. But this does not mean 
 that the party is parliamentarian. It is, on the contrary, anti- 
 parliamentarian and also opposed to the Constituent Assembly. 
 
 Nor is this party for the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," 
 but for the Dictatorship of the active majority. But in agrarian 
 countries, such as Russia, the foundation of the social revolution 
 must be a union of the active peasantry and the city proletariat, 
 not necessarily in an arithmetic equality on the part of the peas- 
 ant majority, but in the form of participation with equal rights of 
 these two main classes. 
 
 In contradistinction to the bolshevik party the social-revolu- 
 tionaries of the left stand on a federalist basis. The whole social 
 structure of the transition period must be built on the principles 
 of federalism, political as well as economic. The party is a soviet 
 party and demands that the elections to the Soviets, which con- 
 stitute the political axis of the period of transition, only take place 
 on the condition of free elections for the working masses, and that 
 in the activities of the councils the most far-reaching principles 
 of democracy be preserved ; otherwise, the whole council or soviet 
 system is, in their opinion, turned into a mockery of the will of 
 the workers, as at present, and forces the working masses, in a 
 sense of disillusionment, to again long for the universal and free 
 franchise and all the other formal principles of bourgeois democ- 
 racy. The function of the councils or Soviets shall only be to 
 serve as an extension structure of socialist society, politically and 
 in a general cultural aspect, and for that reason all branches of 
 labor and all groups of workers must be represented in them. The 
 economic function, the production and distribution of goods, 
 should rest exclusively in the hands of producers and consumers, 
 
 21 
 
which implies labor unions and consumers' unions. The party, 
 consequently, does not demand a nationalization of production, 
 and this on the ground that it means only the turning over of 
 all the economic processes to the state and the worst kind of state 
 capitalism. The socialization of the means of production and 
 distribution should not mean the transfer of the same into the 
 "ownership" of the state, but their transformation into the com- 
 mon wealth o/ all the workers, as the party had outlined it in 
 the land socialization law, which has been almost repealed by the 
 present government. The party advocates the creating of pro^ 
 ductive societies by the active peasantry. But the distribution of 
 goods shall be in the hands of the workers' and peasants' con- 
 sumers' societies. The federative co-ordination of these two kinds 
 of economic organs creates the social pyramid which connects the 
 economic activity of the village and the city, through which 
 arrangement the role of the state including the soviet state is 
 replaced with the active participation of all the organized citi- 
 zens. 
 
 The party of the social-revolutionaries of the left has from 
 the beginning recognized individual terror as one of the fighting 
 methods, with the precaution that it be used with the greatest 
 care. But it rejects completely terrorism as a system of govern- 
 ment and as a system for the realization of socialism. For that 
 reason it also rejects capital punishment, which was again intro- 
 duced by the bolsheviks. 
 
 On the international field the party wants to enter into con- 
 nection with all organizations and social-revolutionary movements, 
 which defend other than purely Marxian methods for the build- 
 ing of a socialist society. 
 
 I have treated the program of this party a little more at 
 length than that of the bolsheviks, because bolshevik literature 
 has inundated all Europe, and hence it may be assumed that most 
 of the politically interested hand and brain workers know this 
 program. On the other hand, hardly anything is known about 
 this party outside the boundaries of Russia, and it is therefore an 
 act of equalizing justice. 
 
 The Maximalists 
 
 Out of the great movement of the narodniki or social-revolu- 
 tionaries ^there grew, during the pangs of the revolution of 1905, 
 the Maximalist movement. At the congress of the social-revo- 
 lutionaries of 1904, a wing, under Riefkin, placed itself to the ex- 
 treme left. It put up a maximum program and rejected not only 
 the minimum program of the Social-Revolutionary Party, but also 
 the program of all other parties, such as the then still united Marx- 
 ist parties. All other parties, the present bolsheviks included, were 
 then minimalists. 
 
 Already at the congress of 1904 they wished to have nothing 
 to do with the reform program of the other parties. They did 
 
 22 
 
not want to be reformists, but revolutionaries, and demanded of a 
 revolution the realization of the maximum that a revolution can 
 bring. Already then, one of their theoreticians represented the 
 idea of the Soviets. The maximalist Tagin was the man who put 
 forward the idea of Soviets, and together with the anarchists he 
 represented the most pronounced maximalism. 
 
 When the maximalists could not come to any unity with the 
 minimalists, they cut loose from the other parties and foundecf an 
 independent organization. But they did not call themselves a 
 party, but a union, being that they did not believe in the revolu- 
 tionary qualities of a party. In a party, tendencies towards power 
 are always noticeable, which never allow the revolutionary prin- 
 ciple of freedom to come to full development. For that reason 
 they rejected the centralist party and formed a federalist union. 
 
 . Already from the start the maximalists took an anti-parlia- 
 mentarian standpoint. They never took part in the elections to 
 the Duma and were, together with the anarchists and anarcho- 
 syndicalists, the first and most passionate adversaries of the Con- 
 stitutent Assembly. The Maximalist Union was recruited from 
 the ranks of the poorer peasants and the city proletariat. They 
 have the qualities of a fighting class organization and are in the 
 highest degree active class militants. They always emphasize with 
 the greatest force the staking of the personality and differ on this 
 point from the Marxists. They were also terrorists ; they are still 
 adherents of the personal terror, but like the left social-revolu- 
 tionaries, they reject governmental terror and the system of ter- 
 ror. 
 
 As already indicated, they are a soviet movement, yes, in fact, 
 they belonged to those who first came forward with the soviet 
 idea. They differ, though, from other soviet parties, for instance, 
 from the ruling Bolshevik Party, in that they take exception to 
 party Soviets. One of their mottoes is: All power to the Soviets 
 not to the party Soviets but to the class Soviets. They demand 
 class power but not party power, while the bolsheviks, in their 
 opinion, demanded only power for the party. Principally from 
 these reasons they are also opponents of the Bolshevik Party. 
 
 In the beginning of the revolution, after the overthrow of 
 Kerensky, they had, in common with the anarchists, their greatest 
 influence in such places as Kronstadt, Samara and Kursk. They 
 were not organized according to centralist, but decentralist prin- 
 ciples. In many places their faction was the strongest one in the 
 soviet. But the faction was not tied down by party discipline in 
 the voting. Everybody could vote as he desired. This connects 
 with the fact that they did not want to acquire the power. The 
 bolsheviks, on the other hand, who for fifteen years had prepared 
 themselves for the power, were naturally compelled to resort to 
 a different, much more rigid principle of organization. The iron 
 party discipline of the bolsheviks required absolute obedience to 
 the party orders issued. This centralism and this discipline helped 
 
 23 
 
the Bolshevik Party to power, although it was by far not the 
 strongest party in every place. 
 
 As the program of the maximalists in many respects coin- 
 cides with the program of the social-revolutionaries of the left, 
 a separate presentation is unnecessary. Since 1905 the motto of 
 the maximalists was : In unity of hammer, plow and thought lies 
 power and right, and since 1919: All power to the Soviets; no 
 power to the pcfrrty. 
 
 As, at present, during the rule of the Bolshevik Party, all 
 parties have become illegal, they have retired to the place where 
 it still is most possible to bring their ideas before the people, 
 namely to Ukraine. Thus the maximalists and the anarchists, etc., 
 especially under Machno, had the best possibility in Ukraine to 
 propagate their ideas. Besides the maximalists, there is ' still an- 
 other union of left social-revolutionaries, who have also developed 
 out of the narodniki and now call themselves Barbists. The name 
 Barbists comes from the name "barba," struggle. They are fight- 
 ers. In principle they do not differ from the maximalists. 
 
 The agrarian program of the maximalists and the barbists 
 rests on the mir-organization. As far as possible the peasants 
 shall cultivate the land on communist lines. The land of the large 
 land owners and the kulaks (rich peasants) shall be delivered into 
 the possession of the commune. The peasants shall thereafter 
 cultivate it in common. Where the peasants divide up the land 
 between themselves they shall not be stopped with force, but care 
 should be taken that nobody receives more than he himself can 
 cultivate. The peasants of a village, both those who cultivate 
 their own land and those who cultivate the land in common, form 
 a commune. They enter into exchange relations with other com- 
 munes and the cities. In so far as the exchanged objects consist 
 of larger agricultural implements, agricultural machinery and so 
 on, they go into the possession of the commune. The peasants 
 shall be guaranteed the greatest independence, politically and eco^- 
 nomically. 
 
 These currents have developed principally in Ukraine, and 
 even the anarchists of Ukraine accept this or a very similar pro- 
 gram, so that all these movements differ only in their shadings, 
 but not in principle. They are all decentralist, anti -parliamen- 
 tarian, anti-state and federalist. 
 
 The Anarchists 
 
 Besides the above mentioned movements there is still an- 
 other group which belongs to the socialist world in Russia, namely 
 the anarchists. If we disregard single personalities, such as 
 Bakunin and Kropotkin and the Russian anarchists in foreign 
 countries, we can trace the definite establishment of the anarch- 
 ist movement in Russia to the year of 1903. 
 
 As among the social-democrats and the narodniks, there are 
 also many currents among the anarchists. The Individualist 
 
 24 
 
Anarchists have no movement worth mentioning. The Commun- 
 ist Anarchists and the Anarcho-syndicalists , on the contrary, had 
 at the outbreak of the revolution in 1917, and later, a mass move- 
 ment. But as they did not want to conquer power but only de- 
 stroy it, in accordance with their principles, they have to-day 
 again lost their importance. The anarcho-syndicalist tendencies 
 are stronger among the working people, and the anarchist ideas 
 gain a footing among the peasantry of Ukraine. 
 
 There was. and is now, in Russia, anarchist-narodniks, that 
 is, the native movement of the people, and the anarchist-emi- 
 grants. The ideas of the anarchists are the same as in other 
 countries. Of importance here is only the position taken by the 
 anarchists to the revolution. .The Tolstoyan Anarchists were in 
 the minority. The revolutionary anarchists have taken a very 
 active part in the revolution and played a prominent role, particu- 
 larly in the beginning of the revolution, in its destructive period 
 against czarism and Kerensky. They were, self-evidently, against 
 the Constituent Assembly, according to the formula: All power 
 to the Soviets; and all this before the bolsheviks adopted these 
 mottoes. In many places the anarchists began the revolution. 
 For instance, in Jekaterinburg in the Ural the anarchists had car- 
 ried out the revolution earlier than the workers of Petrograd. 
 Already on June 5, 1917, the workers demonstrated under the 
 leadership of anarchists in Moscow and Petrograd against the 
 Kerensky government with the motto: All power to the Soviets. 
 
 The credit for dissolving the constituent assembly does not 
 belong to the bolsheviks, but to the anarchists. It was the anarch- 
 ist Anatol Gregorevitch Zelesniakoff who, in January, 1918, at the 
 head of the Kronstadt sailors, broke into the session of the Con- 
 stituent Assembly and told the gentlemen representatives that 
 they had now talked enough and that they could now go home, 
 or the sailors would help to get them started on the road. First 
 after they, through the direct action of the workers and soldiers 
 with anarchist leanings, were faced with a fait accompli (an ac- 
 complished fact), the parties accepted the situation, and subse- 
 quently Lenin also gave this fact his approval. Zelesniakoff fell 
 in the fight against Denekin's white guardists at Jekaterinoslav 
 on July 26, 1919, after Denekin had put a price on his head of 
 400,000 rubles. 
 
 The Syndicalists 
 
 The position of the Anarcho-Syndicalists is best explained 
 by their resolutions. In their first congress after the revolution, 
 on August 25, 1918, the following decisions were adopted by the 
 Congress of the Confederation of the All-Russian Anarcho-Syndi- 
 calists : 
 
 1. To battle against the power of state and capitalism. 
 
 2. To co-ordinate according to federalist principles the in- 
 
 25 
 
dependent Soviets and to break way for uniting the inde- 
 pendent productive organizations of workers and peas- 
 ants. 
 
 3. To recommend to the workers the forming of free Soviets 
 and to combat the institutions of the Councils of Commis- 
 sars of the People, as this is an organization that is in- 
 jurious to the workers. 
 
 4. To dissolve the military armies and arm the workers 
 and the peasants ; at the same time making clear to them 
 the absurdity of the idea of a "socialist vaterland"; for 
 the workers and the peasants can only have the world for 
 their country. 
 
 5. To battle against the counter-revolutionary CzeckO'-Slov- 
 aks and all other attempts of the imperialists in the most 
 forcible way, not forgetting, however, that the extremely 
 revolutionary bolshevik party has become stationary and 
 reactionary. 
 
 6. To transfer the distribution of the food stuffs and other 
 necessities into the hands of the organizations of the 
 workers and peasants directly and to discontinue the 
 armed excursions into the country, for through these 
 measures the farmers become the enemies of the work- 
 ers, the solidarity between workers and peasants weak- 
 ens, and the revolutionary front is played into the hands 
 of the counter-revolutionists. 
 
 But no hard and fast program has been put up by the 
 anarcho-syndicalists. In order to get a clear understanding of 
 their standpoint one must turn to the resolutions in their con- 
 gresses and their publications. For this reason I have asked one 
 of the most notable anarcho-syndicalists of Moscow, A. Shapiro, 
 for an explanation of his standpoint and here I will give the most 
 important points: 
 
 1. Fundamental rule: Outside the proletariat, the policy of 
 the present state of society is anti-revolutionary and 
 counter-revolutionary. Parliamentarism, consequently, is 
 counter-revolutionary, while it lies outside the proletariat. 
 The policy inside the ranks of the proletariat is in the 
 most intimate manner connected with the economic life. 
 Revolutionary economic policy and revolutionary proleta- 
 rian policy are the driving forces of the social revolution. 
 
 2. If a revolution is to assume a social character it must 
 be laid put on the broadest foundation, that is, the 
 annihilation of the existing state machinery, the overthrow 
 of capitalism and all its resources ; bourgeoisie, liberalism, 
 phrase socialism, middle class; the organization of a 
 new society must be worked out on the basis of economic 
 independence under negation and abolition of the wage 
 system. 
 
 26 
 
3. The dictatorship of the proletariat, so-called, must not be 
 anything but a tool in the hand of the revolutionary 
 people. Characteristic of every dictatorship is that it 
 hides within itself the tendency to autocracy, in so far 
 as it is a true dictatorship. A dictatorship of the prole- 
 tariat can, consequently, never exist. When the class 
 struggle comes to such a stage that the working class is 
 on top and the other classes underneath, the other classes 
 will always try to get their property back. It will, there- 
 fore, be a small part of the proletariat that carries the 
 responsibility. But no party can do this, neither a 
 communist, nor an anarchist. The parties have the know- 
 ledge, the theoretical basis, and also the great ideals, but 
 they have not the spirit of the transition. A party must 
 with necessity always be dogmatic. 
 
 4. A social revolution is an economic revolution. The annihi- 
 lation of capitalism, the control of all the industries and 
 of the economic life through the workers. The enemy 
 class cares little about the form of the state, it cares for 
 capitalism, the economic system, the factories, etc. On 
 this ground the most natural and best qualified carrier 
 of the social revolution is the revolutionary labor organ- 
 izations, the unions. Without the participation of these 
 no social revolution can be successful. 
 
 5. On this ground one could, at most, speak of the dictator- 
 ship of the revolutionary labor organizations inside the 
 proletariat. The deeper the revolutionary political parties 
 dive down into the revolutionary proletarian mass, the 
 shorter will be the period of transition. 
 
 6. It is not in the first place a question of the dictatorship 
 of the proletariat, but of the building of a body which is 
 created by the proletariat for the maintenance of the 
 social gains of the revolution. The dictatorship of one 
 party over the proletariat leads to a soul-less mechanism, 
 being that the party recognizes the principles of discipline 
 and not the tactics of true life. 
 
 7. Dogmatic, mechanical party dictatorship leads to dogma- 
 tic, mechanical centralization, as a party is not able to 
 control the economic life of a country in any other man- 
 ner. Dogmatic and mechanical centralism kills every 
 initiative and destroys more than it builds up. It is 
 characterized by destruction and not by construction. 
 
 8. Axiom: In building a house one first lays the foundation 
 and the roof comes last! In Russia it was the opposite 
 way. The central decides what there is to do. The 
 structure falls to pieces halfway up because there is no 
 responsive action from below. The Industrial Councils 
 must not be tools in the hands of a central body, they 
 
 27 
 
must be the initiators, and their activity should only be 
 regulated by the central body. 
 
 9. The Soviets must not be tools in the hands of a centralist 
 body but the real source of life in their field of activity. 
 Russia teaches us through dearly bought experience that 
 our motto must be "from the bottom to the top". Central- 
 ist dictatorship is not necessary, and least of all for all 
 branches of life. Every branch should itself decide what 
 is to be centralized. 
 
 10. Political and economic activity must be melted together 
 into one. When political and economic problems go hand 
 in hand, they become social problems. Economics is the 
 organization of the conditions of life. Social politics is 
 the relations between man and man in all the conditions 
 of life. 
 
 The anarcho-syndicalists are also for the Soviets but against 
 the Soviets of political parties. From their resolutions on Soviets 
 one can learn the difference between them and the bolsheviks 
 in this respect. Among other things they contain: 
 
 "In consideration of the role which the Soviets play in the 
 struggle against counter-revolution, we have to note the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 1. That the dissatisfaction of the workers with the bolshevik 
 tactics in regard to Soviets and other organizations is 
 on the increase. 
 
 2. That the dictatorship of the bolsheviks over the Soviets 
 and other organizations of labor is pulling the workers 
 over on the side of the Constituent Assembly. 
 
 3. That it is necessary for the working masses to have a 
 clear understanding of the Soviets to carry on a success- 
 ful revolutionary struggle. 
 
 "The anarcho-syndicalists declare themselves for the Sov- 
 iets, the purpose of which is to destroy the present centralist 
 form of the state. We reject, on the contrary, the Soviets of 
 the people's commissars, as these are in contradiction of the 
 essence of the Soviets and paralyze the workers in the true 
 Soviets of the workers and peasants. 
 
 "We are "for the Soviets of the active population who are 
 elected under such conditions that the workers from the fac- 
 tories and the peasants from the village are directly repre- 
 sented and that the delegates are no party politicians, who 
 cause the soviet meetings to be degraded into talking orgies. 
 
 "We are for free Soviets, who make their decisions only 
 in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. Hence, the 
 congress decides that all anarcho-syndicalist fellow workers 
 
 28 
 
have to take part in the provincial Soviets in which the bol- 
 shevik party is not yet the ruling power, and where it is still 
 possible to act in freedom." 
 
 Besides these anarcho-syndicalists there are also the 
 Anarchist-Universalists and the Pan- Anarchists, who have come 
 into development first after the revolution. These two tendencies 
 are represented by the brothers Gordin. These tendencies are- 
 still new and unripe, and it would be too early to describe these 
 ideas in this connection. 
 
 The "Nabat" Anarchists 
 
 Besides those already mentioned there is in Ukraine a special 
 anarchist movement, which has come into existence since the 
 revolution: The Nabat Federation. "Nabat" means alarm or 
 trumpet blast. In their last conference, which took place in 
 Charkov in the beginning of September, 1920, they formulated 
 their standpoint as follows: 
 
 1. The statement of anarchist deserters that the Russian 
 revolution has corroborated the weakness of anarchist 
 theories, is completely without foundation. On the 
 contrary, the fundamental principles of anarchist doctrine 
 remain unshaken and are being confirmed through the 
 test they have gone through in the Russian revolution. 
 The experiences confirm us in this that we remain strong- 
 ly opposed to any form of power and to capitalism. 
 
 2. The anarchists have never denied that between the first 
 days of the revolution in the anarchist sense and the 
 final purpose of anarchism, or the anarchist commune, is 
 a period of time during which the rest of the old servitude 
 slowly disappears and the new forms of a new society 
 gropingly struggle into life. These periods, full of faults 
 and errors and uninterrupted efforts towards perfection, 
 can be given different names: the period of gathering 
 experiences in living without masters, the period of 
 deepening the social revolution, or the first step to the 
 anarchist commune. One may also call it the period of 
 transition, in order to denote the characteristic features 
 which lead from the imperfect to the perfect form of 
 social life. We prefer, though, not to use this demarcation, 
 because it has already acquired a distinct meaning in 
 the socialist movement of the last 50 years. With the 
 term "period of transition" is connected something 
 statistical and stiff. The expression "period of transition" 
 in the program of international social-democracy Is so 
 penetrated by the histpric-marxian spirit of slowness 
 and historically conditioned predestination that it is 
 unacceptable to us anarchists. 
 
 29 
 
3. We are not of the opinion that the anarchist-communist 
 system must be preceded by a syndicalist step, as a 
 period of transition from state to- anti-state anarchist- 
 communism. In the theory of the syndicalist order, which 
 shall come in the place of the Soviets, is plainly discerni- 
 ble the influence of the orthodox, Marxist theory of the 
 stepping stones which according to the relentless iron 
 laws of social development must follow upon one another. 
 
 4. We also reject the use of the expression ' 'dictatorship 
 of labor," in spite of the efforts of some comrades 
 who advise us to accept it. This ' 'dictatorship of 
 labor" means nothing else than the widening of the 
 formula "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is now 
 so conspicuously gone into bankruptcy. It must, finally, 
 unavoidably lead to the dictatorship over the masses 
 of a part of the proletariat, the party, the officials and 
 some leaders. It is impossible to co-ordinate anarchy 
 with any kind of dictatorship, even with a dictatorship of 
 the class-conscious workers over the others, even if it 
 were in the interest of the others! We are agreed that 
 the period of deepening of the social revolution may be 
 designated as the gathering of anarchist experiences 
 or, if one so desires even the dictatorship of labor, on the 
 ground that in this period the interests of the workers 
 will stand higher than the interests of the parasites. 
 One could just as well call these periods "the period of 
 the dictatorship of consumption", "dictatorship of 
 justice", "dictatorship of agreement" or by some other 
 equally foolish name. We are compelled to exclude the 
 contents of the word "dictatorship". With the idea of 
 dictatorship is connected the idea of Ludendorff and 
 Rennenkampf, the idea of unbridled brutal force and 
 government power. The introduction of the idea of the 
 dictatorship into the anarchist program would cause an 
 unpardonable confusion in the minds. 
 
 5. The revolution that anarchism strives for, the revolution 
 in which the parole of no rulership and of communism 
 determines the course of events, finds many obstacles to 
 its development. The strength of the active resistance on 
 the part of those who are interested in the maintenance 
 of capitalism and power, the inertia and the ignorance 
 of the broad masses of the workers, can create conditions 
 under which the rising anarchist commune will be driven 
 far from their ideal. To concretely fix the eventual social 
 forms of the future is impossible for the moment, because 
 we cannot foresee the quantitative and qualitative contents 
 of the forces which determine the reality of the future. 
 For this reason we consider it useless to elaborate a 
 program which should be applied to something that we 
 do not know. We do not come forward with any minimum 
 
 30 
 
program but step upon the ground of present events with 
 full rights and full conviction before the working masses, 
 in order to show them the ideals of anarchism and 
 communism in their purity". 
 
 These anarchists are also strong opponents of the Bolsheviks 
 and the present soviet government and not only declare that 
 the bolsheviks have ceased to be revolutionary but stamp them- 
 openly as counter-revolutionary and reactionary. The "Nabats" 
 are not identical with the Machno movement; they have, on the 
 contrary, in another resolution taken quite strong exceptions 
 to Machno and see in him only a revolutionary but not an 
 anarchist. They are also vigorously fought and persecuted by 
 the bolsheviks, recommend illegal work, and many are in prison. 
 
 31 
 
The Land 
 
 THE abolition of private property in land is perhaps the deepest 
 change which the Russian revolution has brought into the 
 social life of our private capitalist age. It was this that gave 
 the Russian revolution the character of a social, or an economic, 
 revolution. The German revolution has not shaken the founda- 
 tion of the social order of private capitalism and for that reason 
 did not go beyond the boundaries of a political revolution. 
 
 Now the Russian revolution has shown us that, on account 
 of the poor knowledge of the Russian workers on the technical 
 field, the expectations of the socialists of all shades that private 
 property could be abolished have not been fulfilled. It has also 
 shown that for economic equality, such as communism pre- 
 supposes, is further required the elimination of the organized 
 power of the capitalists and the taking over of all these functions 
 through the proletariat itself. This, however, cannot happen in a 
 revolution of one or two years but requires a period of time, 
 the length of which depends upon the development and the 
 ability of the proletariat of the country. But the first and 
 principal step has been taken by the Russian revolution. The 
 land no longer belongs to the large land owners. In an agrarian 
 country like Russia, the land question is the most important one. 
 We will therefore start with this question. 
 
 The taking away of the land from the owners of great 
 estates was such an elementary peasant demand, that it did not 
 require any socialist theories to induce them to it. On the 
 contrary, the peasants were glued to the land. Frequently they 
 did not wait for the law, which was to transfer to them the 
 possessions of the large land owners; they confiscated it them- 
 selves. Already during the Kerensky regime the peasants started 
 with this confiscation. 
 
 In Russia, before the revolution, the land tenure was different 
 from land tenure in Germany. The peasants still had to a great 
 extent remains of the old Mir organization. They still had common 
 pastures and similar common economic interests. Part of them 
 also had their own land, but had to pay such great taxes to the 
 Czarist state, as well as rent to the estate owner, that they, 
 in spite of it, lived in very poor circumstances. 
 
 Nevertheless, 76.3% of the total arable land belonged to 
 the peasants and 23.7% to the estate owners. In Ukraine only 
 55.5% of the land belonged to the peasants and 44.5% to the 
 
 32 
 
estate owners. In Ukraine the power of the land owners was 
 still greater than in the rest of Russia. 
 
 When the revolution of 1917 broke out, the peasants took the 
 largest part of the land of the estate owners and divided it 
 between themselves. In Russia about 90% of the land fell into 
 the hands of the peasants through the revolution while the state 
 obtained only 10%. Now (1920) 96.7% of the arable land belongs 
 to the peasants and 3.3% to the government. In Ukraine 96.2% - 
 of the land belongs to the peasants and 3.8% to the government. 
 The land which the state took over was changed into government 
 estates. Where formerly the owners of an estate ruled, there rules 
 now the state. In many cases the present form is more agreeable to 
 the peasants. Frequently the fine mansions of the former estate 
 owner are in the possession of the peasants, who have fitted them 
 up into meeting and amusement halls as well as schools. But 
 quite often these gentry mansions are now put at the disposition 
 of soviet employees who spend their summer vacations there or 
 send their children there. Others have been changed into homes 
 for children, and according to the nature of the new arrangement 
 the peasants are satisfied or dissatisfied. If it is at their own 
 or their children's disposition, then they feel satisfied. But if 
 the "Sowbur", as the peasants call the soviet employees, have 
 taken possession, then the peasants are dissatisfied. 
 
 In some of these mansions children's colonies have been 
 established, as already stated. In the gouvernement of Saratoff a 
 large estate was nationalized. In the large buildings and gardens 
 120 children have been accommodated. Nearly all are war orphans 
 or children of red soldiers. The children are well taken care of 
 and are given schooling which according to Russian standards 
 is good but, compared to German standards, deficient. 
 
 The form of nationalizing the estates is, to be sure, no ideal 
 of socialism or communism. Under the circumstances (war, the 
 peasants' faith in authority, demoralization, etc.), however, it 
 would have been more difficult to drive through a different form. 
 According to the account of an Armenian secretary of the or- 
 ganization of agricultural workers in Saratoff the fact of the 
 matter, in that gouvernement, was that the agricultural workers, 
 after driving away the owners of the estates, took no pains 
 to maintain agricultural production. They sold part of the 
 mplements or took them along for their own personal needs; 
 "urthermore, they did only as much work as was necessary for 
 ;heir own maintenance, so that the state saw itself compelled 
 ;o take the estate under its centralistic management, as it de- 
 sired to obtain from this gouvernement, which belongs to the 
 most fertile in Russia, the grain which it required for its army 
 and for the cities. Through this arrangement the agricultural 
 workers are certainly no better off than they were before. The 
 only difference is that formerly they were exploited by the 
 estate owner and now by the stafe. Thus the Armenian in 
 question ended his story. I may remark in this connection that 
 
 
 33 
 
this man belonged to no party and, consequently, did not look at 
 things through any party glasses. 
 
 All agricultural workers who labor on these soviet estates 
 are organized in the union of agricultural ivorkers. In the gouver- 
 nement Saratoff this union has 7000 members, among them 70 
 communists, of whom 50 are state employees, leaving 20 com- 
 munists among the real agricultural workers. 
 
 Through their union the agricultural workers receive their 
 implements and other use-objects furnished by the state, when 
 there is anything to be had. The ivorkers on the soviet estates tire 
 the only country laborers or peasants who are industrially organ- 
 ized. All other peasants are unorganized. 
 
 In the whole gouvernement of Samara there are 120 soviet 
 estates. On an average there are 100-300 workers on each 
 estate. I visited estate No. 6. There, 100 workers are employed. 
 Of these 7 are office people. The estate is 500 dessiatins in area, 
 but only 200 dessiatins are cultivated (1 dessiatin - 2.7 acres). 
 The permanent workers are paid 2000 rubles per month. With 
 "bonus" they may come to 4000 rubles. Day laborers receive 
 100 rubles per day. The working day is 8 hours. In the summer, 
 however, they worked 2 hours overtime, for which they were 
 paid 3 hours wages. The buying power of money in this neighbor- 
 hood is: a pair of new shoes 16,000 rubles; a pair of old shoes 
 8,000 rubles; an earthenware teacup with saucer 750 rubles. 
 
 The Economic Position of the Peasants 
 
 The land is not to be sold, but under the formula: each one 
 receives only as much land as he can cultivate, shuffling can 
 take place. Thus: in the district of Seelman in the German Volga 
 colony, the poor peasants give one dessiatin of land for 6 Ibs. 
 of butter and 10 eggs. They need food stuffs. Land they can 
 always get again, if they only want to cultivate it. 
 
 The German colonies on the Volga have existed for 163 years. 
 The capital is Katrinenstadt, but is now re-baptized to Marxstadt. 
 The second, i. e., the soviet revolution broke out there 3% months 
 later, in February 1918. There also the peasants of the whole 
 colony took the land from the large land owners before the 
 decree was issued which adjudged them the land. Already under 
 Kerensky they took the land unto themselves. 
 
 Besides the government estates there are two other forms 
 of possessing and working the land. First, there is the personal 
 ownership. There are richer peasants and there are poorer 
 peasants, exactly as in Germany there are smaller and bigger 
 peasants and cottagers. Second, we have the so-called artels. An 
 artel is a Russian workers' partnership. In this case it means a 
 peasant partnership, mostly inside a commune or a village. 
 There is still a third collective form of working the land. In 
 the spring and the fall the peasants work the land by mutually 
 assisting one another with plowing, sowing and reaping. 
 
 34 
 
The bolshevik-communists oppose this form of possessing and 
 working the soil. In their VIII. party convention during the 
 past year they have adopted a program in which they specify 
 their position on the peasant question, as follows : 
 
 "Considering that small peasant husbandry will continue to 
 exist for a long time, the Communist Party of Russia is trying 
 out a series of endeavors which have for their purpose to increase 
 the productivity of peasant labor. To such measures belong the 
 regulation of the cultivation of the peasant's soil (discontinuance 
 of the three-fallow system, the narrow strip field, etc.)." 
 
 Inequality of wealth and the difference in the standard of 
 living is still by no means evened out among the peasants. They 
 did divide the land between themselves, but, according to my 
 observations, the individualist tendencies of the peasants were 
 more conspicuous in this partitioning of the land than the com- 
 munist tendencies. In the village of Riliensko, in the gouvernement 
 of Nischni-Novgorod, there was government land when the 
 revolution broke out. The peasants divided this land so that each 
 peasant received one dessiatin. This proves that they preferred 
 personal possession to communal possession. In the village of 
 Wuskristiansk in the gouvernement of Samara each peasant 
 has now more land than before. A family of five persons 
 receives 4 dessiatins of land. This village has 10,000 inhabitants. 
 Among these are 250 communists, while the social-revolutionaries 
 are a little more numerous. 
 
 That there are still rich and poor peasants in the country is 
 traceable to the circumstance that the richer ones have rescued 
 a larger stock of cattle and agricultural implements for their 
 own part from pre-revolutionary times. The "kulaks" were the 
 rich peasants who generally had a store in the village and 
 became more well-to-do than their neighbors. But the cattle was 
 not confiscated. Although the government fixed certain rules 
 about the permissible maximum and requisitions what was above 
 the maximum, the buying and selling of horses and cattle con- 
 tinues. A peasant, whom I know, bought a horse in the gouverne- 
 ment of Tambov for 300,000 rubles, while in the gouvernement of 
 Moscow it would have cost him 500,000 rubles. In the above 
 mentioned village of Riliensko the peasants are allowed to keep 
 from 3-5 sheep, 1-2 horses, and several cows, according to the 
 size of the family. In that village there are peasants who still 
 have five cows. 
 
 In the village of Novo Djevitsch, in the gouvernement of 
 Samara, with a population of 5,000, there are 7,000 head of 
 cattle and 120 horses. A further reason why some peasants are 
 getting along better than others is, that the formerly well-to-do 
 still have satisfactory agricultural implements. But the poor 
 peasants, who have nothing, and can get nothing from the state, 
 are compelled to lean on the richer peasants. The rich ones lend 
 them their implements, but require, in return, labor from the 
 
 35 
 
poorer ones or compensation in some other manner. In this 
 village there is not a single communist. 
 
 The social inequality among the peasants which is created 
 through the difference in wealth is still further accentuated 
 through the lack of all kinds of manufactured articles and 
 industrial products. The- misery of the poor peasants is on the 
 increase. Plows and harrows, if they happen to get to the 
 village, which is very seldom, are, on account of their scarcity, 
 not distributed to the peasants personally but to the communal 
 management. If it now happens that a rascal hides under the 
 mask of a communist commissar, he keeps, of the two plows con- 
 signed to the village, one for himself and the other he gives to the 
 whole village. Hardly any but "communists" were made com- 
 missars. 
 
 The foregoing is an actual case which I have observed. 
 It took place in the village of Strokino in the gouverne- 
 ment of Moscow. The commissar nuisance causes other similar 
 things to happen. In the Marxstadt district, in the German 
 Volga colony, there are commissars who requisition the cows from 
 the peasants, in order to put them in their own barn. What 
 the government can give the peasant of manufactured articles is 
 so insignificant that it in no manner covers even the most 
 pressing needs. In Novo Djevitsch each peasant obtained, in 
 three months, not more than 1 Ib. (400 gram; 0.88 American 
 Ib.) of salt. Once they also received 4 archins of cloth (1 archin 
 equal to .71 meter or 2 1-3 ft.). 
 
 The Russian peasant's hunger for manufactured articles and 
 industrial products is insatiable. Furthermore, the peasants are 
 compelled to turn over their grain to the state. In the village of 
 Novo Djevitsch the peasants must every year surrender 32 pud 
 of flour. For their own needs they can keep a minimum of 20 
 pud (1 pud equals 34 Ibs.). Besides, the peasants must pay taxes. 
 The taxes are, generally, very low. In the villages the taxes are 
 delivered mostly in natural products. The paper of the communist 
 party among the Volga Germans writes on May 12, 1920, about 
 an "Order for collection of the natura tax in the Marxstadt dis- 
 trict" : "According to 'decision of the Marxstadt District Execu- 
 tive Committee the natura tax for the year 1919 shall be collected 
 from the villages of Strassenfeld, Otrogovska, Morgentau-Suje- 
 dino (and 19 others)." 
 
 Besides these taxes the peasant must further deliver certain 
 products. In number 83 of the same paper of May 9 appears a 
 decree, signed by Lenin, as president of the Council of People's 
 Commissars, by manager Bonch-Brujevitch and secretary Foti- 
 jeva, concerning the obligatory delivery of butter and eggs. Ar- 
 ticle 3 of this decree reads: 
 
 "The butter quantum prescribed by the People's Commissar 
 of the Foodstuffs Commissariat for the year of 1920 for all rayons 
 of European Russia, which have no dairies, amounts on an aver- 
 
 36 
 
age to three Ibs. of melting-butter for each cow. The total of 
 butter delivered and placed at the disposition of the public organs 
 shall be paid for at the receiving points at fixed prices. 
 
 Article 9 says: "Careless or slow delivery of the prescribed 
 duties will cause the state to take recourse to the strictest meas- 
 ures against persons guilty of such neglect, such as loss of right 
 to their share of goods, exacting of a double quantum of butter, 
 requisition of their cows, in order to turn them over to persons 
 who have punctually complied with their duties, arrest of the 
 guilty and his turning over to the local courts." 
 
 A good deal has been said about the bad relationship between 
 the soviet government and the peasants as a result of the requisi- 
 tion policy of the government. I have also heard much, very 
 much, of it in Moscow. Not from the counter-revolutionists, but 
 partly from the left social-revolutionaries, maximalists, and an- 
 archists, and partly also from the communists themselves. 
 
 But I shall say nothing about it, except what I myself have 
 learnt from direct sources. The other information, perhaps, can 
 be proven by others, but not by myself. For the cases that I state, 
 I have no other proof than that I can refer to the fact that the 
 peasants themselves have told it to me. 
 
 For the cities and the armies the state needs grain more than 
 anything else. The peasants need industrial products, textile 
 goods, manufactured articles and hardware, etc. But the state 
 cannot supply them with these, because it has nothing or next to 
 nothing for the great needs. But it cannot allow the soldiers to 
 go hungry on that account. Hence it is compelled to demand the 
 grain from the peasants. It pays them a maximum price for it. 
 This maximum price of the government is in proportion to the 
 government's maximum price for industrial products. If the peas- 
 ant could obtain the needed industrial products from the govern- 
 ment he would, no doubt, give his grain to the state without de- 
 lay. But such is not the case. The peasant must buy the indus- 
 trial products in open smuggle trade in the open market at usury 
 prices. From the government he receives 100 rubles for one pud 
 of flour. But for a roll of yarn he has to pay 3,000 to 5,000 
 rubles and for a pound of soap from 800 to 1,200 rubles. In order 
 to buy what he necessarily must have, he is compelled to also 
 sell his grain or his flour at usury prices in the market. Then he 
 receives 20,000 rubles for a pud of flour. That enables him to cover 
 his most pressing needs. 
 
 The peasant is, consequently, not inclined to turn over his 
 grain to the state. The reason for this we have just seen. They 
 are obvious. But as the state must have the flow for its exist- 
 ence, it sends soldiers into the villages who requisition the grain 
 from the peasants, waiving the question of right or wrong. The 
 peasants hide their grain. If it is found, then one may often say: 
 "May God have mercy on them." We have previously quoted a 
 decree of Lenin's, which deals with punishment of the peasants. 
 Not infrequently it happens that the requisitioning soldiers take 
 
 37 
 
more rights than the decrees give them. It is also easy to under- 
 stand that it is not the most honorable proletarians which form 
 the requisition companies, but it is mostly the worst elements, 
 which have been brutalized by the war. Finally, the peasants 
 themselves are no aestheticizing philosophers or pacifists, but 
 naturally coarse, and as a consequence it frequently comes to a 
 collision, in which the peasants generally come out second best, 
 as they are either unarmed or poorly armed. 
 
 Single instances may be picked out at will. Although these 
 do not give a whole picture, they can serve as illustrations of the 
 events. In the Seelman district of the German Volga colonies, 
 2,000 soldiers made their entry into the villages about the end 
 of May, in order to take the last grain supplies away before the 
 new harvest. In the village of Novo Djevitch there were peasant 
 riots three times, each time suppressed. I have also heard of sim- 
 ilar cases in the Ukraine. 
 
 Another cause for peasant rebellions or discontent is the 
 law about mobilization of labor power. By means of this law the 
 peasants can be compelled to fell trees. Frequently the peasants 
 do not want to go. They prefer to go after their work in the 
 fields. I came to a village in which a government deputation 
 had just arrived, in order to make the peasants start felling trees. 
 The women were also required to go along. They did not want 
 to do it, and they began to cry. But finally they went. The peas- 
 ants were willing to fell trees at some other time, they said, but 
 not then. But it was easy to understand that they would rather 
 not go at all. And why should they? They reaped no advantage 
 from so doing. The pay which they were to receive for it is so 
 insignificant, that they do not want to work for the state. 
 
 On the other hand, the state has succeeded in considerably 
 improving the fuel situation through these energetic, frequently 
 quite draconic measures. In the cities of Moscow and Petrograd 
 it has this winter (1920-1921) been a good deal better than it 
 was last year. The city dwellers, including the city proletariat, 
 are the ones who are benefited by this, and not only the bolshe- 
 viks but everybody else concedes that the providing of fuel now 
 is somewhat improved. Nevertheless, there are many non-bolshe- 
 viks, such as mensheviks, social-revolutionaries and even anarch- 
 ists who reject the tactics through which the bolsheviks have ex- 
 acted these performances. 
 
 The precarious position of the cities and their dependence 
 upon the country for provisions and, partly, for fuel leads to 
 opposition between city and country. The peasants are hostile to 
 the cities. But above everything they hate the requisitioning sol- 
 diers, and they are no friends of the state, as they get nothing 
 from the state, or as good as nothing, while the state wants to 
 get a good deal from them. The opposition, and in a certain 
 sense, the hostility between the peasants and the state took ex- 
 pression, from the side of the peasants, in hostility to the city. 
 There is a danger lurking in this fact, which, however, will be 
 
 38 
 
removed as soon as the state (which to the peasants means the 
 city) can again supply them with industrial products. 
 
 Through all these circumstances and through the distress in 
 which the peasant finds himself, he has lost his inclination to 
 cultivate the soil. The peasants no longer cultivate the land as in- 
 tensively as before. The productivity has diminished. When in 
 Germany it is said in influential government circles, that only 
 work, only the raising of the intensity of labor can save German 
 economic life, it is very true. The capitalists, of course, mean the 
 labor of wage slaves, while the socialists, who can also accept 
 this formula, mean the work of the whole population, with elin> 
 ination of the capitalist coupon clipper, snobs and idlers. But this 
 applies in still greater measure to Russia. For, Without doubt, 
 Russian economic life is a hundred times more disarranged than 
 German economic life. Just as little as the German proletarians 
 obey their government's call for more intensive labor but, on the 
 contrary, rather decrease the intensity where possible, so the 
 Russian workers also do not think of any increase of production. 
 Like the German proletarians they say to themselves : "For whom? 
 The fruits of this do not go to me." 
 
 Thus it may be recorded that the cultivated area in Russia 
 has considerably decreased. According to the reports of the 
 soviet government the cultivated area in the gouvernement 
 of Charkov has gone down 65% in the year 1920, in the 
 gouvernement of Jekaterinoslov 40%, in the gouvernements 
 of Cherson, Poltava and Odessa 15%. But it is to be noted 
 that in the gouvernements of Jekaterinodav and Poltava large 
 parts have been covered by the war operations, and still the culti- 
 vated area has not decreased as much as in the Charkov district, 
 which, since Denikin was beaten, has been free from every kind 
 of invasion and from armies. These figures are of extra-ordinary 
 importance. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for me to get 
 figures for the other gouvernements, particularly from Central 
 Russia. 
 
 The decrease in the cultivated area on the part of the peas- 
 ants corresponds to the falling off in the productivity of the in- 
 dustrial workers and the city proletarians. But, while in regard 
 to the proletarians we must seek the principal reason in poor 
 nourishment and in the general nervous break-down after years 
 of war-like efforts, that is, in unconscious factors, and only partly 
 in conscious will, springing from revolutionary class consciousness 
 (with the Russian proletarians it is almost exclusively the first 
 named causes), we must seek it elsewhere when it concerns the 
 peasants. Only to a small extent are they affected by break- 
 down and indifference due to many years of war. The principal 
 reason lies in the simple words: We have nothing to gain by it. 
 
 To all this comes another circumstance : The shortage of seed 
 drain. In many villages the peasants use up the seed grain or 
 tne seed potatoes for other purposes. Frequently the government 
 was compelled to requisition the seed grain of the peasants for 
 other gouvernements. 
 
But the distribution has been undertaken by means of the 
 worst sample of Russian organization, so bad, that it could not 
 bp worse even under czarism. Russian bureaucracy is a chapter 
 of its own, but the distribution of the seeds interests us in this 
 connection. The bolshevik paper "The Ural Worker" gives the 
 following picture of the conditions. In an article of May 19, 
 1920, number 119, the paper writes, under the heading: "It is 
 impossible to delay any longer" : 
 
 "To supply the need of seed grain of the farms there is 
 needed According to the reports of the district committees, 
 2,910,487 pud of grain (1 pud equals 34 Ibs.), outside of 
 vegetable seeds and seed potatoes. But the gouvernement com- 
 mittee has delivered only 26.25% of the seeds, that is, little 
 more than one quarter of the quantity needed. Of this the 
 district Schadrinsky has received 9.5%, the district Irbitsky 
 and Krasnoufimsky 17.5%, but the district Kamischlovsky 
 51%. How can such an unjust and unequal distribution of 
 the seed be explained?" The writer of the article seeks the 
 reason in the incompetency and lack of good will of the per- 
 sons on the distribution committee. 
 
 As a matter of fact there obtains in the Food Stuffs 
 Committees of the gouvernements (these committees are called 
 "Gubprodkom") a terrible bureaucratism, which in the most 
 intimate manner connects with the system of centralism. 
 
 The paper further relates that in the gouvernement of 
 Jekaterinburg in Ural a total of 461,136 pud of seed pota- 
 toes were required. Up to May 9 there was available only 
 10,000 pud, or about 2.2%. But even this insufficient quan- 
 tity was not divided in a regular way, but it was all sent, 
 with the exception of 2,600 pud, to four districts, while six 
 districts received nothing. Of the remaining 2,600 pud the 
 consumers* society of the commune took 1,000 pud for its 
 own part. (Since the bolshevik victory the consumers* socie- 
 ties in Russia have been made state organs.) The figures 
 quoted show plainly in what position the government finds 
 itself when it comes to ability to deliver and distribute seed 
 grain, particularly seed potatoes. 
 
 "I shall not look for the causes of this bankruptcy, bu1 
 must point out that the 'Gubprodkom' in its present composi- 
 tion has leaders to whom momentary effect is the main thing, 
 instead of organizing the work rationally. The measures 
 adopted by the leaders of the 'gubprodkom' stand far be- 
 hind the real needs in the place concerned." 
 
 (Quoted from the report of a committee of the Food Stuffs 
 Commissariat before the council of the first labor army, of May, 
 1920, No. 1743.) 
 
 The author of the article sought a way out of the dilemma by 
 allowing the collective peasant organizations, the partnerships 
 and the communes, as well as other organizations, to buy the seed 
 
 40 
 
grain and the vegetable seeds and seed potatoes in open trade. 
 He refers to the gouvernement of Petrograd, where this remedy was 
 found. In the gouvernement of Petrograd permission has been 
 given to the communal vegetable gardens, the soviet organiza- 
 tions and other organizations to practice free buying of seeds, and 
 better results have been obtained. More than 10,000 dessiatins 
 of land were supplied with seed grain. 
 
 From these reports it is evident that the unsatisfactory de- 
 livery of seeds and seed grain is an important cause of the un- 
 satisfactory cultivation of the soil. 
 
 I am not here concerned with criticizing Soviet Russia; that 
 is a thing which we in the present period must leave to the Rus- 
 sian workers themselves. What interests me here is to depict the 
 economic conditions of the peasants. That this condition is not 
 brilliant the descriptions given have proven. The Russian peas- 
 ants are suffering want, dire want, but less for ivant of food than 
 for want of industrial products. If the Russian revolution, the 
 party ruling at present, succeeds in appeasing the hunger for in- 
 dustrial products, then the revolution will develop into freer 
 forms, then no reaction can any longer interrupt its progress ; but, 
 if not, then the fate of the revolution is in the dark. 
 
 As I am writing down my experiences not that they may mere- 
 ly be condemned to an archive existence as dead matter, nor in 
 order to give the counter-revolutionaries water on their mills, nor 
 in order to call on the German workers for a spiritless and ape- 
 like imitation of the Russian bolshevik and revolutionary policy, 
 but rather have been inspired with the sincere desire that the 
 revolutionary workers should benefit from the experiences of the 
 Russian revolution and learn from it, I cannot abstain from 
 pointing out that the world's hand and brain workers, as well 
 as the peasants, must guard against turning over the organization 
 of distribution to a soulless and lifeless state bureaucracy even 
 if it be a communist bureaucracy. Revolutionary workers! You 
 see from the examples of Russia that the state was not able to 
 get the seed grain and the vegetable seeds and the seed potatoes 
 to the peasants, through its organs! You have also learnt that 
 the peasants, when they had a free hand to supply their own needs 
 themselves, as happened in the gouvernement of Petrograd, solved 
 these problems quicker, easier and better. May this be an ad- 
 monition and a hint fo>r the world's workers not to trust too much 
 to the state and its omnipotence. Even a communist-proletarian 
 state is no exception to this; yes, in such a state it might be still 
 more difficult, because, to begin with, the workers are not trained 
 and accustomed to organizatory state work, and because the old 
 bureaucrats will sabotage as far as possible. This is also what 
 they did in Russia. Besides, the state is compelled, in all urgent 
 cases, to turn the matter over to free organizations or private 
 persons, who are then better able than the state to find the right 
 way and complete the organization. With this we will not say 
 that the private initiative of the capitalist ought to be restored 
 
 41 
 
although this also is done in Russia, inasmuch as more important 
 purveying for the army and other similarly important matters 
 were turned over to private parties ; we only wish to point out 
 that there is no \more incompetent apparatus for organizing the 
 economic life than the state. The bolsheviks may try to main- 
 tain as often as they please that it was not possible to organize 
 all this in a satisfactory manner, as long as it was necessary to 
 concentrate all power on the war, but that now, the war being 
 over, the economic side of reconstruction can begin. The fact that 
 during the war time, when the state made its greatest efforts to 
 solve all problems quickly, when the knife was on its throat and 
 it did not shrink from any measures, it was not able to solve the 
 problems that confronted it, but placed the most difficult matters 
 in the hands of free organizations or even individual persons, is 
 a striking proof of the incapacity of the state, for when it cannot 
 make good at a time when it is strongest, when idealism is in 
 danger, then it is still less capable of doing it in less dangerous 
 times. 
 
 The Political Conditions of the Peasants 
 
 That the economic life is of great significance for the 
 political form, that is something one can easily admit with- 
 out being a -Marxist. Thus, taking possession of the land by 
 the peasants is in more than one respect an economic and a pol- 
 itical act at the same time. The new form, of political life, the 
 Soviets (the councils), connects in the most intimate manner with 
 the economic transformation. In many places the peasants di- 
 vided the property of the landowner. In order to divide this in 
 a just manner between themselves, and for the purpose of ar- 
 ranging the new relationships with neighboring villages as well 
 as its relations to the whole country, they elected councils. Here 
 we already have the roots of the soviet system. The building of 
 this soviet system could, naturally, not be the same among the 
 peasants as with the city proletariat. The peasants could not elect 
 their Soviets by the factory. They elected them by the communes 
 or by the districts. They did not elect them according to eco- 
 nomic units but according to territorial units. The state soviet 
 communes, however, also elect according to their agricultural 
 occupations. 
 
 The local Soviets, the smaller district Soviets and the gouverne- 
 ment Soviets of the peasants had, and have, mostly economic func- 
 tions, if we except a few educational and school questions. It 
 is a question of regulating traffic, roads, transportation to con- 
 nect with the cities for trade purposes or, speaking socialistically, 
 for exchange, and similar things. The economic and political life 
 are here very intimately connected. But all these things have 
 nothing to do with party politics. Although most of the peasants 
 belong to no party, they still have elected their Soviets according 
 to party. This, of course, was done in party interest, not in the 
 
 42 
 
interest of the peasants; but that springs from historic reasons. 
 Still, the peasants frequently elect non-partisan Soviets. 
 
 Naturally, all the parties tried their luck among the peasants 
 in the beginning of the revolution. For he who in Russia has the 
 peasants behind him is building on a strong power. Thus the bol- 
 sheviks gained great sympathies among the peasants when Lenin 
 made the peace at Brest-Litovsk. Later they lost these sympa- 
 thies again by sending the soldiers into the villages to requisition 
 grain. 
 
 To-day the peasants are no longer so much interested in the 
 parties as they were in the beginning of the revolution. They are 
 still for the Soviets and will probably always remain in favor of 
 them, but the parties are not of such a stable nature as the soviet 
 idea. It has often happened that the peasants have showed them- 
 selves against all parties. Socialism, or rather, communist hus- 
 bandry and mode of living, does not strike the peasants as a 
 party matter. For that reason the Soviets are not identical with 
 communism, as many workers think. Still, libertarian communism 
 has always been connected with a kind of council system. For 
 when the peasants or the workers in a place manage their own 
 affairs, then they always elect their councils, or Soviets, which 
 decide' on all matters that cannot be decided by each one separ- 
 ately. At the present time there are in Russia many peasants 
 who are not communists but who take a stand for the soviet 
 system. The soviet system is then for them only a form of direct 
 political representation with elimination of all interferences from 
 a central body in the local self-government. But, as in the his- 
 toric moment of the outbreak of the revolution the parties still 
 exerted some power of attraction over the peasants, we have to 
 note that one party finally succeeded to gain and assert influence 
 and power in the councils. But to the extent that the party sue- 
 ceeded in gaining poiver and control in the Soviets, to that extent 
 the free Soviets lost their power. Of course, the larger the party 
 is, the less this loss of freedom is felt. If most of the Soviets 
 consist of representatives elected as party members, then the 
 party members feel correspondingly free, provided they agree 
 with the tactics and politics of the party. But it often happens 
 that the peasants have not put any party lists in the field for the 
 soviet elections. Particularly in the Ukraine have I found in- 
 stances of this. I have been present at several meetings of the 
 executive committee of the district Soviets and gouvernement Sov- 
 iets, as well ,as once in the congress of all the gouvernement Soviets 
 in Samara. The deliberations turned upon the economic situation. 
 But I noticed that the economic policy was determined in accord- 
 ance with the program of the bolshevik party. The higher author- 
 ities, such as the Council of People's Commissars, issue decrees 
 through the different People's Commissariats and their depart- 
 ment for agriculture, for education, for traffic and transporta- 
 tion, and the Soviets are the organs which have to carry out these 
 decrees or see to it that they are carried out. 
 
 43 
 
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the District Sov- 
 iet in the province of Charkov on Sept. 13, 1920, there were two 
 matters under discussion: (1) The provisioning of the army, 
 and (2) The procuring of fire wood. According to the decrees 
 of the Council of People's Commissars, each precinct had to 
 deliver a certain quantity of wood and provisions, according to its 
 possibilities. A representative reported how the peasants in one 
 precinct refused to help out with the wood cutting because they 
 received no pay. He thought it would be necessary to, at least, 
 give the peasants promises of delivery of goods to them, after which 
 they would probably help out. Without such help of the peasants 
 it would be impossible to obtain the required quantity of wood. 
 Another representative spoke of the fact that there were bands 
 of men in the woods which made the wood cutting difficult for 
 the peasants. It would be necessary to induce the peasants to 
 drive these bands away, but this the peasants do not want to do. 
 (The reason why the peasants did not want to do this was that 
 many of them belonged to these "bands" themselves.) There was 
 also a speech by a delegate from the department for care of the 
 wounded soldiers from the Polish and the Wrangel fronts. He 
 described the misery of the wounded in lurid colors, in order to 
 prevail upon the representatives of the Executive Committee of 
 the Soviets to send them the means of life on a greater scale than 
 before. 
 
 From these accounts it is evident that the business and the 
 political functions of the Soviets are limited to a certain circum- 
 scribed field outside of which it cannot go. For the biggest part it 
 is no longdr an organization working from the bottom to the 
 top, but, on the contrary, from the top to the bottom', and it 
 could hardly be otherwise for a state with a war-time administra- 
 tion of its national husbandry. 
 
 For the peasants this administration from above frequently 
 proves oppressive and disagreeable, not to use a more powerful 
 term. This comes plainly to expression in the soviet com- 
 mune, where the administration in many cases is not in the hands 
 of a locally elected soviet or manager, but in the hands of a 
 person selected by a Supreme Council of National Economy, or 
 an agricultural commissariat. The peasants thus feel anything 
 but free. To begin with, the estate is in the hands of the state, 
 as we have already shown. The peasants do not feel as owners 
 of the soil they cultivate. In the second place, the appointed 
 manager frequently carries on a regime comparable to that of 
 the old land owner. Thus we read in the "Pravda," a well known 
 bolshevik paper, of July 1, 1919, No. 141: 
 
 "The manager ("Sovchos") is often like the dog in the 
 hay who does not eat it himself but won't let anybody else 
 eat it, either. The whole establishment is in a state of collapse. 
 (It refers to a soviet establishment in the gouvernement 
 Tver.) The manager, an ex-land-owner, is a dirty, run-down 
 old man of melancholy aspect, who seems already to belong 
 
 44 
 
to another world. The peasants feel only hatred towards 
 such a "sovchos" or "spez" (specialist). In every gouverne- 
 ment or local district one may hear angry attacks on such 
 management. The result of such an agrarian policy is an ag- 
 gravation of the strained relations between the peasants and 
 the soviet power." 
 
 It is clear that when the "Pravda" writes this it also -has 
 reason for so doing, as it is calling the attention of the govern- 
 ment to these conditions. The government has, of course, no in- 
 terest in aggravating such conditions, but, on the contrary, in re- 
 moving them. But it appears from the numerous attempts that 
 it is very difficult And we must not blame it on lack of good will 
 on the part of the government or gouvernements, for the leaders of 
 the soviet republic do not lack good will, but the cause of it is 
 the system of nationalization, the system of indirect relations of 
 the peasants to the soil and to the management in working the 
 soil. 
 
 The ideal of the peasants is to feel free and to work on free 
 soil. But that is also the ideal of all socialists. Under the condi- 
 tions described, the Russian revolution has not yet come to a reali- 
 zation of this ideal, as the quoted lines from the "Pravda" show. 
 It is not to be wondered at that Russian revolutionists make the 
 question whether they would not have come nearer to these ideals 
 if different tactics had been adopted. The social-revolutionaries 
 of the left, the anarchists, the anarcho-syndicalists, the maximal- 
 ists, as well as part of the Ukrainian communists answer "Yes" 
 to this question. Above everything they are against the requisi- 
 tion policy o/ the government and, according to their agrarian 
 program, against the nationalization of the land, for a more com- 
 munal form, for a form that ivould give the peasants more 1 inde- 
 pendence, for such a form of possession and cultivation of the 
 soil as would give the peasants the management, through Soviets 
 elected by themselves. 
 
 Against this the bolsheviks declare that they also are for 
 these principles, but that the realization of them is so difficult 
 the peasants delivered nothing to the armies of the government 
 and the cities that it became necessary to resort to stern meas- 
 ures. The decree policy of the bolsheviks is in their opinion 
 correct. Lenin says on the question, in a speech on "the position 
 of the bolsheviks to the middle peasantry," made in Moscow in 
 March, 1919: 
 
 "Fundamentally our decrees on agricultural economy are 
 correct. We have not the least occasion to disown or deplore 
 any of them. But if these decrees in themselves are cor- 
 rect, then it is absolutely false to force them upon the peas- 
 ants with violence. In not a single decree is there any 
 question of this. They are conceived as guides, as -a sum- 
 mons to political activities." 
 
 But these words of Lenin could not prevent that the prac- 
 tical enforcement of these decrees meant the use of force against 
 the peasants. That is what constitutes the difference between 
 
 45 
 
fine-polished theories and rough practice. Although the bolshe- 
 viks give the peasant question the greatest attention, well know- 
 ing that it is .a question of life and death for them, still the peas- 
 ants repudiate with thanks the attention of the government. It 
 cannot be denied that Lenin is right when he says that these de- 
 crees are fundamentally right. He should have added for us, but 
 not for the peasants. The decree policy is in the interest of the 
 state. It is, consequently, only the above mentioned anti-state 
 parties who reject the decree policy in principle. But as the 
 realization of socialism, communism and liberty is possible only 
 through the abolition of the state, a change or improvement in 
 the position of the peasants which would make them more satis- 
 fied, is attainable only in the anti-state direction. For these ideals 
 cannot be banished from the efforts and the wishes of the people, 
 not even by means of the article by Trotzky and Radek in which 
 they try to inform the workers and the peasants that free labor 
 is a bourgeois superstition. But the anti-state movement is char- 
 acterized by the cancelling of all decrees. Along that road the 
 soviet government is being pressed through the striving of the 
 peasants for self-government and independence. These endeav- 
 ors are also in harmony with the anti-state tendencies of the 
 maximalists, the anarcho-syndicalists and also the social -revolu- 
 tionaries of the left. // the endeavors and movements of the peas- 
 sants and the tendencies of the anti-state socialists get a better 
 footing and finally press fonvard to victory, then first will ^ the 
 program of the social revolution have a chance of being realized. 
 The peasants do not desire any state communism in which every- 
 thing is accomplished by order from the top, they want com- 
 mimal self-government, communalism, if you so want to call it, 
 which means freedom to regulate their own affairs after their own 
 desires and wishes. But this liberty they do not have under 
 bolshevism, in spite of all well-meaning decrees. As long as 
 this most important of questions, the peasant question, is not 
 solved to the satisfaction o/ the peasants, we cannot consider 
 even the first stage of the social revolution completed. First when 
 this happens, the foundation is created for a peaceful development 
 upward of social life. Under the present conditions, created by 
 the bolsheviks, the suppression of one layer of the people, or class, 
 by the other is still a living fact, carrying with it armed, violent 
 uprisings. Under the rule of the bolsheviks the Russian revolu- 
 tion has not solved the peasant question but only complicated i1 
 still more. But that should not cause us to be astonished, for th< 
 bolshevik party is a Marxist, a city-proletarian party, and it i; 
 natural that the conquest of the state through a part of the citj 
 proletariat in which the peasants have no part cannot brin^ 
 them liberation. The emancipation of the peasants can be ac- 
 complished only by the peasants themselves. Without doubt the 
 social-revolutionaries of the left or the maximalists would, a* 
 peasant parties, have dealt with the question with more under- 
 standing than the bolsheviks. The latter are the least fit to solve 
 the peasant question along socialist lines. 
 
 46 
 
The City and Industry 
 
 The Development of the Unions 
 
 FOR the peasants the principal feature of the revolution was 
 taking possession of the land. For the proletariat of the 
 cities and the industries the aim was to take possession of 
 the factories, mines and means of transportation. The problem 
 was easily solved in the country, because no more knowledge than 
 before was necessary for the cultivation of the soil (in Russia 
 scientific cultivation of the soil was not yet introduced), but in 
 industry the situation was more difficult. 
 
 In the country the combination of things was easy. But in 
 industry the combination was complicated. In the country there 
 were no intermediate stages. Taking possession of the soil was 
 the immediate aim. In the industrial centers another effort came 
 to the surface in the first period of the revolution and demanded 
 a solution, namely, workers' control, control of the industries. 
 This rallying word was sounded already during the Kerensky 
 period. It corresponded to the attempts of the workers to over- 
 throw autocracy in the factories as well as the czar's autocracy 
 in politics. Democracy was desired in industry as well as in eco- 
 nomic life. The workers felt that, to make their emancipation a 
 reality, the revolution in political life would have to be followed 
 by a revolution on the economic field. That the workers did not 
 immediately demand the turning over of the factories had sev- 
 eral reasons. For this purpose the Kerensky government would 
 first have to be overthrown or compelled to resign, but even 
 then they did not feel sure that they were in a condition to con- 
 duct production in its entirety without the private owner, who 
 in many cases also was the technical leader. Finally the work- 
 ers were probably influenced by the circumstance that they felt 
 that the czar ruled over the people but was not the owner of the 
 people, and that he was sovereign in the state but did not own 
 the state. Nor is a general the owner of the soldiers but he rules 
 them just the same. Authority, consequently, is not always based 
 on property. The possibility was thinkable that, even if private 
 property in the factories and in industry was abolished, mastery 
 could still continue. In fact, this instinct of the workers was 
 correct, for at present private property is, on the whole, abolished 
 in Russia, without giving the workers cause to feel that they are 
 controllers of production or masters of the shop. The decree creat- 
 ing individual management of the shops is the cause of this. Con- 
 
 47 
 
trol of industry in the shop is an essential part of proletarian 
 democracy. The proletariat must, consequently, first of all con- 
 quer. 
 
 Control of industry, which was the demand of the workers in 
 the October days of 1917, finally became so strong that it resulted 
 in control over the employer. After this, taking possession of the 
 shops came as a matter of course and began soon after. But 
 the taking over of the factories is onfy the negative sidd; the 
 positive side is their management. First in the managing of them 
 begins socialist or communist economy. In the country the case 
 is similar, but there it is much simpler. 
 
 The most burning question now, the question which forms 
 the very center of socialization, is : What organization will under- 
 take to procure the raw material and the disposal of the manu- 
 factured products, and what organs will supply the workers with 
 the necessary means of life. Only when the workers have created 
 organizations for this purpose can the taking over of the factories 
 meet with success. The misfortune of the Russian workers was 
 that they had no such organs at their disposition, that they, under 
 the rule of czarism, were not in a position to create such organs. 
 It was exactly on this rock that socialization in Germany 
 stranded in the November days of 1918. The theoretical founda- 
 tion of the German trade unions was not of that kind. On this 
 point only the French syndicalist unions have fought themselves 
 through to a clear understanding of the role of the labor organ- 
 izations for the realization of the social revolution. The German 
 syndicalists also have taken this standpoint, even if not always 
 so clearly, but in their congress of Christmas, 1919, they adopted 
 a clear program. Up to the present time they are the only labor 
 organization in Germany with whom we can find a clear program 
 for the taking over and the organizing of production and con- 
 sumption by the workers. 
 
 The lack of a clear understanding of hoiv the different in- 
 dustries work hand in hand, as well as the lack of proper organ- 
 izations for the purpose, had for result that the workers, who had 
 no idea of these things and only knew capitalist economic meth- 
 ods, retained the idea of these and kept on running along capital- 
 ist lines. But when they had taken over the factories they found 
 themselves in the place of the single private owner, the factory 
 owner, or the capitalist stock companies. That means that they 
 now divided the owners' profits between them. But that did not 
 abolish capitalism ; it had only been changed from private owner- 
 ship ^into another, collective form of ownership. Capitalist com- 
 petition, the cheating of consumers, the more favorable position 
 of the workers who produced goods more in demand or more 
 important, all this remained as before, and under similar circum- 
 stances it will be the same in any place. 
 
 The workers of the world must keep this in sight. That the 
 idea has not yet broken through in the labor movement that the 
 workers are not only exploited as producers but also as consraw- 
 
 48 
 
ers, that depends very likely upon the influence of Marx. The 
 whole labor movement which calls itself Marxian has never been 
 directed upon the carrying on of a struggle against the exploita- 
 tion of the workers as consumers. There was not sufficient atten- 
 tion called to this circumstance in their propaganda. The work- 
 ers are not cheated and exploited only in the factory, but also in 
 the satisfying of all their needs. 
 
 Economic life consist of two parts, production and consump- 
 tion. In the capitalist system both parts, naturally, offer a chance 
 for the .exploitation of the workers. For that reason the work- 
 ers should combat both these kinds of exploitation equally, if they 
 want to annihilate the capitalist system and replace it with a 
 socialist or communist system. But they did not do this, and they 
 are not doing it yet. Even to-day their struggle is directed more 
 against the exploitation on the field of production. Only as pro- 
 ducers have they created class struggle organizations, and only 
 as producers are they fighting the battle against capital. The 
 consumers' societies, which existed in Russia, were not class 
 struggle organizations. Nor are they so in Germany. Even if 
 there are consumers' societies who only have workers as members, 
 they still are only class organizations, but no class struggle or- 
 ganizations. Towards the end they also began to function as 
 such a little, by taking care of workers in strikes. Evident as 
 this matter is, equally regrettable is it that the workers neither 
 have nor had any class struggle organizations on the field of con- 
 sumption. It can be understood because the workers were, and 
 are, directly exploited only as producers. But as consumers they 
 are indirectly exploited. The direct exploitation the workers can 
 easily see and understand, the indirect exploitation they discern 
 with more difficulty. The socialists made use of this circum- 
 stance. They showed the workers that they were exploited as 
 producers and called on them to organize and to fight. But this 
 is quite unpardonably thoughtless. It was the duty of the social- 
 ist propaganda to point out to the workers that side of the ex- 
 ploitation which was equally important, although not so easy to 
 see and understand. It was, of course, easy to induce the workers 
 to struggle for a higher wage. But what good did this one-sided 
 battle as producers do them? No good at all! Even if they won 
 the struggle and got higher wages, the capitalists always had the 
 other side of the exploitation open, the side of which the workers 
 had not thought. The capitalist raised the price of his wares and 
 thus rolled the wage increase on the consumers, or, in other 
 words, through the wage increase the exploitation was not di- 
 minished by one iota. 
 
 With impetuous force the Russian workers fought for the 
 abolition of private ownership of the establishments by capital- 
 ists. And they succeeded. If they had fought with the same im- 
 petuosity against the second kind of exploitation, on the field of 
 consumption, then . But this they could not do ; for the Russian 
 workers the abolition of capitalism was equal to the abolition of 
 
 49 
 
the capitalists. They had embodied the exploiter in their own em- 
 ployer. But the exploitation through consumption was not a per- 
 son ; it was a system. A system, hoivever, can not be removed by 
 removing or driving away persons. This was also verified on the 
 field of production. An economic system which in the human so- 
 ciety fills the functions of supplying the population with all the 
 things that are necessary for life, cannot be removed except by 
 means of another economic 'system, and only to the extent that 
 this new system is capable, in each single instance, of stepping 
 into the breach of the old. 
 
 The development of the Russian revolution shows us this on 
 every point. The German workers and the workers of other 
 countries must learn from this experience. They have to build 
 up a socialist economic system in their organizations, which steps 
 in the place of the capitalist system. If they do not do this and 
 a political revolution breaks out, then the revolution will remain 
 only political. For this reason they should begin with it imme- 
 diately. The workers have to organize themselves into consumers' 
 unions or create unions which on the day after the revolution are 
 capable of taking consumption into their hands. Such organiza- 
 tions are the "Bourse du Travail" (labor exchanges), or "Arbei- 
 terboerse," as the Germans call them. Without such organizations 
 they will commit the same errors as the Russian workers did, 
 and capitalism, which they had thrown out through one door 
 and thought they had conquered because its political representa- 
 tive has been made powerless, comes into evidence again from all 
 corners and crevices and overgrows the socialist beginnings, until 
 the workers are able to make it superfluous through their own 
 new-formed economic organizations. Bu\t it is a fatal error to put 
 this new economic system into the hands of the state. 
 
 We left the Russian revolution at the stage where the work- 
 ers took possession of the factories and, partly at their own ex- 
 pense, produced for themselves without attacking the capitalist 
 system of consumption. This is by some German social-democratic 
 theoreticians, among them Kautsky, being described as "syndical- 
 ism." There is nothing more false than such a statement, which 
 they either make out of ignorance or intentional deceit. A glance 
 at the declaration of principles of the syndicalists is sufficient in 
 order to convince any one of this. A thorough refutation of this 
 error or deception is, however, beyond the scope of this book. 
 
 That the Russian workers undertook nothing else and were 
 in no position to do anything else is traceable to the circumstance 
 that they had no organization for the purpose. They lacked the 
 unions which as the embryonic cells of the new socialist economic 
 system develop the required abilities and organize for the tasks 
 which enable the workers to crowd out the capitalist economic 
 system with a socialist system. 
 
 The Russian unions date back only from the year 1905. 
 After the victory of the reaction they were again dissolved and 
 had mostly to lead an underground existence. After 1910 they 
 
 50 
 
started to develop once more, but during the years of the war they 
 were again fought most strenuously by the czarist government 
 and suppressed. 
 
 After the overthrow of czarism in March 1917 the unions 
 began to push forward in a powerful manner, so that, when in 
 July a conference of the unions took place in Petrograd (the 
 third conference), already 1,475,425 members were represented 
 by 220 delegates. At this conference it became apparent of 
 what character the Russian unions were. Two different tenden- 
 cies were represented; one left and one right. The left wing took 
 the stand that the unions should repudiate every thought of 
 class conciliation and of the possibility of co-operation with the 
 bourgeoisie. But this left wing lacked about 15-20 votes of a 
 majority and its propositions did not carry. But resolutions were 
 adopted calling for a greater taxation of the owning classes, for 
 the introduction of maximum prices o<n the most important prod- 
 ucts, for control of production, for direct participation in the affairs 
 of the state by the most important branches of production, for 
 rigid bank control, for compulsory syndicating and trustification, 
 for reorganization of the organs of state control. At the same 
 time a declaration was made that the process of control were 
 too difficult for the proletariat to take over, alone or in prepon- 
 derance. 
 
 From the stand thus taken by the unions it will be seen that, \ 
 in consequence of the revolutionary situation, the unions oc- 
 cupied themselves with problems, which came to the front even 
 in the German 'revolution, - - control over production, the right 
 of the workers to a voice in engaging and discharging workers, 
 and so on. In Germany also they have occupied themselves with 
 democratic demands, with the transplantation of democracy into 
 industry, something which the capitalists resisted under the 
 slogan that they were "master of the house". In spite of all the 
 progress that this workers' control signifies, it still is nothing 
 else than the introduction of democracy in the economic life, 
 but it is not the social revolution in itself. Even such organizations 
 which are not in principle for the social revolution may put up 
 such demands for joint control, as for instance the German 
 "free" unions did, unions which were free only in the sense 
 that they did not stand in the service of any socialist ideas. 
 
 When later the October revolution broke out and ended in 
 a bolshevik victory, the bolsheviks, as a radical-democratic party, 
 wished to carry the revolution over to the place of work. The 
 workers themselves also, naturally, wanted to make the revolution 
 into a social revolution, that is, altogether eliminate the capit- 
 alists. 
 
 But then it became evident that this was not so easy as 
 was expected. And why not? Because the workers of Russia were 
 not in a position to abolish capitalism, in the hands of which 
 the whole economic life had rested up to that time, without 
 exposing economic life to the worst kind of crisis. The social 
 
 51 
 
revolution confronted the workers with tasks to which they 
 were not eqvjoii in their first onrush. But as a party which could 
 only lean on the working class and on no other class (on the 
 peasants only conditionally) had the power in the state, this 
 party also had to take over the responsibility for the economic 
 life, if it did not wish to either leave the capitalists in their 
 position of power on the economic field or again give up its 
 political power. But they could undertake nothing without the 
 workers, as they had no state organs at their disposition for 
 these purposes. 
 
 They, consequently, turned to the unions. The workers strove 
 for . economic liberty, for elimination of exploitation by the 
 employers. In many cases they chased the employer to the devil; 
 1 1 irany cases he left his factory or his works in the lurch, from 
 despair, or from the hope to be able to sabotage production by 
 this means, so that the workers, who would then understand 
 their own incapacity, would call him back again. In a number 
 of cases it has also happened that to-day the old employer is 
 again the leader of the establishment. Not with the old right of 
 ownership, it is true, but as a so-called specialist, who is far 
 better off than the worker. 
 
 As the workers now started to run industry, they elected 
 for that purpose committees, so-called factory committees. These 
 factory committees took over the factories. But as the state 
 needed the products created^ it entered into indirect contact with 
 the factory committees through the unions. With the factory 
 committees themselves the state could not do business, because 
 for that purpose a large apparatus would have been necessary. 
 The unions thus received the role of negotiating production for 
 the state. The ruling party soon recognized the important role 
 which falls to the unions on the field of production and on the 
 whole economic field in general, and, as many of the party 
 members belonged to the unions (it continued, after all, to be a 
 party mostly composed of workers) , it sought, through its mem- 
 bers, to place the unions under the influence of the party and 
 make them subordinate to the party. This was the best way for 
 the ruling party to secure control of production and to place the 
 whole of production in their service. The bolshevik party also 
 declared in their program that "the organization apparatus of 
 nationalized industry must first of all rest upon the unions." 
 
 The factory committees were, consequently, children of the 
 revolution^ sprung from the needs of the workers to create organs 
 of managing the factories. But the workers could not help but 
 soon perceiving that this alone was not sufficient. If they 
 did not want to remain in the capitalist economic system they 
 were compelled to place consumption also upon an organized] 
 fellowship basis. But for all these tasks they had never prepared 
 themselves. All this was so new to them that they, to begin with, 
 had to go through many experiments, many mistakes. Instinctive^ 
 ly, or from very obvious reasons they turned to their unions. In 
 
 52 
 
these they now had to look for their natural agents and repre- 
 sentatives. They were further strengthened in their confidence 
 in the unions through the circumstance that the new ruling 
 party, or, to speak more plainly, the state, also turned to the 
 unions with the same errands and wanted to use the unions for 
 the same purpose. As the unions still were of too new a 
 structure and were confronted with functions to which they 
 were unaccustomed, it is easy to understand that they leaned 
 for support more or less on the state and recognized as leader 
 the party which sat at the rudder, especially as it was a 
 proletarian party with many members in their own ranks. But 
 the party, with all the power of the state at its disposition, 
 began an intensive propaganda in the ranks of the unions, in 
 order to get greater influence. And in this it succeeded, but the 
 greater the influence of the party became, the more the unions 
 lost in independence, the more they came under the party whip. 
 To the extent that this development progressed, the rights of the 
 factory councils or committees were circumscribed. 
 
 The party, which desired to get control of production through 
 the unions (and it succeeded in getting it) wished to make 
 production as abundant and profitable as possible. But production 
 did not rise; on the contrary, with the decreasing supply of 
 foodstuffs it fell more and more. The party's policy towards 
 the peasants was determined through the grain monopoly. In 
 accordance with this the peasants were to deliver all grain to the 
 state. The peasants did not want to dp this. It came to disputes. 
 The state began to requisition the grain. But the grain deliveries 
 were not increased through these means, and the workers did not 
 receive enough bread. This had a tendency to diminish their 
 productivity. The factory committees were not energetic enough, 
 and the state took to other means. It took the management out 
 )p/ the hands of the committees and placed it in the hands of 
 individuals. The managing councils had thus played their role 
 as managers of production to the end and lost their right 
 of self-determination. 
 
 During the period of czarism and capitalism the Russian 
 unions were, in part, organizations similar to the German "free" 
 unions, but a good deal more radical. Their radical position was 
 evident already from the persecution by czarism. They were 
 compelled to be not only relief organizations but also fighting or- 
 ganizations. In how far they served this purpose, we can best 
 learn from the third conference, already mentioned, which took 
 place during the storms of the revolution in November 1917. 
 Already then managing councils were recognized as necessary 
 organs with the function of control over the workers. But during 
 this period the unions were still class struggle organizations. 
 Later they changed from class struggle organizations to productive 
 organizations. 
 
 The change in the character of the unions was also ac- 
 companied by a change in the form of the organization. While 
 
 53 
 
they were formerly organized along craft lines, they now became 
 industrial organizations. Without doubt the industrial form of 
 organization is the best one for unions which shall serve as 
 organs of production. For the workers organized along industrial 
 lines are better in position to manage production than the craft 
 unions. This has been shown in America. The organization of 
 the Industrial Workers of the World is also built on this 
 principle, as in accordance with its theory it intends to take over 
 production. The I. W .W. are, no doubt, the forerunners of this 
 modern form of union movement. But the Communist Party of 
 Russia ( the bolsheviks) contributed to the acceleration of this 
 development. It had, through the above mentioned process, 
 obtained more and more influence in the unions, so that their 
 resolutions always went through at the later congresses. Through 
 the overwhelming influence of the government party the uwiions 
 became more and more the tools of the state; they were made 
 into state organs. 
 
 
 The formal decision to make them state organs was made 
 at the second congress of the unions in January 1919. 
 
 There it says : "that the nationalization of all the means 
 of production and the organization of society on a new 
 socialist foundation requires slow and persevering labor with 
 the rebuilding of the whole state machinery, as well as th( 
 creating of new organs of accounting, and organs for contro] 
 and regulation of the whole system of production an< 
 distribution. This requires of the unions a more energetic 
 and more active participation in the exercise of soviet power, 
 through direct representatives in all organs of the state. 
 The whole process of melting the unions together with the 
 organs of state power, must take place as the unavoidable 
 result of their most intimate co-operation." 
 
 This would, consequently, mean that the unions have in- 
 fluence on the policy of the state, just as, inversely, the soviel 
 organs have influence on the unions. I was told in Moscow thai 
 this was the case, and that the unions had representations ii 
 the different commissariats. Thus; the president of the Ail- 
 Russian Central Council of the Unions, M. Tomski, is also 
 member of the war commissariat. Besides, there are other mem- 
 bers of the Central Council of the Unions in other commissariai 
 through which arrangement the fusion spoken of in the cong] 
 decision and the changing of the unions into state organ* 
 (Verstaatlichung) is secured. But this is not so to understan< 
 that any union member can become a member of a commissa- 
 riat of the Council of People's Commissars. In order to hav< 
 this possibility he must first have been elected to the Council 
 of the Trade Unions. To this Central Council of the Unions onl\ 
 members of the Communist Party (bolsheviks) can be elected. 
 I know old revolutionaries who were communists before th< 
 social-democratic party of the bolsheviks called itself communij 
 
 54 
 
who belong to the unions. They are also intelligent and surely 
 have all the qualities which make them suitable for the Central 
 Council of the Trade Unions. But they can never come to this 
 as long as they do not join the Communist Party. Thus they 
 can never participate in the work of the Soviets, and the so- 
 called co-operation of the workers through their unions is 
 possible only for the members of the ruling party. Not the unions 
 as such, but the communist-bolsheviks who are in the unions, 
 have the right to co-operate in the state organs. 
 
 It must be admitted that the revolutionary party could 
 not make use of all workers or employees, organized into the 
 unions, on all kinds of work and, particularly, not in the 
 responsible positions. For in the unions there were, and is now, 
 many who are against the revolution on principle and who, 
 if they had been made use of, without doubt would have done 
 everything to retard and hold up revolutionary progress. But 
 this should not have been done with revolutionaries, only be- 
 cause they had a different opinion or because they belonged to 
 a different party or movement. That means that the bolsheviks 
 seek to monopolize the revolution, that they want to claim the 
 right to the revolution for only one party, while there still are 
 several revolutionary parties in Russia. 
 
 The Industrial Union is an advanced form compared with 
 the guild or craft form. The industrial unions of Russia were 
 organized on centralist lines. Thus the soviet government was 
 best in a position to use the unions as their own apparatus. 
 In the mad tempo of the Russian revolution the unions were 
 too unripe to be able to choose their forms of organization. 
 In order to come to some sort of order in the general disorder, 
 the bolsheviks tried for a short while to eliminate the unions 
 and only created Councils, Central Councils or Factory Councils, 
 but these experiments have gone out of fashion . They disappeared 
 after a very short duration; after the unions in their first 
 congress, in January, 1918, had liquidated these central councils 
 of the factory councils, as they neither wished to have nor 
 could have any competing organizations which only led to 
 mutual provocation and quarrels, the whole thing was laid 
 into the hands of one central body which was given great 
 authority. Through this central body the state could now place 
 its hands on the smallest body, the outermost points on the 
 circumference. Thus, the form of organization of the unions in 
 Russia was born in the hour of need and carried the stamp of 
 the process upon itself. The unions have lost their independence, 
 they are tools of the state. Trotzky is not so very wrong when 
 in his anti-Kautsky book he says: "After once taking the power 
 one cannot accept certain consequences and repudiate others." From 
 the possession of power, which they wanted to keep, and had 
 to keep at any cost, one thing followed the other, and the workers 
 are again ruled over. 
 
 While the industrial union form is the most proper form of 
 
 55 
 
union for the workers, even of other countries, still, the centralism 
 of these industrial unions, which made the subordination of the 
 union under the party and the soviet government possible, was 
 to be traced to that particular circumstance. But if the Russian 
 bolsheviks want to transfer their own forms of organization 
 upon the rest of the countries, then they make a fatal error. 
 As, the peculiar form of organization called "Labor Bureaus" 
 arose out of French soil, and as the Industrial Unions arose in 
 America, so there grew up in Russia under particular circum- 
 stances the dependence of the unions upon the party. Just as 
 it would be a failure to transfer the French form to American 
 conditions, so it is also a failure to try to carry over the Russian 
 form to other countries, as provided for in the statutes of the 
 Third International. In Sweden, for instance, the local samor- 
 ganization is a far better form for that country, not only as a 
 fighting organization but also as a future foundation for socialist 
 production. Anyhow, it would be difficult for the centralistic 
 leadership of a political party to work its way into control of such 
 a form of organization, in fact, it is inconceivable. 
 
 The Organization of the Unions 
 
 The building of the Russian unions is partly done from ti 
 top downward and partly from the bottom upward. Bu\t their 
 functions take place exclusively from the top dowmvard. We 
 therefore get a better picture of the general activity of the 
 unions, which at the same time serve as a regulator of production, 
 when we consider their growth outward from the center, as the 
 rules prescribe. In Russia, membership in the unions is obligatory 
 for all industrial workers. There are 4% millions of organized 
 workers in Russia, (1920). 
 
 Every organization must be practical, that is, its form must 
 correspond to the functions it has to fill. As the present function 
 of the Russian unions is to manage industry and to fill the 
 tasks given it by the Supreme Council of National Economy, 
 which has production in its hands, the unions must be so or- 
 ganized that they can do justice to these tasks. The shops 
 (factories, furnaces, mines, transport and distribution facilities) 
 are no longer in the hands of private employers but in the hands 
 of the state. When the shops still were in the hands of private 
 employers, a union organization of the kind that exists today 
 was not necessary for capitalist production. But when every- 
 thing was nationalized and thus became the property of a single 
 owner, (the state) , this single owner, also had to be in the position 
 of being able to supervise everything from one central point, 
 We can best illustrate this if we imagine a great capitalist 
 company, which does not either belong to any single person 
 but still all threads run together in one central point. Everything 
 is conducted from this central point. Everything must again 
 come back to that point. 
 
 56 
 
The manager of production is the Supreme Council of 
 National Economy. To production belong two parts: men and 
 things. The organization of the human part is the unions. For 
 this reason the Supreme Council of National Economy must act 
 through the unions. The manner of procedure is this: The 
 managers of the factories are appointed by the S. C. of N. E. 
 after nominations by the unions. Furthermore, representatives 
 of the S. C. of N. E. have a seat in the councils of the unions. 
 Besides, the unions have a representative in the Commissariat of 
 Labor. The commissar of the Commissariat of Labor, who at 
 the same time is a member of the Council of People's Commissars 
 is put on this post through the joint selection of the unions. 
 
 a) The Central Council of the All-Russian Unions consists 
 of 120 members and is elected from a congress of local district 
 committees, gouvernement committees, local district councils and 
 gouvernement councils. The president of the Central Council of the 
 All-Russian Unions is Michael Tomski. The members of the 
 Central Committee are eleven. They are, besides Tomski: A. 
 A^drejeff, W. Kossior, E. Holzman, H. Ziperovitch, N. Ivanoff, 
 N. Bucharin, P. Rutzutak, J. Lutovinow and W. Schmidt. 
 
 Of these, two sit in the Council of People's Commissars 
 (Sownarkom), one with a deciding vote, Schmidt, as People's 
 Commissar of Labor, and M. Tomski with a consultative voice. 
 Besides, Tomski takes part in the Committee of Defense of the 
 Soviet Republic, with a deciding vote. Both are communists, 
 members of the bolshevik party, to which also all the others 
 mentioned belong. Non-members of the bolshevik party cannot 
 be elected to the Central Council of the All-Russian Unions. 
 
 The functions of this Central Council of the All-Russian 
 Unions are: 
 
 1. Regulating the work and the wages (sanctioning of the 
 wage scale). Dividing of the workers into three groups, 
 by means of which the qualified workers, the premiums 
 and the rations are determined. The establishment of a 
 scientific institute for calculation of the workers' ex- 
 penditure of energy. 
 
 2. The establishment of a labor secretariat to include all 
 unions, 25 instructors are sent to the different gouverne- 
 ments for the carrying out of this measure in the 
 provinces and to fix membership contributions. At present 
 the contribution amounts to 2% of the wages. It is 
 obligatory and is deducted from the wages. 
 
 3. Culture department: Representatives are sent to the 
 presiding board of the Commissariat of Education, in 
 order to organize, under the leadership of that commissa- 
 riat, continuation schools for the working youth and 
 establish evening courses for all workers. 
 
 4. Participation in the work of the Supreme Council of 
 National Economy. 
 
 57 
 
Besides the above mentioned presiding board of eleven 
 persons there is a general session of representatives of the 
 Central Committees of the various industrial unions. This 
 consists of 40 persons. 
 
 b) Gouvernement or Provincial Councils. In order to trans- 
 mit these functions to the ranks of the workers, the Central Coun- 
 cil sends its decisions (partly of their own making) , as well as the 
 decrees of the Supreme Council of National Economy or the 
 Commissariat of Labor to the gouvernement or provincial 
 Councils of the unions in all crafts or industries, as well as to 
 the central committees of the Industrial Unions. 
 
 These ' 'gouvernement councils" consist of 7-15 persons. They 
 are elected by the local district councils of all unions. The gouver- 
 nement councils comprises all the workers of all occupations in a 
 gouvernement. The functions of a gouvernement council are to 
 carry out the decisions and the tasks referred to it by the Central 
 Council of the Ail-Russian Unions which are worked out on the 
 basis of the functions outlined in the above mentioned f our parag- 
 raphs. 
 
 c) The Local District Councils. They are elected by all the 
 organized workers of the whole local district (in German 
 "Kreis"') They consist of 5-9 members. Their tasks are to carry 
 out the work turned over to them by the gouvernement union 
 councils. 
 
 d) The Central Committee of the Industrial Union. Besides 
 the above mentioned organs there are the Industrial Unions. The 
 central committees of these industrial unions have a membership 
 of 15-21. These central committees are elected by the local district 
 and provincial committees of the unions in question. The functions 
 of these central committees of the industrial unions are about the 
 same as those of the Central Council of the All-Russian Unions, 
 only they are specially adapted for the particular industry such as 
 metal, textile, or food stuffs. They occupy themselves in particular 
 with the elaboration of tariffs, serve as information and propa- 
 ganda bureaus, have charge of the central supply of the special 
 kind of working clothes for the workers of their calling, which 
 are necessary for the work, and send instructors to the lower 
 sub-committees. There are also special commissions or boards 
 elected by these central committees in connection with the Su- 
 preme Council of National Economy. Such boards formed, with 
 the corresponding departments of the S. C. of N. E., the 
 Central Committee of the Industrial Unions of the foodstuff 
 industry, the machinery industry, the electrical industry and all 
 those which had charge of the provisioning of the country. It was 
 the duty of these boards to take part in the provisioning. In 
 January 1920 there were 32 Industrial Unions and an equal 
 number of central committees. At the last III. congress it was, 
 however decided to undertake amalgamations which will reduce 
 the number to 23. 
 
 58 
 
e) The Provincial Committee is the next organ with which 
 the Central Committee of the Industrial Unions has direct rela- 
 tions. It consists of 5-9 members. Each union has such a pro- 
 vincial committee. There is a provincial committee of the unions 
 of the metal workers, the foodstuffs workers, etc. This provincial 
 committee is elected by the local district (Kreis) committees and_ 
 the shop councils. Its functions are to carry out the instructions 
 given it by the Central Committee of the Industrial Unions. To 
 this provincial committee the Supreme Council of National Econ- 
 omy also send a representative, in order to help the committees in 
 their work. 
 
 f) The Local District Committee is in its functions a 
 daughter organization of the provincial committee. Each union 
 has such a local district committee. Thus, there is one for the 
 metal industry, one for the foodstuffs industry, etc. The local 
 district committee is elected by the shop councils or factory com- 
 mittees. 
 
 g) The Factory Committees. The lowest organs of the unions, 
 which are also called cells, are the factory committees or shop 
 councils. They are elected by the workers. Their tasks or func- 
 tions were worked out about the middle of 1918 by the Central 
 Council of the Ail-Russian Unions, which consists only of party 
 communists and were announced to the workers as decrees. They 
 read as follows: 
 
 1. The shop councils, according to the decision of the cen- 
 tral council of the unions, take all measures desirable for 
 welding together the workers and employees of an enter- 
 prise into a productive organization. 
 
 2. They establish am.ong the workers and employees a strict 
 proletarian discipline determined by the union. 
 
 3. To watch over the rigid enforcement of all measures and 
 rules by the Commissariat of Labor for the protection of 
 the worker and to devise ways and means of improving 
 the conditions of work. 
 
 4. They investigate whether the establishment has enforced 
 all the rules of the Supreme Council aiming at the in- 
 crease of production and the maintenance of busi- 
 ness procedure. 
 
 5. They enforce strictly and exactly the mutual observance 
 of the tariff agreements and normal productivity. 
 
 6. They exercise full control over the work. 
 
 7. They undertake the supplying of the workers with the 
 articles needed, in accordance with the rules of the food- 
 stuffs authorities. For that purpose they enter into con- 
 nection with the corresponding organizations and estab- 
 lish people's kitchens, consumers* 'unions, etc. 
 
 8. They execute the decisions of the workers grievance com- 
 
 59 
 
mittees and the punishments measured out by these, in 
 accordance with the tariff agreements. 
 
 9. They participate in the engaging and discharging of 
 workers and employees, according to the decree about 
 labor exchanges and the instructions of the union. 
 
 These are to-day the functions of the shop councils. Thus, 
 we must here add, that the workers no longer have the right to 
 manage the establishment or to say a word about the process of 
 production. In the third congress, in March 1920, position was 
 expressly taken against this right of the workers, on the ground 
 that this right now belonged to the unions as a whole and not 
 to single groups. But it is not even the unions who appoint the 
 managers of the enterprises; it is the Supreme Council of Na- 
 tional Economy, which has this right, after the recommendation 
 of the unions. Manager of the establishment becomes he who is 
 appointed by the S. C, of N. E. In the decision of March, 1920, 
 it says: 
 
 "The shop committees are hereby established as the local units 
 of the unions, with functions analogous to the unions, with reten- 
 tion of responsibility, and under the report sphere of the higher 
 instances of the unions, and they are hereby enjoined from in any 
 manner meddling with the conduct of the establishment's busi- 
 ness; for the elimination of parallel work in the offices of the 
 management and the unions of an establishment all production 
 commissions of the shop committees are hereby disestablished." 
 
 Hefre is, as we see, quite openly expressed, that the workers 
 have no right wJiatsoever in the \management of production on 
 the place of work; yes, even the control, ^vhich in the first days 
 of the revolution was such a popular demand, has been suspended. 
 It says plainly that the workers must keep from any meddlii 
 ivith the conduct of the business. 
 
 Nor is the right of engaging and discharging workers men- 
 tioned in Article 9 saved to the workers. Through the "Law of 
 Mobilization of Labor Power" the workers are compelled to go 
 to the place of work to which they are assigned. If they leave 
 that place without permission of their superiors they can be pun- 
 ished. And that happens often. The idea with this is to hit the 
 bourgeoisie, all labor power being registered. But, as the Moscow 
 papers related in the spring of 1920, there were in Moscow 312,- 
 000 unregistered persons, which were not affected by this decree, 
 or only in an unsatisfactory way. Among these 312,000, few are 
 workers, most of them belonging to the bourgeois element. This 
 instance proves how difficult it is to hit the right ones and pull 
 the bourgeoisie out to work. Now it is attempted to combat this 
 by means of work-books. It is to be hoped that this will be suc- 
 cessful now and in the future, in order that the burden of the 
 workers may be lightened. 
 
 But if we consider the form of organization by itself and 
 compare it with other upiions, we find the form used by the Ger- 
 
 60 
 
man syndicalists to be most like the Russian form. Here also we 
 have two poles, the industrial o>r craft union with its groupings, 
 and the Labor Bureaus. The difference consists only in this that 
 the Russian unions have not fully carried out the idea of Labor 
 Bureaus (Arbeiterboerse). In Russia we have only the local dis- 
 trict council (this would correspond to the labor bureau of the 
 German syndicalists) and gouvernement or provincial councils. ~Iir 
 Russia there is no federation of all the "labor bureaus" of the 
 country. This function falls to the Central Councils of the All- 
 Russian Unions, which, however, at the same time is expected to 
 be, and is, principally a centralistic grouping of the Industrial 
 Unions. But as this is a centrum for both functions, its function 
 must with necessity be a difficult one. 
 
 A further difference consists in the very nature of the two 
 organizations; the Russian unions are absolutely centralistic; the 
 single parts have no right to self-determination; they have to 
 carry out the decisions and orders of the central councils to the 
 limit. But in Freie Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands (Free Labor 
 Union of Germany), that is, the Syndicalist Movement, the local 
 organizations, the Labor Bureaus as well as individual unions be- 
 longing to the industrial or craft federations have the right of 
 complete self-determination. The idea which serves as a founda- 
 tion of the Russian unions is the same as, or similar to the funda- 
 mental idea of the German syndicalists. Both wish to be the 
 organizations which have to solve the problem of production and 
 consumption in the socialist society. 
 
 These tasks which the Freie Arbeiter-Union of Germany has 
 set for itself, theoretically, the Russian unions had an opportun- 
 ity to put into practice, although under other conditions and with 
 the use of other means. But it has not yet been possible to com- 
 pletely grip the whole economic life through the unions. Lozov- 
 sky, one of the presiding members of the Central Council of the 
 Ail-Russian Unions, says in a pamphlet treating of the Russian 
 unions, that this is an ideal to which they would, without doubt, 
 approach in the future, but that it is not possible for the present. 
 
 The provisioning is still largely handled by the nationalized 
 Consumers' Societies (Centrosoyuz), who co-operate with the 
 Food Stuffs Commissariat and have a branch in each locality. 
 This branch supplies the workers with foodstuffs through the 
 shop councils or factory committees. For the rest, the supplying 
 of food stuffs is not in the hands of one single organization. As 
 the food stuffs are so scarce everybody is bungling with it. Lo- 
 zovsky also says that "in the same measure as the unions are per- 
 fecting themselves and fill all the functions of economic life, the 
 Soviets will disappear. In bolshevik theory the Soviets are, in 
 consequence, intended only as the weapons of the period of tran- 
 sition, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the 
 breaking down of capitalism. 
 
 61 
 
The Opposition in the Unions 
 
 We have now discussed the program, the form and the func- 
 tions of the Russian unions. I have also taken pains to ascertain 
 whether the Russian workers are all satisfied with the present 
 condition of the unions or whether there are tendencies which are 
 in opposition. And I was able to observe an opposition coming 
 from two different camps, first from the menshevik camp, and, 
 second, from the camp of the anarcho-syndicalists. The opposition 
 of the mensheviks has taken root principally in the ranks of the 
 printers. It takes the standpoint of democracy. It is of the 
 opinion that the workers should co-operate with other parties and 
 classes, as only then a continued development of economic condi- 
 tions would be thinkable. Earlier this tendency stood for the 
 Constituent Assembly, but now that the assembly has ceased to 
 exist, they accept fait accompli. Nevertheless, it demands that 
 the unions, as in the capitalist state, should have the right to 
 strike and that they should be free from the state. 
 
 The opposition of the anarcho-syndicalists shows itself in 
 several different unions. Among these we may mention: the 
 bakery workers' unions in Moscow as well as several clubs of 
 anarcho-syndicalists, which function as propaganda centers inside 
 the industrial organizations of the workers of all occupations. This 
 is a trade union opposition, whose form of organization corre- 
 sponds to the Danish Trade Union Opposition. The position of 
 this trade union opposition towards the central unions is not like 
 that of the mensheviks, but of a radical nature. The leading 
 ideas of this opposition come from the anarcho-syndicalist world 
 conception, which against Marxist bolshevism raises the theory 
 of libertarian socialism, and against state communism the theory 
 of anti-state communism. On this ground they combat the sub- 
 ordination of the unions to political parties, generally, and to the 
 state in particular. They point to the workers' loss of interest in 
 their unions, which has resulted from the changing of the unions 
 into state organs. This change tends to destroy the free develop- 
 ment of the worker, and is dangerous to the social revolution. Ac- 
 cording to them the workers have, through the change of the 
 unions into state organs, come under the control of the ruling 
 party, while the sense of the social revolution is that the workers 
 should be economic masters. Briefly, against the "statifying" 
 of the unions they propose the syndicalization of the state, i. e., 
 the dissolution of the state functions into functions of economic 
 organizations. (In principle the bolsheviks agree with the syn- 
 dicalists on this point, f. i. Lozovsky in his pamphlet on the Rus- 
 sian unions. But they hold that this should be deferred to a later 
 time; now, during the dictatorship, it is not to be thought of, in 
 their opinion.) 
 
 But as they thought that the rise of such tendencies would 
 weaken the rule of the proletarian party, they see a danger in it 
 and combat it. The syndicalists, consequently, see a danger in the 
 
 62 
 
"statifying" of the unions and the communist-bolsheviks see a 
 danger in the syndicalization of the state. But the bolsheviks 
 admit that development is bound to go in the direction in which 
 the syndicalists are driving. These ideas of the anarcho-syndical- 
 ists are also supported by so-called industrialists. The industrial- 
 ists also object to the supremacy of the state over the unions and 
 demand self-determination and autonomy and independence of the 
 state. In Petrograd this tendency was quite strongly represented 
 this summer of 1920, and the presiding officer of the Petrograd 
 Soviet, Zinovieff, who is also known as the chairman of the Ex- 
 ecutive Committee of the III. International, was then strenuously 
 combatting this tendency. 
 
 The union demand for independence from the party as well as 
 of the state lately showed itself also among the party-communist 
 unions. At the railroad workers congress in the summer of 1920, 
 when the Executive Committee of the union was elected, consist- 
 ing of 20 men, one half stood for the independence of the unions, 
 that is, they favored giving the unions the last word in union af- 
 fairs and not the party. And still all of the elected were party 
 members. Persons not members of the Communist Party cannot 
 be elected to the executive committee of any union. As this execu- 
 tive committee now was to elect a chairman, they could not agree, 
 being that ten of them belonged to one tendency while ten were 
 of the other tendency, and each tendency, naturally, wanted one 
 of their own as a chairman. As will appear from this the aver- 
 sion of the union men against being ruled by a party is on the in- 
 crease. But in the same measure as this takes place the syndical- 
 ist and industrialist ideas gain influence, and these demand the 
 absolute independence from the party for the unions. 
 
 Due to the sovereignty of the party over the unions, no actions 
 are permitted the unions which are against the party. As it also 
 is the party which has the rudder of state in its hands, every at- 
 tack of the unions which is directed against the party, is also di- 
 rected against the state, and vice versa. 
 
 Thus there was, as an instance, a strike of bakers in Moscow. 
 The bakers demanded a larger bread ration. Up to that time they 
 had had the same quantity as the population of Moscow, that is, 
 1 Ib. or 400 grams daily (.88 Ib. American weight). But the mili- 
 tary bakers had 4 Ibs. of bread daily, that being the military ra- 
 tion. Now the other bakers demanded just as much. Their de- 
 mand would have been more just if they had taken the stand that 
 the military should also have received no more than 1 Ib. The 
 strike does not bear testimony of a high moral level. The govern- 
 ment, naturally, did not accede to the demands of the bakers, and 
 the bakers struck. It is to be noted that the secretary of the union 
 of the bakers was an anarcho-syndicalist, by the name of N. Pav- 
 lov. The measures which the government took in the matter are 
 reported in the "Pravda" of June 19, 1920, in the following man- 
 ner: "The plenary meeting of the unions took up the matter in 
 their capacity of a government organ. Comrade Melnitschansky, 
 
 63 
 
the chairman of the Moscow Council of the unions, reported on the 
 case and said that the investigation had shown, that the influence 
 of the anarcho-syndicalists were strongly apparent among the 
 bakers. A complete report by Comrade Melnitschansky appeared 
 in No. 125 of the "Pravda." The meeting thereupon adopted the 
 following resolution : Due to the systematic abuse and breach of 
 union discipline by the members of the union committee of the 
 Moscow bakers, it was decided to dissolve the section of the Mos- 
 cow bakers and include the bakers in the union of the foodstuff 
 workers. The members of the former committee of the section of 
 the bakers' union, N. Pavlov, Kameschov, Nuschenkov, Vurgov 
 and Komsnitzov are excluded from the union movement and shall, 
 furthermore, be held to answer before a judiciary board. They 
 lose their right to speak before any assembly and can never more 
 be elected to a responsible post in the unions." 
 
 Naturally, other conflicts occur in the union movement, such 
 as strikes, insubordination, etc. But the mentioning of one con- 
 flict is sufficient to make us understand that friction and conflicts 
 can occur even in the Russian unions, and first of all, also between 
 the individual unions and the government, just as in other capit- 
 alist states. But which of the different tendencies shall finally 
 gain the upper hand is not difficult to say; very plainly the one 
 that uses the slogan, that in the unions all power shall belong to 
 the unions, being that the workers want to finally make them- 
 selves independent and establish the rights of labor. The ten- 
 dency which says that the state shall go up in the unions shal 
 finally conquer, because the workers feel most free through su< ~ 
 a victory. 
 
 Even if the Russian anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists and in- 
 dustrialists as well as all other revolutionists have every reason ii 
 the world to work on the unions until the whole system answei 
 the demands of communism, we must not for a moment forget th( 
 progress implied in the fact that the workers have come so fc 
 as to organize the work through their own organizations a/i 
 thereby the whole of industry. The progress lies in the victory o) 
 the idea, and even if the idea has not yet been completely realized, 
 we have not the right, as friends of progress, to reject the firsl 
 imperfect beginnings. In comparison to the idea of czarism, th( 
 offensive taken by the labor organizations, the unions, as produc- 
 tive organizations, is quite a big step forward, the importance of 
 which we cannot to-day sufficiently appreciate. To set the real 
 value on this is reserved for future generations. In the same man- 
 ner that we look at the French revolution at the end of the 18tl 
 century as a gigantic step forward, in spite of the despotism o1 
 Napoleon, which was not surpassed by the despotism of Louij 
 XVI., for the fruits of the revolution, the abolition of serfdom, 
 could not be undone, just so we greet the Russian revolution, 
 spite of the rule of the bolsheviks. For, after all, the bolshevil 
 are not for the Russian revolution what Napoleon was for th< 
 French revolution; but they are, if we want to accept the com- 
 
 64 
 
parison, the Russian Jacobins, with a strong admixture of prole- 
 tarian elements. But the spirit of progress lives in the realization 
 of the idea, that the workers can, through their own organizations, 
 themselves form a society which is based on labor. As revolution- 
 aries and champions of freedom we approve of the Russian revo- 
 lution, approve of the idea that the labor unions have to be the 
 guides of economic life, and will guarantee that these ideas shall 
 be realized with ever greater perfection. Thus shall our ideal, a 
 society based upon labor, attain its realization. 
 
 Nationalization or Socialization? 
 
 The difference betiveen nationalization and socialization is 
 often very fine, especially where it is a question of industrial un- 
 dertakings. When referring to the land it is simpler. In Russia 
 we can on the whole speak of a socialization of the soil. Its dis- 
 tinguishing marks are that the land belongs to the peasants per- 
 sonally, but that they have not the legal right to sell it. That this 
 happens here and there, in spite of it, only shows that new forms 
 of economic life cannot be introduced through decrees alone. 
 Leases and rents have ceased to exist, and the only thing that 
 remains are taxes, principally in kind. Part of the former large 
 estates have passed over into state ownership, and in the case of 
 these one might speak of nationalization rather than socialization. 
 What applies to these state lands also applies to the nationalized 
 ("statified") industrial undertakings. The state monopolized the 
 mines, the means of transportation, the larger part of the big 
 factories, commerce and business houses. While formerly these 
 undertakings belonged to a great number of small industrial 
 knights, and partly also to a small number of big "captains of 
 industry (comparable to Stinnes in Germany), all of it belongs to- 
 day to one owner, the state. But here we have before us some- 
 thing more than a simple nationalization. In Germany we had 
 already under the Wilhelm regime nationalized railroads and 
 postal service. Even in America the railroads were to a great ex- 
 tent nationalized during the war. But this kind of nationalization 
 differs from the Russian kind in this respect that private per* 
 sons have economic interest in the same. The state issues notes 
 and debt obligations and the owners of these obligations or bonds 
 enjoy an income without work by collecting interest, etc. The state 
 has here, so to speak, taken over the role of a capitalist stock com- 
 pany. The same is often the case with municipalization. In the 
 latter case the municipal authorities of the cities play this role. 
 
 This has been abolished in Russia. The Russian Soviet gov- 
 ernment writes out no obligations and has cancelled all capitalist 
 claims. In relation to< foreign countries the procedure has not 
 been altogether consistent. Through the present concession policy 
 to the capitalist states, the soviet republic has right or wrong 
 gone back to a more primitive form of private economy. 
 
 65 
 
The difference between the nationalization in capitalist states 
 and in 'Soviet Russia is plain. But is this difference so great that 
 it runs into socialization? 
 
 In order to be able to answer these questions we must firsi 
 make up our mind what is to be understood by socialization. If 
 the economic life is completely cut off from the state as an organ- 
 ization of power, then we can speak of socialization. But the 
 problem may be stated differently. To some English guild social 
 ists the state is the organization of the consumers under com 
 pletely independent democracy or self-government for industry 
 To other guild socialists, such as S. G. Hobson, the state is an in 
 stitution which has nothing to do with economic life, not even 
 with consumption. For that reason we cannot say that the guik 
 socialists strive for a nationalization ( Verstaatlichung) , but wha 
 they want is a socialization, that is a transfer of production an< 
 consumption to the organizations for production and consump 
 tion. 
 
 // we\ put on this measuring stick, then we cannot speak o 
 any socialization in Russia as yet, but of nationalization (Ver 
 staatlichung) . When the factories, mines and means of transpor- 
 tation, that is, what is included under the name industry, Is not 
 directly in the hands of the productive organizations but belong 
 to the state, then we must speak of a ("Verstaatlichung") nation- 
 alization even if it is of a different kind from what it is in 
 the capitalist countries. 
 
 But looked at from another side we must refrain from con- 
 sidering the economic system of Russia as a socialist system. 
 Nationalization changes nothing in the wage system. With the 
 thought of socialization we connect at the same time the abolition 
 of the wage system. But in Russia we still have the wage system. 
 The circumstance that they pay is partly in kind and that an at- 
 tempt is made to further develop this pay system may be traced 
 to the enormous depreciation of the currency. They made a virtue 
 out of necessity. With the abolition of the wage system social 
 equality is attained. But this social or, more strictly speaking, 
 economic equality we do not find in Russia as yet. We can, conse- 
 quently, not speak of socialization but we must speak of national- 
 ization ("Verstaatlichung"). 
 
 The last expression is being used by the bolsheviks them- 
 selves. But this expression is not altogether correct. For just as 
 there are national states and nationalities, so there is also a dif- 
 ference here. In the large country of Russia, there is not only one 
 nation but many. The wealth consisting in land and industry, 
 which is worked by many nationalities, is put under the sover- 
 eignty of a state, the bolshevik government. From this point of 
 View, also, the expression "Verstaatlichung" (statification or stat- 
 ization) is the most exact. 
 
 One question that here interests us more is whether all es- 
 tablishments, factories, shops, mines, means of transportation, 
 
 66 
 
business houses, etc., are included in the nationalization. Accord- 
 ing to the observations I have personally made, as well as accord- 
 ing to the statistics of the Soviet government, the success in this 
 regard is only partial. Thus, according to statistics given by Mil- 
 jutin, a member of presiding board of the Supreme Council of Na- 
 tional Economy, the number of nationalized establishments up to 
 Feb. 1, 1920, was: In the stone industry 437 establishments with- 
 106 109 workers. Against these stood 561 establishments, not na- 
 tionalized. In mining and smelting nationalization's carried out 
 almost completely. There are only six small establishments of that 
 kind in which not more than 480 workers are employed. Against 
 these stand 81 establishments with together 39,880 workers that 
 are nationalized. 
 
 In the metal and machinery industry, on the other hand, the 
 number of establishments which even to-day are privately owned 
 is particularly great. There are together 601 establishments with 
 29,417 workers not nationalized. But these statistics cannot lay 
 claim to completeness. I know of a foundry in Moscow which be- 
 longs to a private owner, Pirvitz, which I do not find included in 
 the statistics. And still 106 workers are employed there. Against 
 these private establishments stand 553 nationalized ones which 
 employ 156,146 workers. 
 
 In the food stuff industry there are 638 establishments with 
 3,532 workers which are still privately owned. Against them stand 
 1,799 establishments with 151*699 workers that are nationalized. 
 In the establishments for manufacture of animal products over 
 one-third of the workers of that industry are still in private serv- 
 ice. They number 10,711 workers, working in 2,226 establish- 
 ments, while 32,979 workers are employed in 195 nationalized es- 
 tablishments. In the textile industry, which before the war be- 
 longed to the highest developed industries of Russia, there are 
 now 232 establishments with 36,664 workers still in private hands, 
 while 615 establishments with 337,346 workers are nationalized. 
 To these belongs also the ready-made clothing branch. 
 
 According to the same statistics there are still in all Russia, 
 985,413 workers ivho work in 4,237 state establishments and 84,- 
 853workers who work in 4,609 private establishments. 
 
 From these statistics we can gather that the larger establish- 
 ments are mostly nationalized while the smaller are still privately 
 owned. These statistics, however, apply only to industry or pro- 
 duction, but say nothing about the business houses. These were 
 closed nearly without exception. To-day one may still see shut- 
 and-sealed stores in Moscow and Petrograd, in whose show win- 
 dows everything still lies as it did before it was confiscated. The 
 confiscation was so poorly organized that it is still not known ex- 
 actly what has been confiscated. Frequently articles of clothing 
 are booked as hardware, or kitchen utensils as furniture. But 
 the worst is, that even in case of the most urgent necessity the 
 people can get nothing. Thus a fellow worker in Petrograd asked 
 me to get him a rubber nipple from Germany for his little daugh- 
 
 67 
 
ter's milk bottle. He said: "We have this article in our confis- 
 cated stores but it is impossible to get anything. The mensheviks 
 also reproach the bolsheviks that they undertook the so-called na- 
 tionalization without thorough preparations. They say that the 
 stores were closed before other organs were created which could 
 have undertaken to supply the people. They themselves, the men- 
 sheviks, would have done this in a more deliberate and slow way. 
 They are not so radical but more moderate. 
 
 A little exception was made for vegetable and delicatessen 
 stores. There are very few of the latter. But the former one 
 finds in every block. 
 
 Trust Building or Trustification 
 
 The monopolization and nationalization of industry abolished 
 the competition existing in small capitalist industry. Industry be- 
 came concentrated and centralized. Great state trusts came into 
 existence. Compared with the private capitalist enterprise, in 
 which production for the profit of individuals or stock companies 
 is carried on in quite meaningless and unregulated fashion, pro- 
 duction by a single organization, even if it is capitalistic, is to be 
 greeted as a step forward, because it can then be carried on in a 
 more rational manner. The advantage is so much greater if the 
 motive of production is not profit, but the needs of the nation. 
 But here it must be remembered that care should be taken thai 
 the liberty of individuals, of the producers, is not lost, for in the 
 measure that liberty is infringed upon, progress is impeded. Yes, 
 it may go so far that, through unequal compensation for service 
 rendered, in a society where nationalization, as well as the trusti- 
 faction of the whole national industry has been fully carried out, 
 even while the production for use is the basic plan it may go s< 
 far, we say, that the position of deep layers of the workers is no1 
 better than it is under private capitalism. Or, expressing it in 
 different manner: The state socialism introduced press( 
 (through the premium system such as is used in Russia) th< 
 workers down in the same disagreeable position as capitalisi 
 did. This system may be called state capitalism, and historicall: 
 it may be pointed out as a higher stage; but as for the workei 
 who labor in the factory the social revolution must bring th< 
 an improvement in their position, for the aim of the social rev< 
 lution is the liberation of the working class. 
 
 The workers who> by means of the revolution desired to rea- 
 lize their own emancipation, felt instinctively that they must di- 
 rect their efforts on taking over production and managing il 
 according to their own principles. They also elected shop commit- 
 tees to manage the shops. The shops independently managed 
 those workers ivho work in the shops, that is how the Russiai. 
 workers first pictured to themselves the socialization of industry, 
 or the realization of the social revolution. 
 
 68 
 
But the Communist Party of Russia considered this tendency 
 of the workers only as the first and lowest form. On Dec. 5, 1917, 
 the Supreme Council of National Economy was founded. The 
 management of the factories was thereafter more and more 
 twisted out of the workers' hands. The Supreme Council of Na- 
 tional Economy took over this task. This S. C. of N. E. should 
 properly not be anything but the co-ordiriation of all the establ- 
 ishments from the bottom upward, with retention of the inde- 
 pendent shop management by the workers. But what came was 
 something else. The S. C. of N. E. is an institution which man- 
 ages the industry of the country from the top downward. 
 
 The Supreme Council of National Economy consists of 11 per- 
 sons. The president's name is Rykoff. He is appointed by the 
 All-Russian Executive Committee. The rest of the members are, 
 in part, nominated by the Central Council of the Unions and finally 
 appointed by the Council of People's Commissars. This Council 
 of the People's Commissars can at any time cancel the decisions 
 of the Economic Council, so that the Council of People's Commis- 
 sars, a political institution which consists principally of commun- 
 ists, has the last word. Miljutin, a member of the Supreme Coun- 
 cil of National Economy, mentioned in an interview with me that 
 all important questions must be submitted to the Council of Peo- 
 ple's Commissars. Also there are tendencies to still more cen- 
 tralize the council, instead of decentralizing it, after the end of all 
 wars, thus allowing the state to get a grip on the whole economic 
 life. 
 
 .... The Supreme Council of National Economy has a special de- 
 partment for each industry. There are 50 of them. Each one of 
 these departments manages a separate branch of industry. Mil- 
 jutin described their activity as follows : They carry out the plans 
 of production, distribute the raw materials, keep account of what 
 is being produced and finance the undertakings. Besides they en- 
 gage and discharge the management of the shops. The manage- 
 ment of such an industrial department consists of one, three or 
 five persons, which are appointed by the Supreme Council of Na- 
 tional Economy, after consultation w'fbh the unions. 
 
 It would take us too far to follow up the various functions 
 more closely into the gouvernement or local district management. 
 They are all built on the same principle. And it is sufficient for 
 us to know the principle. But the principle is consistently carried 
 out from the top downward, as may be seen from the above. The 
 organization from the bottom upward does not exist in industry, 
 and for that reason there is no talk of self-government. The 
 workers have no direct influence, yes, in practice they have no in- 
 fluence at all, not even indirect, over the management of industry, 
 or the shop and the factory in which they work. 
 
 The workers get their wages paid through the Finance De- 
 partment of the Supreme Council of National Economy. Even the 
 prices are set on the goods by the S. C. of N. E. and thereafter 
 made into a law. 
 
 69 
 
The staff of officials of the Supreme Council of National 
 Economy is in Moscow, which is the centre for all Russia, and con- 
 sists of 20,000 persons. Besides there are, according to the state- 
 ments of Miljutin, 35 local councils and each one of these has 
 2,000 employees. This would give a total of 90,000 employees. 
 According to the figures given before there are in the nationalized 
 industries 985,414 employees, or in round numbers one million. 
 There is, consequently, 'about one official for each ten workers. 
 
 This apparatus, as at presently constituted, works heavily 
 rather than elastically. For many purposes it cannot be used. 
 And we should not wonder at this. A political body, which 
 in the last instance depends upon the All-Russian Executive Com- 
 mittee, cannot function on the economic field like a purely eco- 
 nomic organization of hand and brain workers, which are in 
 straight line with one another or alongside of one another. 
 
 They have also come to feel that way in Russia, so that they 
 turn to private undertakings when it is a question of work that 
 requires quick and prompt attention. In pointing this out, I am 
 merely stating facts, but nevertheless, it is by no means proven 
 that capitalism is indispensable or has any advantages. It only 
 proves that this kind of state socialism, which was started in 
 Russia under such unfavorable conditions, has not the power tc 
 live; there might very well be other socialist economic forms 
 'which are so much the more rational. But the fact that in Russia 
 the few private undertakings have a superior capacity for work, 
 can be traced to the circumstance that the private undertakings 
 pay their workers better than the state enterprises. In the al- 
 ready mentioned iron foundry in Moscow, belonging to Pirvitz, 
 the workers are a good deal better off than in the Soviet shops. 
 A commercial and technical employee, a Miss Wegener, receives, 
 for instance, free board and lodging, the usual Payok (food stuff 
 ration) and, like all the people of Moscow, free apartment and 
 15,000 rubles. According to her own statement she is far better 
 off than in Soviet service, in which she was formerly working, and 
 works with greater interest. The same thing applies to the work- 
 ers. Another case may contribute still more to illustrating what; 
 we have said. As the supplying of fuel did not work satisfac- 
 torily in years past a certain official was given free hands. He 
 engaged private persons and workers who under better conditions 
 got the necessary railroad cars ready much quicker, and as a re- 
 sult the transportation took place much quicker. Still more such 
 examples could be cited. The bolsheviks themselves constantly 
 complain of the slowness of their apparatus, and particularly 
 the last party conferences as well as at the soviet congresses, 
 complaints are piling up. 
 
 In consideration of the sad condition in which industry fin< 
 itself the dissatisfaction of the ruling bolsheviks is easy to undei 
 stand, and if they give the ideas of syndicalism such great coi 
 cessions as to have for chairman of the Supreme Council of N 
 tional Economy, Rykov, a representative of the syndicalist ideas- 
 
 70 
 
and that is the case not with him alone but in most of the leading 
 circles this can largely be ascribed to the bankruptcy from which 
 their own theories of state socialism have suffered, and which is 
 most evident in the organization of industry. Already in the year 
 of 1918, the first year of bolshevik power, Mnogin, the commissar 
 of the textile department of the S. C. of N. E., wrote in No. 40 
 of the "Isvestija," that the Russian Soviet Republic did not need 
 any unions but only small factory committees which had to carry 
 out the orders of the government. To-day, when they see that in- 
 dustry cannot get into a flourishing state through "governing," 
 they have finally found the road to the unions. As cheering as this 
 is, so regrettable is it, on the other side, that through the state 
 tendencies of the state socialists the ruinous way of nationaliza- 
 tion was entered upon, and is in practice still followed. If 
 industry is not to suffer further collapse, the bolsheviks must soon 
 make a reality of the now recognized theory, turn over production 
 to the productive organs the workers possess in their unions, 
 under complete self-administration of the factories by those em- 
 ployed there, and not by individual managers put in by the 
 Supreme Council of National Economy. 
 
 He who comes with the expectations of finding communism 
 can get very little satisfaction from the conditions in Russia. But 
 even he, who only hopes for a little improvement of economic life 
 will, as we have seen, find little to cheer him in Russia. Those in 
 power at present repeatedly give as a reason for this the long dura- 
 tion of the war, the world war and the civil war. Without doubt 
 this is one of the main causes. But as this is being sung so often 
 and always in a new fashion by the bolsheviks, a repetition would 
 be tedious. For it is equally certain that other factors of prin- 
 ciple, tactics and organization play a role in this respect. 
 
 One of these factors is the principle of political centralism, 
 which is given such limitless praise by the bolsheviks. This prin- 
 ciple, which is being lauded by Radek, Trotzky and all leaders of 
 bolshevism as the best ripened fruit on the tree of socialist de- 
 velopment, has, nevertheless, had a truly devastating influence on 
 economic life, and this is the case up to the present day. For that 
 reason the songs of praise sung to centralism by the bolsheviks 
 must with necessity wind up in a lugubrious wail due to the facts 
 of the economic collapse. And the most sparkling dialectics of 
 Radek and Trotzky cannot hide their character of hollow dema- 
 goguery. I cannot here keep from using the words "hollow dema- 
 goguery" when reading in what a dirty, genuinely Marx-Engels 
 way, Radek attacks Bertrand Russel in his provoking effusions: 
 "Bertrand Russel's Sentimental Trip to Russia." In that work 
 one can, in fact, find nothing but pure demagoguery. Against 
 Russel's sincere descriptions Radek brings up no facts, but only 
 writes about "Russel's slippers by the hot stove." With this he 
 may be able to impress his Russian worshipers, but not thinking 
 people, and certainly not the working class of the world. This 
 reference to the tactics of the bolshevik theoreticians has here 
 
 71 
 
been made only to show what value should be put on their arj 
 ments. 
 
 We need not enter into a theoretical discussion of the prii 
 ciples of centralism. It is sufficient in this connection to show 
 how, with the principle of centralism as a fundamental principle 
 of organization, the economic life does not prosper, how the free 
 development of private initiative is completely suppressed and 
 how economic life has suffered from it in an unspeakable man- 
 ner. 
 
 Already in treating of the agricultural question we have seen 
 from examples quoted that, through the policy applied by the 
 Communist Party and the situation resulting therefrom, the area 
 of cultivated land has diminished. At the VIII. All-Russian Soviet 
 Congress interesting proofs of this were added. In industry it is 
 not much better. Of the 1,191 metal works in Russia only 300 
 are running. Only 20% of the pig iron of peace production is 
 being worked. The food stuffs industry has also gone down con- 
 siderably. In a steam mill in Samara there were before the war 
 18,000 pud of flour milled per day, but now only 5,000-6,000 pud. 
 In the whole Samara gouvernement there were 60 million pud 
 grain produced before the war, but now only 20 million pud. These 
 figures show an extra-ordinary decrease of production, to which 
 we may seek the causes where we will. 
 
 The Home Workers and Their Co-operative Societies or 
 
 Artels 
 
 Besides the nationalized establishments which are managed 
 by the Supreme Council of National Economy, the structure 
 and functions of which we have already considered, there is 
 a second kind of socialized production. These are the joint labor 
 societies of Russian peasants and independent home workers, whicn 
 are called artels. The ku&tar is an industrial home worker, a 
 poor peasant or a small artisan. These small people band to- 
 gether in a joint labor society, buy their products in common and 
 deliver their finished products to their societies. This society or 
 artel takes over the selling of the products and supplies the artisan 
 at the same time with raw material and working tools. 
 
 As this society in no way can be considered a capitalist com- 
 pany but purely as a banding together of voluntarily working in- 
 dividuals, the bolshevik government has been unable to destroy 
 these joint labor groups. Peter Kropotkin takes a friendly posi- 
 tion towards these labor societies and wrote for their paper, at the 
 time I was in Russia, several articles and letters for their con- 
 gress. These joint labor societies are no exploiting organizations, 
 but during the czarist period they had to suffer from oppression 
 by the big capitalists just as the factory workers did. Now they 
 are also hit by the compulsory policy of the Soviet government* 
 Thus, in Moscow, the central of all the artels was dissolved, and 
 when I visited it, it was just in the stage of liquidation. 
 
 72 
 
 
But a number of artels still have their joint organizations. 
 [n the Moscow society 98 shops were enrolled. Affiliation to the 
 irtel is done by the family. A total of about 9,000 families are 
 enrolled in the artels. They make a total of 24,000 productive 
 workers. Among these are 700-800 larger shops. All sorts of 
 aandicrafts are represented in these artels. The product consists 
 pf leather goods, saddles, boots, furniture, combs, brushes, toys, 
 jewelry, textile goods, metal goods, papier-mache goods, wagons, 
 leds, valises, school material, books and similar goods. For the 
 present the Soviet government is delivering raw materials to the 
 artels, at least to a limited extent. The society supplies, for in- 
 tance, lumber to the cabinet makers and distributes it to the 
 ifferent shops. Payment to the different shops differs in nature, 
 ome have their finished articles sold by the society for their ac- 
 ount, others arrange to have wages paid them and turn the sell- 
 ng over to the society without reservations. This latter is the 
 ase in some of the larger shops. The members of the same get 
 wage of from 100 to 1,000 rubles daily. But in paying the wages 
 t is taken into consideration whether the member has property 
 r is poor. Thus, to cite examples, the owners of a little farm are 
 aid >a little less than those who have nothing. By this means it 
 s sought to bridge over the inequalities of wealth. In the gouv- 
 rnement of Moscow there are many peasants who are members 
 f this artel society. 
 
 The first artel in Moscow came into existence 20 years ago. 
 n other gouvernements the artels have been in existence since 
 890. So far, such artels exist in the gouvernements Moscow, 
 Jaroslov, Nischni-Novgorod, Vladimir, Thula and Kostroma. The 
 oviet government tried to nationalize these artels. The artisans 
 and peasants belonging to them were, however, opposed to this 
 nationalization. They objected to have their central exchange 
 made into a state organ, and as most of the members of these 
 artels are the poorest peasants, the government uses no force in 
 order to carry out a compulsory nationalization. 
 
 The work of the artisans belonging to the artel societies 
 amounts to 50 railroad cars of goods per month, which have a 
 value of 250 million rubles. 
 
 The society pf the home workers, the artel of the "kustar- 
 nije" in Russia, is apiece of socialist life. True, it is no large 
 industry, and as small handicraft it has something narrow-mind- 
 edly petit-bourgeois over it. But in socialism we must not include 
 only the technically highest developed large industry. Socialist 
 life is not tied to the forms of large industry, and it is entirely 
 absurd to wish to force people, in the name of socialism, into eco- 
 nomic forms which are considered best for the welfare of the 
 state. Socialism means, under the present forms of technical de- 
 velopment, the elimination of wage slavery, economic equality and 
 equalizing of interests. The development of the method of pro- 
 duction to more rational forms can thereafter take place without 
 hindrance, but under no circumstances must we force it into ex- 
 
 73 
 
istence at the cost of the liberty of the workers, for that is exactly 
 what the capitalists do. Socialist life consists in the side-by-side 
 activities of voluntary associations of workers. Such an associa- 
 tion is the Russian artel. If it is not yet ideal, still it is a start 
 made by the workers, by the poor who work for their living. 
 
 Consumption 
 
 It is a truism of political economy that the quantity of goods 
 used depends on the quantity of goods produced. In conformity 
 herewith the economic doctrines of a Marx, principally, have laid 
 the chief stress on the conquest of production by the workers. If 
 the producers are in possession of the products through their or- 
 ganization, then it is also in their power to distribute the prod- 
 ucts justly, under the supposition that they are justice-loving, 
 socialist organizations. 
 
 But there is another way of paving the way for socialism. 
 It is true that the working class as a whole cannot obtain more 
 than the quantity of products that is turned over to it by the class 
 that is master of production. When the capitalists weaken the 
 buying power of the workers through high prices and low wages, 
 they diminish their power of consumption. When the workers 
 organize themselves as consumers and find ways and means 
 keep the prices low, then they are also in a position to increas< 
 their consumption. Besides, the organization of workers as con- 
 sumers carries with it a second advantage. Even if the quantity 
 of products which the working class as a whole consumes depen< 
 upon the monopolists of production and the means they employ 
 the workers can still obtain a just division of the products throu[ 
 their organizations of consumption. And this also is a piece oJ 
 socialism. 
 
 The workers have in fact organized themselves in both din 
 tipns, that is, as producers and consumers. They have trade w. 
 nions and consumers' unions, or co-operative societies, as t'l 
 are ulso called. That is also fully the case in Russia. 
 
 But not only the workers and poor peasants have acknowl 
 edged the necessity of organizing consumption in the interest oJ 
 all ; even the state was forced to it through the need of the houi 
 As the food stuffs became ever scarcer as a result of the war, th< 
 state, which led the nation into war, could no longer tolerate thai 
 the necessary food stuffs remained objects of speculation. The 
 result of this would have been a still greater famine than the: 
 already had without it, and this would have had a bad influenc< 
 on the defense. From these causes sprang national husbandry b\ 
 force.^ The governments of all capitalist states, who were in sue! 
 a position, used this means. Even the Russian Soviet governmenl 
 saw itself compelled to resort to such steps. But as they, in ordei 
 to consistently carry out husbandry by force, would have beei 
 compelled to have a large apparatus, which It was not able 
 
 74 
 
stamp out of the ground so quickly, they used for this purpose the 
 already existing consumers' societies. The consumers' societies 
 were nationalized. 
 
 In Russia, conditions are on many points entirely different 
 from what they are in western Europe. Thus, for example, the 
 consumers' union movement reached a stronger and higher devel- 
 opment than the trade union movement. This is caused by Ihe 
 fact that the consumers' unions in the first line were organiza- 
 tions of the consumers. The peasants had no need for organiza- 
 tions of production, but they had need of organizations of con- 
 sumption. And as over 80% of the population of Russia are peas- 
 ants, so were also, in perfect coincidence herewith, 80% of the 
 members of the consumers' societies peasants. 
 
 No party and no union in Russia was before the war so 
 powerful as the Co-operative movement. The Siberian butter pro- 
 ducers united, in o>rder to sell their butter in common to Russia or 
 even to foreign countries. There we had already a large con- 
 sumers' union of the peasants, which later, as it grew larger, also 
 occupied itself with other products. This was a uniting of all the 
 above mentioned artels. These Siberian unions had in the year 
 of 1907 a turn-over of 957,000 pud butter, of a value of 160,000,- 
 000 rubles. (1 pud equal to 34 Ibs.) 
 
 All these consumers' unions or distributing artels or "co- 
 operatives" were united into a central body which is known under 
 the name of Centrosoyuz. To the Centrosoyuz belonged in 1914 
 13,500 affiliated distributing artels with a membership of 1,500,- 
 000 and a turn-over of 300,000,000 rubles. 
 
 When the war broke out the consumer's unions of Russia de- 
 veloped as in no other country. There are principally two circum- 
 stances back of the mighty growth of the Centrosoyuz that attract 
 our attention. First, the czar's government did not worry itself 
 very much about supplying food stuffs to the population, so that 
 the workers and peasants had to help themselves and since that 
 time the workers in the industries also have joined this movement, 
 while it formerly comprised mostly peasants; second, the prices 
 of food stuffs began to rise in such a manner that the working 
 population of the cities in mass joined these societies, in order to 
 procure more cheaply the necessary means of life. So the num- 
 ber of single consumers' societies rose in the year 1917 to 20,000 ; 
 to 25,000 in 1918; to 50,000 in the year 1919. At the same time 
 the membership^ rose to 7,000,000 in 1917, to 10,000,000 in 1918, 
 and 15,000,000 in 1919. In the year of 1919 the turn-over was not 
 less than 15 billion rubles (15,000,000,000). 
 
 Politically, these unions were of a more or less neutral char- 
 acter. But as they grew ever more powerful, their influence also, 
 naturally, became noticeable in politics. After the growth of the 
 movement there was a division into two parts. One agricultural 
 society, consisting of peasants, and one distribution society, con- 
 sisting of the working population of the cities. After the out- 
 
 75 
 
break of the revolution some leaders of both kinds of societies 
 entered the provisional government. But in doing so they had 
 given up their political neutrality. As economic life influences 
 political life, so these co-operatives had, through their economic 
 power, become an important factor politically, with which the 
 government was compelled to count. 
 
 In the course of development there arose under the Centro- 
 soyuz even productive societies, which produced goods which the 
 peasants could not create. The co-operatives distribute not only 
 food stuffs, but also garments, cloth, silk and other articles. 
 
 After the outbreak of the October revolution, the co-opera- 
 tives developed with considerably greater rapidity than be- 
 fore, ,as will appear from the figures given above. One of the 
 most active men was Tugon Baranovski, a friend of Peter Krop- 
 otkin's. But these newly arisen consumers' unions had only a 
 short life. Through the decree of the soviet government of March 
 28, 1918, the consumers' unions or co-operatives were nationalized, 
 and all of the consumers' unions founded by the workers them- 
 selves were deprived of their independence and inserted among 
 the state organs. 
 
 The vicarious chairman of the executive committee of the 
 present nationalized "Centrosoyuz," P. L. Voikoff, related in an 
 interview which we had with him on June 22, 1920, that the bol- 
 sheviks after the outbreak of the October revolution desired 
 use the existing co-operatives as organs of the new state for th< 
 distribution of food stuffs. But difficulties arose, for the cc 
 operatives, represented by their old leaders, made active resisl 
 ance to the nationalization. But the government, which desi] 
 to lead the consumers' unions into new channels, removed th< 
 persons which stood in its way and installed a new executiv< 
 committee) which consisted of men who carried out the intentic 
 of the government. This new executive committee consists of 
 members, who all belong to the Communist Party (bolsheviks) 
 
 According to the opinion of the old, dismissed leaders of th( 
 Centrosoyuz, the consumers' unions were associations of free citi- 
 zens, but the tendency of nationalization was against the charactei 
 of the organization. The government desired to "democratize" th( 
 unions, as they called it. For this purpose the whole populatioi 
 had to _ enter into these unions. The government issued a decree, 
 according to which every citizen had to be a member of the cc 
 sumers' union. By the decree of March 18, the old committ( 
 of the consumers' union were forced by the state to call in an as- 
 sembly ; in this assembly a new committee was elected. In the elec- 
 tions for this committee the whole population could take 
 whether they were members of the old consumers' unions or not 
 each one had the right to vote. This is what they called "demon 
 cratization." This committee, which is to be found in all locali- 
 ties, in every commune, elects a representative to a district com- 
 
 76 
 
mittee, and this district committee elects the members of the 
 executive committee of the Centrosoyuz. 
 
 This is, however, the case only theoretically, for, according 
 to the statements of the vicarious chairman already referred to, 
 the executive committee was, in practise, not elected but appointed 
 by the government, by which process only members of the Com- 
 munist Party were picked out. 
 
 One representative of this Centrosoyuz is Krassin, and he is 
 not only ,a representative of the Centrosoyuz, but, the Centrosoyuz 
 being a state organ, he is also an official representative of the 
 Soviet government. As such he was received by the English gov- 
 ernment. Krassin represents the commercial interests of the 
 Soviet government, and for lack of a different apparatus the gov- 
 ernment is using this Centrosoyuz. Through the Centrosoyuz the 
 Soviet government will carry on import and export business with 
 foreign countries. 
 
 But if the Centrosoyuz is an official organ of the government 
 as regards foreign countries, such is not the case domestically. 
 The official government organ is the Food Stuffs Commissariat. 
 But as this proved itself incapable of handling the provisioning 
 of the population, the Soviet government makes use of the con- 
 sumers' unions. 
 
 The function of such a consumers' union are known to every 
 organized west-European worker. In Russia they were similar to 
 what they are in the rest of Europe. The small consumers' unions 
 gathered money for the purchase of goods. When they did not col- 
 lect enough money, they received the necessary means as a loan 
 from a bigger union affiliated with the Centrosoyuz. The goods 
 purchased they divided among their members. In the peasant co- 
 operatives production is mostly individual, as we have already in- 
 dicated in the chapter about the Land. The co-operative societies 
 of the peasants embrace only consumption, not production. The 
 peasants must deliver to the government everything that they do 
 not need for themselves. The government organ for this purpose 
 is the Food Stuffs Commissariat and the consumers' unions. Thus, 
 while the government has two ways of obtaining goods, the peas- 
 ants have only one, namely through their co-operative societies. 
 
 The purpose of the government in nationalizing the con- 
 sumers' unions or co-operative societies was twofold : First, it ivas 
 desired to disestablish the unions as being <{ capitalistic undertak- 
 ings'^ which had their own private banks. This was done by con- 
 fiscating ^ the larger productive undertakings of the societies; 
 second, it ivas desired to discontinue private trade. The supply- 
 ing of the people should be done exclusively through the organs 
 of the state. The most important question for us is : Has nation- 
 alization proven a success, have the co-operative societies had 
 the capacity of their service increased through nationalization, 
 and can an imitation of these tactics be recommended? 
 
 The Sucherevka market in Moscow, the fish market in Char- 
 
 77 
 
kov, and similar markets in all the cities of Russia give the first- 
 answer to this question, namely, that the government has not suc- 
 ceeded in regulating the provisioning of the population through 
 its measures. But even when there is only a small market in a 
 city, such as in Petrograd, it only means that the population is 
 procuring the necessary provisions in some other more under- 
 ground manner. Today the co-operative societies no longer have 
 the service capacity which they had 'before nationalization. Why? 
 The societies no longer are unions of peasants' artels, in which 
 the peasants leave their products to be sold, but the government 
 has rather taken over the task of handling the agricultural prod- 
 ucts. How this takes place we have already seen. The peasants 
 are compelled to part with their grain for 100 rubles per pud. 
 Whether the organs through which the government handles this 
 work are called departments of the Food Stuffs Commissariat or 
 departments of the Centrosoyuz, it all comes to the same thing, for 
 if the peasants refuse to deliver at those prices, they are forced 
 to it through the military. In each case the soldiers requisition 
 the grain. The societies also receive their products through the 
 government and cannot distribute any more than they receive 
 from the government. But as this, for reasons mentioned, is not 
 sufficient, the societies are far less serviceable than before the na- 
 tionalization. The societies are to-day no longer free institutions, 
 but, according to the words of the vicarious chairman, the popula- 
 tion are forced to become members. And it is clear that a com- 
 pulsory organization cannot work as well as a free one. The so- 
 cieties are to-day less capable of supplying the population witl 
 the necessary provisions, and for that reason everybody tries t< 
 supply through private channels what is missing. 
 
 Branches of the co-operative societies were established by the 
 government in conjunction with the trade unions in the factories, 
 and these committees conduct the distribution of the products. Ii 
 that manner the workers receive through this committee thei] 
 pound of bread directly in the factory. But oftener the factoi 
 committee, elected in the factory, performs this function. But 
 must here note that in all factories which I have visited an< 
 they amounted in Russia and Ukraine to 20 the workers com- 
 plained of not receiving a sufficient ration of food stuffs. In 
 chocolate factory the girls cried and complained that they hac 
 not received any bread for three days. In a textile factory they 
 were just receiving bread when we visited them. They started 
 use harsh language and complained that they were not receiving 
 full weight. The manager, who showed us the factory, wanted 
 prove to them that they were mistaken, and he went to the scal< 
 and weighed portions of the bread, and, in fact, there was 
 gram missing to the pound. The soldiers, however, receive much 
 richer rations. On a Volga steamer the sailors, beaming with 
 joy, showed us the great quantity of bread and sugar that the] 
 received. 
 
 As the reason for the low productivity of the workers we 
 
 78 
 
may put down the lack of food stuffs. One would think that the 
 food shortage was general, as the workers could not themselves 
 procure food stuffs in a different manner, and it would lead one to 
 think that there was a shortage in the market place, or every- 
 where. But such is not the case. While the workers were unable to 
 obtain sufficient through the organs of the government, for the 
 stated reason that there was not enough, it is possible to buy every- 
 thing in the market. Besides, the workers organize small circles in 
 the factory, pool their money and send one of several of their fel- 
 low workers out in the country to buy provisions from the peas- 
 ants. These provisions are thereafter divided between the partici- 
 pants. Thus, the workers have again created new, voluntary, small 
 co-operatives, or consumers' unions, although of only a temporary 
 character, because the nationalized consumers' societies no longer 
 were able to cover their needs. 
 
 Just as little as the state was able to acquire the whole of 
 production, just so little was it possible to force the whole of con- 
 sumption into the state organization. Economic life cannot be 
 forced into the compulsory forms of the state; if it is tried, the 
 impossibility of it comes to light. Centralism is always greatest 
 in governments during times of war, and this applies also to 
 Russia. While during the war it was not possible to force the 
 whole economic life into* the centralist mold, after the war it was 
 still less possible to handle everything by means of the centralist 
 apparatus of the state, it being then necessary to loosen up the 
 tight reins a little, if a catastrophe shall not be conjured up. 
 Society and social-economic life are not a machine, nor an 
 apparatus. But the bolsheviks seem to conceive of them as an 
 apparatus to their daily vocabulary belongs the word "ap- 
 paratus," for the single parts of an apparatus or a machine are 
 dead things. But the separate parts, of which human society is 
 composed, are beings with will power. The mistake inherent in 
 all bolshevik theories and which all bolsheviks are always making, 
 is that they do not sufficiently count with this. And that is also 
 the reason why all their organizing and "apparatus creating" so 
 far has been so imperfect, as they themselves admit, while they, 
 naturally, do not want to use any other name for the organizations 
 which are born out of their autocratic world conception. In the 
 future it will be still more impossible than in the three past years 
 of bolshevik rule to lay hold of everything by means of various 
 kinds of apparatus in the bolshevik sense, by means of state or- 
 gans. Leaving out the fact that the bolsheviks degrade the indi- 
 vidual to a will-less tool in the hands of an apparatus, they can 
 never reach what they are striving for by such means. 
 
 We have already seen that outside of the economic organiza- 
 tions of production and consumption maintained by the state, the 
 workers help themselves, and that a large part of the economic 
 activities of the country takes place outside the limitations fixed 
 by the state. 
 
 79 
 
A special chapter in Russia is shuffling. In order to get an 
 idea of it, it is sufficient to refer to the statements of the bolshe- 
 viks themselves. Thus, as an example, the Moscow paper "Com- 
 munist Labor" writes in the second half of June, 1920, in regard 
 to goods which had been located in several sections of Moscow, 
 and which could be labeled as shuffle-goods, that is, as goods 
 which had nowhere been entered, and which consequently had 
 been shuffled to one side by "responsible soviet employees." In 
 the Rogoschevsky-Simenovski-Rayon were found 1,546 lots of 
 shuffle-goods. Among these were 59,149 pud (1 pud equal to 34 
 Ibs.) nickle, 30,135 pud aluminium; 25,071 pud tin; 237,076 pud 
 zink; 18,332 pud lead plate; 921,857 pud brass; 535,979 pud steel; 
 undetermined quantities of wire; 18,000 two-handle saws; 20,610 
 axes; 32,330 pairs of boots; 5 million archins of woolen-goods; 
 110,566 archins (21-3 feet) of linen; 20,426 pud coffee and tea, 
 and many other things that are mentioned in the paper but which 
 it is useless to enumerate here, as this already is sufficient to show 
 that through the centralist system the biggest kind of conscious 
 shufflings are possible. It remains to mention that in another 
 rayon, among other goods, were found 1/2 million pairs of stock- 
 ings and 47 carloads of agricultural machinery. This would, of 
 course, be impossible if a decentralistic, that is, a federalistic 
 system were applied, and the workers of every rayon or the 
 workers handling it, had control over the goods. As it is now, 
 under the centralistic system, only one central needs to know 
 where the goods belong, and all other sub-departments have to 
 follow the order of the central. Through this system nothing is 
 easier than that shuffling will sneak in, for if there is only one 
 shuffler at the central, goods to the value of millions can be shuf- 
 fled, because the workers who are handling it are only the horses 
 that pull the chariot of the Central. 
 
 Another example given by Zinoviev himself shows how won- 
 derfully the "apparatus" of the centralistic organization of na- 
 tional economy functions. At ,a conference of the Communist 
 Party of Russia, which was held in Moscow in October, 1920, 
 Zinoviev spoke of the shortcomings and weaknesses of the party 
 and in the organizations created by it. He related that, on the 
 Murman coast there is, as is well known, a rich run of fish, but 
 particularly so in recent weeks, when the season had been at its 
 height. The comrades there say that the fish is so plentiful that 
 it is sufficient only to pull about three times in the water with a 
 stick with a hook attached, in order to catch fish. But in spite of 
 that the Murman railroad workers and laborers do not get a 
 single pound of fresh fish and are compelled to live from dried 
 fish, at best. How does that come about? It arises from the fact 
 that we have a fish central ("Glavryba'), which says: "First you 
 must catch the fish, thereafter register it on the books and throw 
 salt on its tail," and only then can the workers receive it But 
 the workers try to get in touch with the fish central, the latter 
 tar out of range." Another example quoted by Zinoviev: "I 
 
 80 
 
want to tell you about another case. In Ussolje immense supplies 
 of salt were stored up. The peasants asked for permission to fetch 
 the salt quantities due them on their own wagons, under the con- 
 trol of food stuffs authorities. The chauncery nag began its trot, 
 but in the meantime the river rose above its banks and licked up 
 all the salt. What do you expect the peasant to say to this? Fifty 
 miles from the Baku the workers and the peasants are without 
 petroleum. And there in Baku is the main spring of petroleum! 
 That is due to the shortcomings of our organization." 
 
 So far Zinoviev. I have myself heard of numerous such cases 
 in Russia from different people, but if I refer to Peter Kropotkin, 
 Emma Goldman or Spiridonova, or other pronounced anti-central- 
 ists who have gathered together much material, it would probably 
 appear to some that these tales are colored. But it cannot very 
 well be received in that manner when it comes from the mouth 
 of the arch centralists. What happened to the peasants of 
 Ussolje, also happened to innumerable other peasants about wood, 
 and also to the Petrograd workers, and so it will always go 
 and must go as long as the system of centralism rules in all 
 economic organizations. It is not only a few shortcomings, so, 
 Zinoviev ivouM have\ you believe, bu\t it is the principle of pol- 
 itical centralism on which the blame falls. I can further illustrate 
 this through a personal experience: A female friend of mine in 
 Moscow asked me to procure some antiquarian books for her. 
 After a long search I happened to see the books in a soviet book 
 store, and I stepped in and wanted to buy them. But there my 
 troubles began. Yes, I could buy the books but had first to obtain 
 permission from the book central, "Centropitschatsch." I took 
 the address and went forth. But the place was at the other end 
 of Moscow. Upon arriving there (one has to walk, for the popula- 
 tion cannot ride in autos like foreign delegates) I found it closed. 
 The next day I went again, but I was told that It was no longer 
 there but in a different location. Finally finding the Book Central, 
 I first came to a lady who sat at a desk. She ordered me to fill 
 out a slip and sent me to the next office. There another blank 
 had to be filled out with the names of the books that I wanted, 
 and with this blank I was further sent into a different room. 
 There it was registered, and I was sent back to the second room 
 with the order blank. Now the order blank was signed, and now 
 I could go to the book store and get the three antiquarian books. 
 But now I saw a German book in the store, which I would have 
 liked to buy for myself, I was told that it was necessary for me 
 to again get an order blank from the central. By this time I had 
 enough of this and let the book lie where it was. In order to buy 
 a couple of antiquarian books, one needs, consequently, two days. 
 No wonder if life gets clogged and dissatisfaction over it grows. 
 But these are not merely some shortcomings of the organization, 
 but the whole system is wrong. 
 
 That bureaucracy, the intimate friend of centralism, pros- 
 pers under such conditions is clear without further argument. And 
 
 81 
 
there are twice as many bureaucrats in Moscow as there are work- 
 ers. According to a Rosta poster one often finds these stuck up 
 on the walls in Russia the following are the population figures 
 given for 1919-1920 : 
 
 400,000 children under 16 years, 
 250,000 housewives, 
 105,000 workers organized in unions, 
 233,000 soviet employees and officials, 
 312,000 persons of the bourgeois element. 
 
 Total 1,300,000 inhabitants in Moscow. 
 
 Although it is compulsory for all workers in Russia to belong 
 to the union, there are no more workers in Moscow than those 
 here mentioned. There are, consequently, only 105,000 workers, 
 but 233,000 soviet employees. But the remaining 312,000 parasitic 
 elements also "work" together with the soviet officials, that is, 
 they are engaged in some sort of smuggle trade. Naturally, not 
 very much of productive work can be accomplished in this man- 
 ner, and as a matter of course it reacts on the food stuffs and pro- 
 vision situation of the country. 
 
 The Life of the Workers in the Cities 
 
 The workers cannot live from the food stuffs that they re- 
 ceive. They are, therefore, compelled to resort to self-help and 
 to smuggle. This is not said in order to paint something in black 
 colors, but only in order to illustrate the situation which arose 
 from a complex of different circumstances. Street railways handle 
 very little traffic in Petrograd, in Moscow they are still scarcer, 
 and at the end of October the whole street car service was sus- 
 pended. The workers must, consequently, often walk over an 
 hour to their work or their soviet office (if it is a soviet em- 
 ployee) . For lunch they remain in the factory or the bureau. They 
 receive their noon-day meal at the place of work, in the soviet 
 offices or in most of the factories. It consists almost exclusively 
 of soup and "kascha" (mush) . In Moscow this meal is very poor 
 everywhere, but in some places in Charkov comparatively good. 
 For a worker one must consider the meal even quantitatively 
 as insufficient. Besides, they receive other food, the so-called 
 "payok." This also is unsatisfactory. But in the fall, when there 
 are apples or wood at the bureau, then everybody must bring 
 them home on his or her back which may require an hour. 
 When he comes home he is, of course, not able to do anything. 
 And still he lacks every convenience in the house. Having to do 
 everything himself, his whole activity is expended on a lot of 
 petty things, so that he can do very little productive work. 
 
 The product turned out by the ivorkers in the factories is 
 minimal, as one can understand from the standard of life. But 
 this is frequently regarded by the government as sabotage, and 
 
 82 
 
the communist cell in the factory, which has to watch over it, 
 often denounces the worker for sabotage. For this they are then 
 punished. 
 
 The rations (payok) to which the workers are entitled in a 
 locomotive repair shop which I inspected, are, per month: 25 Ib. 
 flour (1 Russian Ib. equal to 400 gram or .88 Ib. American 
 weight) ; 1 Ib. oil; 8 Ibs. fish; 5 Ibs. groats; li/ 2 tobacco; 2 Ibs. 
 sugar; 14 Ib. coffee; 1% Ib. salt. But the workers do not receive 
 these rations regularly. When I visited the factory, the shop com- 
 mittee was just in session, and they complained that during the 
 previous month the workers had not received any oil and not 
 enough flour. 
 
 If the workers do not get enough they try to procure more 
 through private channels. The bakers take dough with them 
 home in their long pockets. Their women make small cakes 
 out of it and sell them in the market. The bread carriers steal 
 the ready baked bread ; I spoke with one of the carriers, who told 
 me quite openly that if he did not do this he could not exist. The 
 same thing other workers do, who are employed in other branches 
 of industry. Everybody tries to pull through in ways that are 
 permitted or not permitted. 
 
 Perhaps many a person will ask the question why the work- 
 ers do not buy what they need. This is not exactly possible, be- 
 cause they simply cannot pay the prices that are asked in free 
 trade. The workers receive from 3,000 to 10,000 rubles per month. 
 The meal in the factory is not expensive; its costs only about 
 20 rubles. Similarly the prices of the things which they receive 
 in their rations are very cheap. Also the prices for everything 
 received from the government are very low, so that, if the work- 
 ers received sufficient from that source, they would get along very 
 well with their money, yes, they even could save a good deal of 
 money. But the reason they receive such a high wage is because 
 the rations are not sufficient. When they are compelled to pay 
 500-600 rubles for a pound of bread in the market and from 
 5,000-6,000 rubles for a pound of butter, then they would have to 
 earn 100,000 rubles per month if they want to* come out right. 
 
 Of the mentioned 312,000 individuals of the bourgeois ele- 
 ments, which according to the Rosta statistics are to be found 
 in Moscow, there are also many wretched persons, which deserve 
 any name but bourgeois. In the summer, visitors to the second 
 congress of the III. International could see men and women lying 
 in the streets at night, sleeping. If you asked these people why 
 they slept in the street, they answered that they wanted to be the 
 first in the morning when the bureau was opened to get their al- 
 lowance of railway travel. These people then went to> the rail- 
 way and traveled to the surrounding villages, in order to buy milk 
 and, if possible, other things which they later sold in the Moscow 
 market. At the railway stations one can later see hundreds of 
 ragged persons, who have traveled a long way for from two to 
 five liters of milk (1 liter equal to 1.76 pint), in order to sell it 
 
 83 
 
later for a small gain, and, too, always in danger of being ar- 
 rested. Milk distribution is so poorly organized that thousands 
 fetch a liter a piece from the village, instead of one bringing a 
 thousand liters of milk, as is done in Berlin. In spite of the over- 
 whelming centralism they have not been able to arrange this. 
 Disregarding this highly irrational supply system there is not a 
 spark of the socialist spirit to be seen in it. The bolsheviks have 
 not yet even made arrangements for a communal milk supply, 
 such as is introduced in Berlin for children and for the sick' and 
 then they want to talk about communism and call themselves con>- 
 munists ! 
 
 Nor can we designate as communistic the wage policy in 
 force. There are two standards by which to size up this ques- 
 tion: (1) The land, the nation, the state, perhaps also the class; 
 (2) the workers and the individual. The first is the starting point to 
 the state socialists, the social-democrats, the bolsheviks, the "com- 
 munists" ; the second is the starting point of the anti-state social- 
 ists. If we think of the welfare of the country, the state even 
 if it is a proletarian state or of the class, then we will do every- 
 thing to defend these. That is what the bolsheviks do. When the 
 revolution broke out, it was in this sense that they had to defend 
 the revolution. They had to keep the industry of the country 
 going at any price, even if they had to give up the principal de- 
 mands of socialism, namely the equal wage. At present there 
 are in Russia 35 wage steps or wage classes, the academically 
 educated people, the engineers, the technicians, the organizers, 
 etc., are in the highest classification of wages, the trained work- 
 ers in the middle classes and the unskilled workers in the lowest 
 classes. Furthermore, consideration is given to the question 
 whether the workers labor in establishments which are important 
 for the war and against the counter-revolution. They have even 
 proposed to the railwayman, in the summer of 1920, the tariff 
 which was laid before them in 1912 during czarism, but which was 
 then declined. We are, consequently, forced to say that Russia has 
 gone to the dogs on the wage question, no matter what beautiful 
 phrases or important reasons Lenin may put forward to defend it. 
 
 The bolsheviks were driven to this wage policy, which we 
 have just designated as anti-socialist, through an important turn 
 of the conditions. The workers ivere not in a position to take 
 over the industries. They were not prepared for it and they 
 had not organized themselves for the purpose of taking over pro- 
 duction. In Russia this was certainly not possible. The revolu- 
 tion did not come when the workers or a group of revolutionaries 
 were ready with their revolutionary preparations, or when the 
 workers were technically so well prepared that they could take 
 over production without friction from the capitalistic leaders 
 (whether they be technicians or organizers), but the revolution 
 came in Russia before the workers were in a position to prepare 
 for it. When too, a political party takes the power, then, natur- 
 ally, nothing socialistic can come from it. One need not, conse- 
 
 84 
 
quently, be astonished over the fact that the bolsheviks did not 
 carry through a socialist wage policy, but, on the contrary, there 
 would have been reason for astonishment if they had worked out 
 such a wage policy. 
 
 The bolsheviks had thus been compelled to retain the bour- 
 geoisie which had been the leader of industry before the revolu- 
 tion, in their employ, either by means of physical force or through 
 extra-ordinary high pay. The last method proved to be the best 
 one, and the capitalist wage policy was continued, but at the same 
 time they explained, and they do so yet, that the aim was to 
 further develop the workers, in order to make the bourgeoisie 
 more superfluous and replace them by workers. 
 
 But if they now had such bad luck in Russia, that the revolu- 
 tion found the workers unprepared and in no position to take pro- 
 duction out of the hands of the capitalists, then we must at least 
 draw a lesson therefrom. For the bad thing about it is that the 
 workers who, naturally, are no political economists and do not 
 understand the connection of things, put the blame on the revolu- 
 tionary party or organization which happens to be in power. 
 This time it happens to be the bolsheviks, but if it were the syn- 
 dicalists or the anarchists or any other revolutionary government, 
 then it would be the same lyre they would be compelled to play 
 on, and the workers would consider them as their rulers, just as 
 they now consider the bolsheviks. 
 
 This lesson the syndicalists drew already long ago, insofar 
 as they admonish the workers to prepare and develop themselves 
 personally, as well as their organizations, in such a manner that 
 when a revolution breaks out, from various economic, psycholog- 
 ical and political reasons, it finds the workers prepared. Pe- 
 culiarly enough, the syndicalists who teach this are decried and 
 "accused" by the same bolsheviks and party communists as re- 
 formists. Thus, things are being put on their head. Instead of 
 the bolsheviks saying to the syndicalists: "Yes, you are right; 
 if the revolution and socialism shall not become entirely discred- 
 ited before the workers, then we must strike out for this road," 
 they say to the syndicalists that, "if revolution breaks out we will 
 either put you in jail o<r stand you up against a wall." That is 
 what they have done in Russia at all events, where many anarcho- 
 syndicalists have been put in jail. 
 
 They cannot entirely cut loose from this doctrine, which 
 on one side is promulgated by the syndicalists and on the other 
 side also by Eugen Duhring in his book "Social Salvation" many 
 years ago, and for that reason the doctrine is smuggled into the 
 theses of the III. International, where a great role is assigned to 
 the trade unions in the conquest of the political power and in the 
 economic up^building of communism. But the principal role shall, 
 of course, be played by a political, communist party. 
 
 In spite of all this obscuration and veil-pulling it is not pos- 
 sible to hide the fact that the social revolution shall be so much 
 
 85 
 
the more successful, that is, social equality shall be the sooner 
 realized, the better the workers are prepared for it. Whoever 
 wants to be an adherent of the social revolution and does not set 
 his eyes chiefly on this, but on the conquest of political power, 
 he shows that in his innermost self he is more of a rioter, an 
 adherent of violent phrases rather than a socialist. But such are 
 the bolsheviks in Russia and the political communist parties in all 
 other countries. The principal task for a real socialist or com- 
 munist, if you so want to call them, lies just in preparing him- 
 self, the workers and the peasants for social equality, on the eco- 
 nomic, the intellectual and the moral field; but he must be a syn- 
 dicalist to do this. 
 
 Still another circumstance must be added, which contrib- 
 uted to the development of the 35 wage grades or to the fact that 
 the bourgeoisie is better paid than the workers. This was the 
 use of the motto: "Who does not work, neither shall he eat" as 
 a tactical principle. As a theory this sentence is a commonplace 
 of socialist, or, if we want to be ironical, of biblical propaganda. 
 It is correct and just: Who does not wo<rk, neither shall he eat. 
 But this must not be interpreted so ,as to mean, that he who has 
 not worked before this time shall from now on get nothing to eat. 
 The social revolution is an act of social justice, through which 
 social injustices are done away with, and not vice versa. The 
 social revolution must give everybody something to eat, no matter 
 what he has done before, even if he has done nothing at all. This 
 method is, however, to be recommended, not only from the stand- 
 point of justice, but also from the standpoint of revolutionary 
 tactics. That the bourgeoisie of Russia was given nothing or less 
 to eat than others has revenged itself. When they later were 
 needed for the organization of technical and industrial life 
 they had become still more embittered enemies of the working 
 class than before, through these very tactics. 
 
 From this, also, we have a lesson to 1 draw: Not to support 
 the negative tendencies, not to give free vent to instincts of re- 
 venge in ourselves or in others, but to combat them and, on the 
 contrary, do everything to make the birth of the social revolution 
 an act of equalization and social justice. Or, putting it in more 
 common words : To give bread to everybody must be the first duty 
 of the social revolution. 
 
 Workers' Insurance 
 
 When formerly, in pre-revolutionary days, socialists, syn- 
 dicalists, or anarchists imagined their ideal society realized or 
 painted it before themselves, they never thought of such a thing 
 as workers' insurance or labor laws. For the German anarcho- 
 socialists or syndicalists such things always had the flavor oJ 
 Bismarckian politics. Social law-making against unemploymenl 
 sickness, accident, etc., in behalf of the workers was conside] 
 necessary only in the capitalist state while already the funt 
 
 86 
 
mental principle of socialism is mutual help, so that social law- 
 making in the old capitalist sense of the word could not be 
 thought of. 
 
 That workers' insurance is being introduced in Russia only 
 proves again that there we have not to do with a social revo- 
 lution but with a political revolution, which has deeply impressed 
 itself upon the social life of Russia. Private property has for the 
 largest part been abolished and the revolution might develop into 
 a social revolution in a more far-reaching sense if other countries 
 also are entangled in the revolution. 
 
 That influential, revolutionary, bolshevik circles in Russia 
 first of all thought of introducing the progressive measures 
 which had been realized in the rest of Europe for some time 
 past, should not be counted to their discredit. Thus, the bol- 
 sheviks carried out the social law-making which Kerensky had 
 commenced on a small scale, but on a much larger scale. True, 
 one cannot defend onself for the thought, that Kerensky would 
 have done the same thing if he had remained in power longer. 
 This policy of social law-making gives us the impression of a 
 certain reformist tendency. Up to then all social law-making had 
 had the significance of an addition or improvement to the struc- 
 ture of capitalist society. But one cannot pass judgment on the 
 basis of this single point; we must rather take into considera- 
 tion the whole achievement of the bolsheviks and the whole Rus- 
 sian revolution. Such a general consideration shows us that the 
 Russian revolution was one half political and one half social and 
 in i.ts later development even partly inclined to reaction. This 
 all constitutes the curves of development we cannot yet consider 
 as ended. 
 
 In the realm of the czar, workers' insurance was only poorly 
 developed. Up to the year 1917, including the brief Kerensky 
 period, there were in all Russia 1,457,503 workers insured. In 
 the year 1919 the number grew to 3,009,510, and in the year 1920, 
 according to the statement of the Commissar of Labor, there were 
 6,000,000 persons, who were all subject to insurance. But in a 
 population of 120,000,000 this is still very small. Besides one 
 must consider the whole insurance, in the present situation, to be 
 more on paper than carried out into reality. 
 
 The institution which has worked out the insurance system 
 is the Commissariat 'of Labor. At the head of it stands the Peo- 
 ple's Commissar of Labor, Schmidt. But this commissariat has 
 to care for not only the workers without an income, but also for 
 the active ones, that is, it has to> give out the work to the workers. 
 The commissariat has five sub-departments. The first branch 
 handles the distribution of the work and the workers ; the second, 
 protection of the workers ; the third, the tariff service ; the fourth, 
 labor statistics; the fifth, a labor museum. The Commissariat of 
 Labor has sections in every city. If workers are needed in a place, 
 they are sent from a central in Moscow or from a provincial divi- 
 sion. This institution also manages the negotiations and arrange- 
 
 87 
 
merits with foreigners who wish to immigrate into Russia. The 
 workers must labor according to the conditions fixed by the com- 
 missariat. As the commissar of labor is put in office by the trade 
 unions, the conditions are in conformity with the wishes of the 
 Executive Committee of the unions, and the tariff, statistics, etc., 
 are worked out by the Commissariat in conjunction with the un- 
 ions. When a job of some kind is to be started, such as the erec- 
 tion of a building, the Commissariat for Building Construction 
 addresses itself to the Supreme Council of National Economy for 
 material, and to the Labor Commissariat for workers. Just as the 
 Supreme Council of National Economy has to supply the material, 
 so the Commissariat of Labor has to supply the labor power. 
 
 These measures of labor protection include motherhood 
 insurance, child insurance and the bringing up of children, invalid 
 and sickness insurance. According to the statements of Labor 
 Commissar Schmidt the basic support for all needy is 1,200 rubles 
 per month. This is the minimum wage for workers, for unem- 
 ployed, for women whose husbands are in the red army, etc. Of 
 the workers actually employed and that is practically all the 
 workers included in the unions about one-sixth receives this min- 
 imum wage; five-sixths receive additional payments of all kinds, 
 through overtime, through piece work, through premiums, so that 
 the worker comes to an average of 4,000-5,000 rubles per month. 
 The wage is paid partly in kind, partly in money. Workers under 
 15 years are allowed to work only 6 hours a day. 
 
 So far Commissar Schmidt. But in the factories I have found 
 that many qualified workers earn much more than the sums given 
 here ; they come as high as from 10,000 to 15,000 rubles per month. 
 In the factories I also spoke with 16-year old youths, who had al- 
 ready for four years worked 8 hours a day at the turning lathe, 
 so that the protection of the youth, which now exists on paper, 
 has not yet been carried over into reality. It may be that the 
 decree on workers' insurance is partly carried out, but that it is 
 not completely carried out ivas proven by my observations, 
 
 National Finance 
 
 In another place in this book we have already discussed the 
 question whether we in Russia have to do with state capitalism 
 or state socialism. The financial problem shows us this question 
 in new light. 
 
 When the November revolution of 1917 broke out and went 
 o*n to victory, all large land owners were dispossessed. The 
 banks were nationalized. Interest on money was abolished, pri- 
 vate capital was changed into national capital. All mortgages 
 were annulled. Tho government made great efforts to collect 
 all the money outstanding on mortgages, but received only 4 
 million rubles under that head. 
 
 The most important feature of the revolution on the finan- 
 cial field is the depreciation of money. The government printed 
 
 88 
 
paper money without regard to the gold reserve. These paper bills 
 are no national debt certificates, no credit certificates; they are 
 nothing but paper. The state does not borrow and has no cred- 
 itors like the capitalist states. Capitalism, that is, interest bear- 
 ing capital, is abolished. The money issued by the bolsheviks 
 represents no national debt and it is not intended to have it re- 
 deemed by the state. The security back of it is the wealth of the 
 country, the land, which has become state property, the forests, 
 the mines, the oil springs, the factories and the machinery; all 
 these are the assets of the state. We have also seen that the bol- 
 sheviks in their commercial treaties with other countries pay with 
 natural resources, which they turn over in form of concessions 
 to the capitalist states for exploitation, seeing that they have 
 no possiblity of exploiting them themselves. In consonance there- 
 with the bolshevik paper money does not carry the legend "Loan 
 Certificate" or "National Bank Note" or a statement to the effect 
 that the state pays the amount upon demand, but in 6 languages 
 it has the words: "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" 
 
 This is nearly a precise verbal account of an interview with 
 Minister of Finance Krestinsky. From this we can see that it has 
 not been possible to abolish money, as many socialist theories 
 teach, but that interest was abolished and therewith also the in- 
 come without work, which fell to the rich through their owner- 
 ship of shares and other valuable papers. By this means, how- 
 ever, only one form of income without work is abolished, though 
 it is the most parasitic form. Through the retention of paper 
 notes it was possible to make the notes themselves into merchan- 
 dise just as well as other goods. In fact, there are in Russia a 
 great number of currency speculators. They buy German, Swed- 
 ish, Finnish, Esthonian and Russian money and afterwards sell it 
 with a good profit. Naturally, speculation is heavily punished, 
 but it is an old truism that punishments do not protect us from 
 misdeeds or foolishness. The second form of parasitical income, 
 i. e., trade, is, consequently, not done away with, and money keeps 
 right on existing. 
 
 Third, through the retention of money, the standard by which 
 the value of labor is measured continues to be money, and it is 
 exactly for this reason that money has an independent magnitude 
 and significance. 
 
 The circumstance that no private person can draw money or 
 other values from the bank for a note, and that the state has 
 stepped into the place of the private capitalist, is of far-reaching 
 importance. The private person no longer has the right to demand 
 any material values whatsoever in the form of inheritance, etc. ; 
 these values belong to the whole people, to the collectivity; to the 
 state. Thus the financial system is collectivistic or part of the 
 state business, in contradistinction to the capitalist states, where 
 there is private economy. 
 
 We have also seen that in Russia there is no private financial 
 system, but a state financial system. The answering of the ques- 
 
 89 
 
tion whether we can speak of state capitalism or state socialism 
 in this connection, depends on the definition of the word capital- 
 ism. If with capital we mean interest bearing values, sums of 
 money or such, then we can only speak of the Russian soviet 
 regime as state socialism. But if we by capital mean the 
 sum total of the values of land, machines, the means of produc- 
 tion and the mines, etc., in short, the sum total of the accumu- 
 lated values, not of the individual, but of the whole collectivety, 
 then we would strike the right meaning by using the word state 
 capitalism. With capital and capitalism, however, the socialists, 
 disregarding all mo-re or less scientific and hair-splitting explana- 
 tions, have meant the power through which the workers are being 
 exploited, through the medium of private property and the wage 
 system connected therewith. But that the wage system exists not 
 only under private ownership but also under a collective or state 
 ownership, is demonstrated to us by the municipalities, the state- 
 owned railways and the nationalized post offices, as well as all 
 nationalized undertakings in the capitalist state, on the one side, 
 and in the Soviet republic on the other. But for the worker who 
 is employed by the municipal administration, the state railways 
 and the post offices, their employer, even if it is the state, has the 
 same significance as the private capitalist Krupp, Thyssen or 
 Stinnes. As long ,as they are wage slaves they feel the ruling 
 power of capitalism and the state over themselves. Just as little 
 as it would occur to the workers employed by a state employer 
 to consider themselves as members of a state socialist system, just 
 so is it in the case with Soviet Russia. From now on we must 
 recognize the word "state capitalism" as more correct. By so 
 doing we shall in no way paint the actual conditions worse than 
 they are, but have only found a more correct definition, which in 
 a concise way designates the conditions with a single phrase. 
 And that is state capitalism. 
 
 More important than this purely formal definition is the nat- 
 ure of the financial system. As a result of the revolution, the 
 nationalization of private property and with the cancellation of 
 the national debts of the former governments came the colossal 
 crash of the Russian ruble. This is no new phenomenon. In the 
 French revolution of 1789-1793 the assignats had comparatively 
 a still lower value than the present soviet ruble. In Moscow 
 (1920) you could for a German mark obtain 100 soviet rubles 
 from speculators, and for a Swedish crown 500-600 rubles; the 
 rubles of the old regime (paper) are generally valued ten times 
 as much as a soviet ruble. Czar and Kerensky rubles are not 
 permitted to circulate, but in spite of this prohibition one finds 
 them in trade. 
 
 The increased cost of food stuffs which resulted from the 
 crash of the ruble, is not by far proportional to the fall in the 
 money value, and the food stuffs, such as 1 Ib. of bread for 500 
 rubles, is to-day more dearly bought than formerly at 5 kopek. 
 The soviet ruble has, just like the assignats, not sunk in this man- 
 
 90 
 
ner through the purposes of the politicians but through the rev- 
 olutionary situation. When now the bolsheviks declare that the de- 
 preciation of money was splendidly suited for the purpose of ban- 
 ishing the spirit of capitalism from the thought of the people, 
 they are only trying to make a virtue out of necessity. Looking 
 at it one-sidedly, a physician who treated me, may have stated 
 the matter correctly when he said that to-day, with an income 
 of 30,000 rubles he did not have as much as before with 300 
 rubles, and that he was not particular about getting paid in 
 money, but would prefer to get his pay in clothes, and what else 
 he needs in order to live. Speaking subjectively the desire for 
 money is certainly curbed, if not altogether killed. 
 
 But as the workers do not receive sufficient food stuffs and 
 other articles of use, they are compelled to continue the use of 
 money in their daily economy. The only difference between the 
 present and past is that one counts with greater sums, and where 
 they formerly strove to get 1 ruble, they now need 1,000. The 
 spirit of capitalism consists in this that each one thinks only of 
 himself and does not worry about the weal and woe of his fellow 
 man. But I must admit that I have not seen very much more of 
 the disappearance of this spirit and its replacement by the op- 
 posite, the spirit of mutual aid and of socialism, in Russia than in 
 Western Europe. On the contrary, one makes the observation, 
 that the people in Russia, generally, are more greedy than for in- 
 stance, in Sweden. But this we must blame on the long war, 
 which has demoralized people, as well as on the economic distress. 
 Poverty brings misdeeds and depravity, but prosperity restores 
 things again. 
 
 The depreciation of money and above all, in connection there- 
 with, the shortage of goods, has brought this with it, that the 
 workers, and still more the peasants, prefer to exchange products 
 against products; for they know that, even if they have the 
 money, they cannot get what they need, as it is not to be had in 
 the country. This explains why they will exchange a hen for a 
 glass of salt, and the like. But, as already indicated, we must 
 ascribe this direct exchange of goods, not so much to the deprecia- 
 tion of money but rather to the lack of products. 
 
 Of late the policy of the Soviet government is ever more in 
 the direction of replacing the money wage with the wage in kind. 
 This would be equal to the abolition of money if it were carried 
 out completely, but for the present it has not gone so far. It 
 is possible that they will arrive at this stage, especially if a sim- 
 ilar movement starts in other countries. But if capitalism in 
 Western and Middle Europe keeps alive, then this hope is very 
 poor. The concession policy which Russia now follows will again 
 inject new life into the money system in Soviet Russia. Foreign 
 capitalism, English and American, which is stronger than Russian 
 capitalism ever was, will step into the latter's place. Of all the 
 results obtained in the revolution there will then remain only the 
 labor laws pertaining to insurance and workers' relief. 
 
 91 
 
The Soviets (Councils) 
 
 The council idea is not new. It always comes up wherever 
 the people, the working masses themselves directly try to or- 
 ganize their life with full independence and with the elimina- 
 tion of unnecessary between-hands or middlemen. The times in 
 which people mostly get into this position are the times when 
 old authorities are being overthrown, that is, In times of revolu- 
 tion. During the great French revolution the Parisians elected in 
 their sections the organs which we to-day would call councils or 
 Soviets. 
 
 But disregarding the fact that the council idea always has 
 risen to the surface in revolutionary times, the anti-authoritarian 
 socialists, anarchists and syndicalists were the ones who stood 
 nearest to the council idea. Only an ignorant person could take 
 the notion to deny that this is so. This springs from the anti- 
 authoritarian world conception of the doctrines mentioned. The 
 anarchists have always proclaimed the formula: Peasant, to you 
 belongs the land; factory worker, to you belongs the factory; 
 miner, to you belongs the mine. The syndicalists made it their 
 aim, not to conquer political power for that purpose no councils 
 were necessary but to take possession of the economic power, 
 the land, the factories, the mines, the means of transportation, 
 etc., through the workers who are there employed. In order 
 to carry this out, the workers and the peasants must manage 
 these establishments. But not all can do this at once; for this 
 purpose they must elect trustees in the factory, on the country- 
 estate, in the mines, and so on. And there we have the council 
 idea. The workers in the factories elect factory councils; in the 
 country, peasant councils; and for regulating the affairs in the 
 community, community councils. Thus we see, in fact, that the 
 socialist labor movement which from the beginning renounced 
 parliamentarian representation and for the realization of social- 
 ism and communist anarchism chose the direct road through the 
 workers was the most qualified, yes, we may even say, the only 
 carrier of the council idea. If in the present revolutionary times 
 even others, besides anarchists and syndicalists, are in favor of 
 the direct way, the direct action, such as bolsheviks and com- 
 munists, then they can also, of course, claim to represent the 
 council idea to the same extent as they uphold the direct method. 
 But it is necessary to remind the "November socialists," wh< 
 before and during the war were for the largest part social pat- 
 riots and who now pose as "the only representatives of the coun- 
 cil system," of the priority of the anarchists and the syndicalists, 
 in order to bridle their imagination a little. The Spanish anarchists 
 have really for decades propagated the council idea, so that it is 
 possible to even point out concrete examples. 
 
 It has also been shown that the soviet or council idea is no\ 
 a newly invented patent of the Russian bolsheviks, but that 11 
 emerged from the Russian revolution and was represented by all 
 
 92 
 
revolutionaries, not only the bolsheviks, but also the left social- 
 revolutionaries, the anarchists, the syndicalists arid the maximal- 
 ists. When the October revolution broke out and the workers 
 elected their councils (in Russian: Soviets), there were elected to 
 the Kronstadt soviet 105 maximalists, 95 bolsheviks, 76 social 
 revolutionaries, and 12 anarchists. But the latter had, according 
 to a statement of the maximalist leader, a great influence. In most 
 cities the workers and the peasants elected Soviets, and the bol- 
 sheviks were by no> means always in the majority. 
 
 Originally the soviet formation was quite spontaneous. 
 Later a system was created out of this sudden movement which 
 then was anchored in the constitution. In Germany the anchoring 
 of the council system in the constitution meant the annihilation 
 of the free councils. But in Germany the bourgeois constitution 
 with Parliament and "Reichstag'; was retained. In Russia the 
 revolutionary workers (not the bolsheviks alone but all the rev- 
 olutionary workers) had the power to dissolve the constituent 
 assembly (by us called the national assembly) and to lay the 
 soviet system, not only as an ornament in the basket of the 
 bourgeois parliamentarian constitution, but made it the sole foun- 
 dation for the building of the whole new state structure. The 
 constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic 
 is, as the name indicates, exclusively a soviet constitution. The 
 decisions providing for a soviet constitution were adopted on 
 July 10, 1918, by an All-Russian Soviet Congress. 
 
 The Russian soviet (council) constitution is so built that in 
 the cities the workers elect a city soviet from their factories, bur- 
 eaus or shops. The Moscow soviet has 400 members, and the pres- 
 ident is Kamenieff. In the country, gouvemement Soviets are 
 elected. These gouvernement Soviets meet every half year in con- 
 gress. In the Samara go>uvernement are 3% million electors, 
 which are represented in the congress by 300 delegates. The All- 
 Russian Soviet Congress consists of representatives of all the city 
 Soviets, who send a representative for each 25,000 electors, and 
 of the representatives of the gouvernement Soviets, who send a 
 representative for each 125,000 of population. These rules will be 
 found in the constitution of the Russian republic, Article 25. This 
 All-Russian Soviet Congress is called in at least twice a year by 
 the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The All-Russian 
 Central Executive Committee is elected by the Afl-Russian Soviet 
 Congress and consists of at most 200 members. This executive 
 committee is the highest authority outside of the congress. It 
 forms the Soviet (Council) of People's Commissars, who may be 
 compared to the cabinet ministers in the capitalist states. There 
 are 18 different People's Commissariats. 
 
 On the functions of the individual commissariats I have 
 already reported here. But whoever wishes to study these matters 
 more in detail will find it in the flood of bolshevik propaganda 
 literature which may be obtained in all languages. 
 
 93 
 
More important it seems to me to point out here what 1 
 have observed in Russia in regard to the functioning of the pres- 
 ent Soviets, which is something one does not find in the bolshevik 
 literature mentioned. Then we must first call your attention to 
 the circumstance that the Soviets have lost a good deal of their 
 independence and freedom through the so-called soviet constitu- 
 tion. The Soviets were mixed up with the state. The Soviets are 
 a revolutionary institution, but the state is and remains, in spite 
 of the most beautiful recitations of the bolshevik about the pro- 
 letarian state, a reactionary institution. It will, therefore, not be 
 surprising that the original council system has also become reac- 
 tionary in the same measure as it was mixed up with the state. 
 That will appear already from the elections. The bolsheviks may 
 assert ever so loudly that it is principally the workers who elect 
 them and that the course of the revolution shows that the work- 
 ers are ever more turning to the bolsheviks, as can be seen from 
 the elections, that the majority in all Soviets consists of bolsheviks. 
 But this changes nothing in the fact that the bolsheviks are in th( 
 majority because they themselves make the majority. 
 
 Without for a moment allowing myself to be intimidated b; 
 the loud outcries of the bolsheviks, who brand everybody making 
 these assertions as a counter-revolutionary, I must mention som< 
 examples. The workers in a Moscow munition factory, the name 
 of which I have forgotten, elected as their representative in th( 
 Moscow soviet the anarchist Gordin. This was in the first months 
 of 1920. The election of Gordin was not recognized by the bol- 
 sheviks, and for this factory new elections were announced. H( 
 was again elected. Because his electors as well as he himself 
 stood fast by the election he was arrested and given two months 
 in prison as a "demagogue/' Such names they have always al 
 hand. But the workers of this factory did not elect any othei 
 soviet member and remained during that legislative period with- 
 out representation in the Moscow soviet. Besides this case the] 
 are many, many cases when the election has been declared 
 and void by the ruling pa\rty. As this is an every-day occur- 
 rence the people no longer get excited about it. As Gordin tol< 
 me his case in the presence of many witnesses, he laughed over il 
 when I found the case amazing. In Samara there is a munitioi 
 factory which at the outbreak of the revolution employed 23,00( 
 workers. These elected members to the Samara soviet. When 
 visited the factory on May 21, 1920, there were only 1,600 peopL 
 working there. A year before the bolsheviks had dissolved th< 
 executive committee of the Workers' and Peasants' Council of th< 
 gouvernement Samara, because they did not have the majority 
 therein. The opposing parties, however, did not want to under- 
 take anything at that moment because the rich peasants were jusl 
 making a counter-revolutionary attempt, and thus the dissolutioi 
 of the executive committee of the soviet was accomplished with- 
 out friction. But in the same year only 1,000 people worked in 
 that factory, because they were out fighting the Czecho-Slovaks 
 
 94 
 
who had taken Kasan and were in the neighborhood of Samara. 
 The bolsheviks did not hold any new elections to replace the city 
 soviet elected while there were 23,000 workers. The reason was 
 that in that soviet the bolsheviks had the majority. Through such 
 illegalities they held the whole gouvernment in check, but it was 
 a representation which did not reflect the real conditions. 
 
 But, apart from these cases, which are not by far exhausted 
 with the above related ones, the bolsheviks have another method 
 of securing the majority in the soviet. The bolsheviks are the 
 ruling state party. The paper is nationalized; the printshops, 
 the houses, in brief, everything belongs to the state and is, there- 
 fore, in the hands of the bolshevik party. Thus, only this party 
 is in a position to carry on an election agitation; what wonder 
 then if they receive the most votes and the most seats. And in 
 spite of all that, it happens that the mensheviks or the left social- 
 revolutionaries receive considerable numbers of votes. 
 
 From all this it is evident that in the Russian Soviet Repub- 
 lic the Soviets only to a small extent are the expression of the 
 free will of the workers and the peasants. A peculiar light is 
 thrown on the government Soviets of Russia by a resolution 
 adopted by the Russian-Ukrainian anarchists of the "Nabat" in 
 their last congress, held in Charkov 3-8 September. It says, among 
 other things, about the relationship to the soviet power: 
 
 "In the beginning of the soviet power we extended to it 
 o>ur great confidence. But after the revolution-born soviet 
 power, in the course of three years, had become a powerful 
 state machine, it has throttled the revolution. It developed 
 into a dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, 
 into a dictatorship of one party, and of a small part 
 of the proletariat over the whole proletariat, over the whole 
 working people, while at the same time this dictatorship 
 throttles the will of the broad working masses. Through this 
 the revolution lost the creative power by which alone it was 
 possible to solve the different problems of the revolution. The 
 soviet power is, therefore, a lesson and a warning to the 
 workers of all countries. This conference proposes to the 
 comrades to boycott the administrations and Soviets which 
 are controlled by the government and to devote all their 
 powers of propaganda to this purpose among the lower strata 
 of the workers. We must start with illegal groups and gather 
 all revolutionary material around us." 
 
 Besides, in the "report over the situation in Russia," we 
 read: 
 
 "At the same time as world imperialism convulsively 
 clings to each opportunity to strangle Soviet Russia, as the 
 home and the source of revolutionary infection, there is tak- 
 ing place in Russia itself a sad decomposition of the revolu- 
 tion. Instead of the united mass of workers which in the 
 October days of 1917 fought in Russia for the conquest of 
 
 95 
 
bread, we now have a division of the working masses into 
 masters and servants, governing and governed, rulers and 
 subjects. The party of the so-called communists, which pos- 
 sesses an unlimited power, forms the centralized soviet gov- 
 ernment with all its central committees, city, district and 
 gouvernement committees, etc. The right of the workers and 
 peasants to elect free councils has become a fiction. From the 
 community soviet up to the Ail-Russian Congress of Soviets, 
 from the congress of the unions to the so;-called free, non- 
 partisan peasant conferences there is nothing free, but every- 
 thing is undermined by the party. A Gigantid system of es- 
 pionage has been established. Under the pretense of a strug- 
 gle with the counter-revolution, the communist party has 
 laid its hand heavily upon the working population through 
 its "Partkom" (party committees which are formed every- 
 where). The press is strangled. There is no free exchange 
 of opinion, either in the street, or in the house, or in the 
 meetings, or on the job. In the street the "Tscheka" (extra 
 ordinary commission) is spying; in the house the "do\mkom' 
 (house committee of the communist party, if a party com 
 munist lives in the house) ; on the job in the factory th( 
 "fabkom" (factory committee of the communist party) . Far 
 far from the lower strata of the workers the "Sovnarkom' 
 (Council of People's Commissars) has formed a strong gov 
 ernment, which rests upon a strong army. The governmen 
 has changed into a body whose interests are opposed to those 
 of the revolution." 
 
 These descriptions of the situation offer extremely valuabl< 
 material for the understanding of the present character of the 
 Soviets. 
 
 From all this we must draw the conclusion that the Soviets 
 and the soviet government are not one and the same thing, bul 
 two different things, of which the first one is the natural expres 
 sion of the revolutionary people, while the second one is the hard 
 frozen forms of a clique that has come into power. As a liberty 
 loving revolutionist one can very well accept the first but must 
 look upon the latter very critically. In view of the circumstance 
 that the bolsheviks and communists always call attention to one 
 side of the soviet power, it is proper for the syndicalists to show 
 up the other side, in order that all workers in the portentous 
 hours which are immediately ahead may be able to draw a lesson 
 therefrom and with Argus eyes guard their own freedom anc 
 their elected Soviets. It would mean putting the garden in charge 
 of the goat if the workers of other countries, after adopting the 
 soviet system, were to see a road to the realization of their 
 economic mid political freedom in a political government 
 Mark that we here only speak of the revolutionary and progress- 
 ive workers and not of the bourgeoisie. Factory councils for the 
 managing of the factories; peasant and agricultural workers' 
 councils for the management of agriculture; community councils 
 
 96 
 
for regulating the affairs of the community; finally, federations 
 of the single unions as well as of the industrial unions; but also 
 federations of the community councils or labor bureaus. These 
 are the organizations of the revolution; but they must never be 
 allowed to converge into a state, for only through the absence 
 of the state is freedom guaranteed, in spite of all well or ill-meant 
 assurances of the bolsheviks about the necessity of state or pro- 
 letarian dictatorship. 
 
 The Red Army 
 
 In the Red Army the Communist Party of Russia had a 
 powerful weapon for maintaining its power. And it continues 
 to be such up to the present day. That the creating of such 
 an army from the wreckage of the czarist armies, after the all- 
 destroying world war, was a notable achievement, shall not be 
 denied here. And whether this army could hold its own against 
 an army of Prussian or French militarism, that will remain an 
 open question. 
 
 What is more important to us here is the character of the 
 Red Army, The Red Army is an army like every other. It can 
 exist and meet with success only by maintaining the strictest war 
 and military morale: discipline, obedience. But that these quali- 
 ties should be especially suitable to the development of men into 
 socialists and communists, is something that no man, if he wants 
 to be honest, can truthfully state. For the maintenance and the 
 efficiency of an army those slave characteristics are of incalculable 
 worth, as they are an integral part of an army. Without using 
 much circumlocution we can make the statement that militarism 
 is the mortal enemy of the freedom of the individual and thus 
 also the greatest enemy of socialist development. Not only is the 
 statement true that "as long as we have armies, so long will there 
 be war," but also the statement that "as long as there is an army, 
 no socialist development can prosper." 
 
 Going out from these idealistic considerations the true social- 
 ist and champion of freedom must also be an anti-militarist. But 
 from historic considerations one may take a different position and 
 consider the Red Ar\my as necessary. 
 
 If Trotsky from an historical standpoint seeks, as a Marxian, 
 to establish the necessity of the Red Army through proofs and 
 arguments, it would, of course, be easy for a representative of the 
 opposite standpoint, if he only has the ability and the skill, to 
 present as many or, perhaps, still more proofs for an opposite 
 standpoint. But this would only be a theoretical, speculative dis- 
 cussion, such as we find in Trotzky's anti-Kautsky book "Terror- 
 ism and Communism." 
 
 Instead of carrying on all this discussion I might point to 
 the fact that in Russia itself not all revolutionaries agree with 
 Trotzky's viewpoint. In the question of defending the revolution 
 
 97 
 
the bolsheviks take the standpoint that without the Red Army 
 the revolution would have been vanquished by the counter-revolu- 
 tion, and that, therefore, the Red Army, as a savior of the revolu- 
 tion, is one of the first revolutionary factors. If it had not been 
 for the Red Army, some reactionary general or a new czar would 
 now be ruling in Russia, that is, in short, the standpoint of the 
 bolsheviks. 
 
 The maximalists, a large part of the syndicalists, the anarch- 
 ists and a part of the left social-revolutionaries take an oppo- 
 site standpoint. Against the first assertion they put another one, 
 namely, that it is not the Red Army which has saved the revolu- 
 tion and beaten down the counter-revolution, but the revolutionary 
 workers and peasants would have defended the revolution even 
 without the Red Army. 
 
 As examples they mention: When general Korniloff marched 
 against Moscow, it was not the Red Army by which he was con- 
 quered. At that time there was not yet a Red Army. It was other 
 parts of the same czarist army with him which turned and foughl 
 him and proved to be the strongest. For the workers and peasants 
 who fought in the czarist army, but against Korniloff, this Kornil- 
 off was a counter-revolutionary, who wanted to force them to con- 
 tinue the war. For that reason it was necessary to fight Korniloff 
 if peace was to come. But this does not speak for the Red Army, 
 which then did not exist, it speaks solely for the urge of liberty 
 among the people. 
 
 According to the viewpoint of the mentioned tendencies the 
 bolsheviks make the conscious mistake that they consider the R< 
 Army equal to an armed uprising of the people. 
 
 Further, the syndicalists and the related tendencies point t<. 
 the fact that it was not the Red Army that drove the Ger- 
 mans and the Austrians out of Ukraine, but the peasants them- 
 selves, the partisans, the leaders, the insurgents. By guerilla war- 
 fare in small partisan groups they chased the Germans away or 
 blocked them in such a manner that finally they were compellec 
 to retreat from the country. 
 
 Nor was Denekin in the first line conquered by the Red Arm\ 
 but by the peasants themselves, who would not stand for his rule, 
 and, principally under Ataman Batkno Machno, they made rebel- 
 lion against Denekin. If the peasants had been for Denekin am 
 not against him, then the Red Army would have never succeedec 
 in conquering Denekin. But at the same time we must not forgel 
 that the peasants in no manner voluntarily formed the Red Army. 
 The peasants got into the Red Army when compelled to, thei 
 being a compulsory military service, just as formerly for th( 
 czar's army. The peasants rather organized their own armies, o1 
 which the strongest one was Machno's, in order to fight against 
 reaction. And as it went ivith Denikin, so it went with Kaledin, 
 Petljura and others. 
 
 In regard to Ukraine the bolsheviks admit this, more or less, 
 
 98 
 
as facts cannot very well be denied. They seek to support their 
 contention with the statement that Koltschak and the Czecho- 
 slovaks have been conquered by the Red Army. The commandant 
 of the later Red Armies against the Czecko-Slovaks, an anarchist 
 by the name of Gebenjeff^ also called Alexa, has told me how the 
 thing happened. When in May, 1918, the Czecko-Slovaks began 
 their advance from Siberia, the workers, anarchists, left social- 
 revolutionaries and bolsheviks, arming themselves, united against 
 the Czecko-Slovaks. They elected Gebenjeff their commander, 
 and they were the shock troops of the reds against the whites. 
 Now the bolsheviks call this the "red army." But attention 
 should be called to the fact that these troops did not yet in any 
 way have the characteristics of the Red Army, namely, compul- 
 sory mobilization, unified centralist command under Trotzky, 
 subordination and blind discipline. Nothing of this nature was 
 to be found among the armed peasants. They had met voluntarily 
 to fight against the reactionaries, and it is this that is the most 
 striking difference between them and the Red Army. And, of 
 course, I have later heard these soldiers of the revolution referred 
 to by bolsheviks as the "Red Army." If this is done, then we can 
 call everything by the name of the Red Army which has the 
 slightest resemblance to armed insurrection. But that would mean 
 gross confusion of expressions. 
 
 In the struggle against Koltschak it was not the Red Army 
 that should have the credit for his annihilation. And here I must 
 take a stand with the revolutionary groups which are opposed to 
 the Red Army, because the facts related to me by high Soviet 
 officials themselves speak for it. The brother of the deceased pres- 
 ident of the Russian Soviet Republic, Sverdloy, the second in 
 command after Trotzky in the Commissariat, having charge of the 
 whole defense, told me during a trip on the Volga, which we made 
 together, that even before the Red Army advanced, the peas- 
 ants and the workers rose in rebellion in all places against Kolt- 
 schak and in many cases conquered his troops. The Red Army 
 entered Tomsk on Dec. 26, 1919. But long before this the peas- 
 ants had rebelled against Koltschak's rule. Many of Koltschak's 
 soldiers joined them, and the city of Tomsk was in the hands of 
 the rebels for a long time before the Red Army entered. As early 
 as the summer of 1918 the peasants had formed guerilla bands 
 against the Czecko-Slovaks and Koltschak. -This was in the prov- 
 inces Atscheisk and Jenniseisk and in the Altei gouvernement. 
 
 The cause of the great rebellions of peasants and workers 
 against Koltschak was his reactionary behavior. Sverdlov, who 
 was in technical charge of the transportation expedition of the 
 Red Army operating against Koltschak, related that terrible epi- 
 demics harrowed Koltschak's troops. Over 80% of them were sick 
 from typhus. The epidemic spread to the people. At Novo Nicol- 
 ajevsk 10,000 bodies were found. Between Omsk and Nicolajevsk 
 15,000 graves were found with crosses. All were victims of 
 typhus. Koltschak himself lived in the midst of these terrors 
 
 99 
 
without caring what happened around him. He had a special train 
 with music and women and led a fast life. His generals shot the 
 revolutionary workers of the factories wherever they could get 
 hold of them. In Tomsk all the factory committees were put in 
 jail. Every one suspected of being a bolshevik or of some 
 other revolutionary color was subjected to a Spanish torture 
 and finally shot. In the year of 1919 Koltschak sent a trainload 
 of dead from Asia to Europe. 
 
 In view of such conduct it is easy to understand that the 
 peasants and workers would rise against Koltschak and fight him. 
 It was, in the first place, the peasants and workers rebelling 
 against this ghastly rule who annihilated Koltschak, and not the 
 Red Army. All that the Red Army had to do, according to 
 Sverdlov's report, was to relieve the peasants and the workers, 
 who, together with the revolting elements of Koltschaks' army, 
 had already conquered the Koltschak officers. Even here it was 
 the federalistically aggregated bands of peasants and workers 
 who performed the greatest work in combatting reaction and not 
 the centralistically organized Red Army, formed through com- 
 pulsory mobilization. 
 
 And even the liberation of Petrograd from the armies of 
 Judenitsch is more the merit of the Petrograd workers, who in 
 the hour of danger went, all united, against the threatening army. 
 As commander of Petrograd, Bill Shatoff, a Russian-American 
 I. W. W. and an anarchist, w,as elected and in the hour of highest 
 danger the workers put Judenitsch to flight, after he had already 
 penetrated into the streets of the Petrograd suburbs. 
 
 Moved by all these instances, all revolutionary socialist ten- 
 dencies in Russia who oppose centralism and in centralism see a 
 reactionary element are against the idea of ,a Red Army. They 
 declare that the Red Army is not a revolutionary but a counter- 
 revolutionary factor, because, with its system of centralism, the 
 obedience of unfree subjects is again introduced into the ranks 
 of revolutionaries and freedom is suppressed. But they are by no 
 means opponents of the armed uprisings of the people. They point 
 to the fact that they always stood in the first ranks of the revolu- 
 tionary fighters and stand there still, and when the bolsheviks 
 say the armed uprising of the revolutionary people and the Red 
 Army with its compulsory mobilization, are the same they declare 
 this to be a conscious falsehood. 
 
 The defeats that the Red Army suffered in Poland gave 
 birth to grave conflicts within the Communist Party itself. At 
 the beginning of the war against Poland I just arrived in Moscow 
 as the first big army show, a parade on Theatralnaja Square, 
 took place. The next day, May 6, 1920, Karl Radek explained 
 to me how greatly important the taking up of General Brussilov 
 was for the Red Army. "When Lloyd George reads about that," 
 Radek said to me, "he, and with him all English government 
 politicians, will say to themselves, that the bolsheviks cannot 
 be so bad, after all, when a man like Brussilov can work 
 
 100 
 
together with them." I was from the beginning not very much 
 edified by this taking up of the old reactionary generals and 
 officers in the Red Army and said this to Radek. With him 
 it was only a case of making a great effect. They took up all 
 the old czarist officers for service in the Red Army. But with 
 them came the old czarist spirit, the spirit of the blackest 
 reaction in the proletarian army, which was to battle for the 
 liberation of the oppressed. The results of this policy soon became 
 apparent. Proletarian unity and leadership slipped ever more 
 into the hands of the bourgeois and feudal elements of the 
 old czarist officers. Former estate owners and bourgeois hold 
 responsible posts in the Red Army and use their position to 
 make their influence felt. Thus the Red Army became more and 
 more an instrument in the hands of these elements. The soldiers 
 of the Red Army have long ago ceased to feel personal respon- 
 sibility for the victories and defeats of the whole army as the 
 case is when compulsory mobilization is taken away. They are 
 a blind will-less tool in the hands of the generals commanding 
 them; they no longer recognize the battle they fight as their 
 own battle. The communists of the Red Army are the only 
 volunteers who still fight with enthusiasm. The evil results of tak- 
 ing up so many old officers, the bolsheviks wanted to counteract 
 by establishing officers' schools for communist workers (and under 
 certain conditions also for non-communists, although this occurs 
 more seldom) in which schools the young communists are 
 trained to become officers. Among these I have found true 
 inspiration, an inspiration for the red war and for the victory 
 of the red army. And, too, there are among- the old officers 
 some converts who have become honest^ inspired : rew)lutipi;.s,ries. 
 To these belongs General Nikolajev, w}i<o. w;as! Changed 'on- -the 
 gallows by Judenitsch in Jamburg because he as an important 
 leader served the Red Army with great devotion. But on the 
 whole these exceptions confirm the rule. 
 
 The bolsheviks themselves now see the untenable situation 
 in the Red Army and gave expression to this fact at their 
 party conference in Moscow in October 1920. Zinoviev said: 
 
 "Comrade Trotzky told us after his return from the 
 front that there he had seen hundreds of comrades who 
 deny themselves everything, who do not eat themselves 
 satisfied. They live on the small rations, and are thereby 
 reduced to skin and bone, and still they work very hard, in 
 order to save the honor of our party at the front. But 
 there is no doubt that alongside of them among the soldiers 
 there is a different stratum. Yes, a whole stratum. No 
 matter how numerojjg this stratum is, it is there. The people 
 conceive of their rights and their duties differently; These 
 are the elements who rob the party of their credit which 
 has been won through heavy sacrifices and the hard work of 
 tens of thousands of our first and intermediate party mem- 
 
 101 
 
bers. Certain communists, who have been mobilized and sent 
 to the front, work and live there in such a manner that 
 they with right can complain." 
 
 I could mention many other instances which have been 
 told me by people, (communists and non-communists) returning 
 from the Polish front, but I had much rather allow only Comrade 
 Zinoviev speak, because he least of any can be suspected of 
 painting it blacker than it is. At all events, the conditions have 
 to carry part of the blame for the defeats on the Polish front. 
 
 Hereby the honest intentions of the communists will in no 
 manner be impugned, but we shall rather demonstrate that the 
 Red Army in itself is no socialist body, as Trotzky falsely 
 designates it, but that it is an army like any other army and 
 can be nothing else, because it cannot disavow its character of 
 militarism. 
 
 And the population realizes that such is the Red Army. 
 Outwardly, for combatting capitalist reaction it cannot have 
 such an effect, and as the instances quoted show us, it has no 
 such effect. As I learnt in the gouvernement of Poltava, after 
 the Poles were driven out of Poltava and Kiev, the Red Army 
 was in the first moment greeted with joy. But this joy did not 
 last long. The peasants were oppressed in the extreme by the 
 Polish troops. They made a rebellion against them, and when the 
 Red Army came, it was received as a liberator. But as the 
 war lasted longer, the Soviet government was compelled to 
 take 'the- grain from : the peasants, in order to be able to feed 
 the army. Ukraine, which they now again held in their hands 
 and, .above "all;-; the -gouvernement of Poltava which ranks among 
 the richest grain- countries of the earth, was very welcome to the 
 exhausted Soviet government, and it demanded the grain from the 
 peasants. For that reason the peasants are now as enraged 
 against the Soviet government as they formerly were against 
 the Poles. 
 
 This is, however, a phenomenon incidental to the war, for 
 even the guerilla bands are compelled to take the grain from the 
 peasants, when they are driven into a region which is strange 
 to them and the peasants refuse them what they need. True, 
 this occurs more seldom with the guerillas, for they are not 
 military idealists, they do not wish to combat world imperialism 
 like the Red Army does and are contented with driving out those 
 who intrude into their own territory. For this reason they are 
 never entirely strange to the region where they are fighting 
 and not compelled to fill their needs by force from the peasants. 
 The peasants, who for a large part themselves participate in 
 the fighting, give it to them most voluntarily. Such is the case 
 with Machno, the Ukrainian guerilla leader. But outside the 
 Red Army there are other military defense organizations of the 
 Russian workers. In Moscow and Petrograd the workers are 
 subject to obligatory military exercises through their membership 
 
 102 
 
in the unions, which is also obligatory. They form a militia 
 which is organized according to districts and mustered according 
 to factories. There you find all categories of workers and arti- 
 sans, even married women and girls, who work in the factories. 
 These organizations prove more efficient, and it was also these 
 that drove Judenitsch from Petrograd. They are not organizations 
 built according to the pattern of the old state armies. And if we 
 really want to accomplish the abolition of the political state, 
 then we must above everything abolish those organizations which 
 have always been the support, yes, the greatest support of the 
 state, namely the centralist armies, and replace them now, and 
 in the so-called period of transition, with workers' defense 
 organizations formed according to districts or industries. Of the 
 two instruments of defense organized by the communists; the Red 
 Army and the defense organization built on the trade unions, 
 the latter are to be preferred, because in them the state principle 
 is already replaced by another principle. It is the one that most 
 indicates progress, and also comes nearer to the abolition of 
 militarism. The workers in the factories are no professional 
 soldiers and form no standing army which must "work" in order 
 to exist. Nevertheless, it is still a militia which also must dis- 
 appear when socialism or communism shall become a reality. 
 Only in the absence of every kind of militarism is liberty for 
 the individual and for the whole society possible. 
 
 Education 
 
 The revolutionary people has not been able to accomplish 
 much yet in the field of education. The economic and political 
 situation has been too pressing and important to give the workers 
 and peasants much time to give special attention to the educa- 
 tional question. Furthermore, education is a thing which cannot 
 be greatly benefited by the collapse of the old state and the 
 erection of a new one. It requires much slow detail work and 
 industrious and loving devotion in order to create that which 
 the people can not obtain by sounding the tocsin of the revolu- 
 tion. Nevertheless, individuals as well as the soviet government 
 have done everything in their power in order to restore the 
 destroyed school system upon an altogether new foundation. 
 
 At the head of the Commissariat of Education is the com- 
 missar Lunats char sky, an intellectual and tolerant man. Ac- 
 cording to what I learned in an interview with his nearest as- 
 sistant and in conversation with himself, the apparatus of the 
 whole school system was destroyed during the war. During the 
 Kerensky period several propositions were advanced, but they 
 never came to the point of realization. When the bolsheviks came 
 into power they found that the old system was entirely unfit for 
 use. But the utmost difficulties stood in the road. Many old 
 teachers sabotaged them. Thus, 70 professors went with Denekin 
 in Odessa, in Ural 67 with Koltschak, because they were political 
 
 103 
 
opponents of the bolsheviks. The Koltschak army did everything 
 in order to hinder the enlightenment of the people ; they destroyed 
 the schools, burnt the school books, and drove the teachers away. 
 During the czarist period the kindergartens were in private 
 hands. When the bolsheviks came into power they nationalized 
 these. A mother is supported for three months after child birth 
 by the state. The child can be sent to a Home for Children, to 
 remain there up to its third year. From the third to the seven- 
 teenth year the children are under the supervision of the Com- 
 missariat of Education and get their maintenance from the 
 schools. At present there are about 3,620 children's homes after 
 the Froebel system for children of 3-6 or 7 years. In these in- 
 stitutions it is principally war orphans that are taken up, and 
 if there is room to spare, proletarian children, and, last of all, 
 children of the bourgeoisie. In Moscow there are about 180 such 
 institutes. In the whole of Russia there are, so far, (1920), 
 204,917 children in these institutes. 
 
 In the 43 gouvernements which are under consideration here, 
 there are 7 million children of school age, so that only an insig- 
 nificant part has so far been taken charge of by the school. Of 
 teachers there are 11,234. Among them are, naturally, all sorts 
 of teachers. In newly established seminaries young people of 17 
 years and up are given instruction from 6 weeks up to 3 years, 
 in order to serve as teachers. 
 
 For specially refractory children separate children's homes 
 have been established. The children are examined in regard to 
 their natural tendencies, and it is also sought to ascertain whethei 
 the child is born with inherited criminal tendencies. If it shows 
 signs of bad tendencies it is put in a bureau of psychic observa- 
 tion. There are also children still in the prisons. But it 
 sought to remove them from the prisons as far as possible. 
 Persons below 17 years of age are counted as children. 
 
 In the public schools one teacher had to instruct 40 childrei 
 in czarist times, but it is now tried to reduce the number to 25, 
 but so far they have not come down any further than 32. The 
 school period was formerly 2-4 years, but now it is desired 
 raise it from 4 to 9 years. 
 
 From 8 to 12 years children shall go to the middle school, 
 where they are given elementary instruction. In regard to the 
 new methods of teaching we were told that in the czarist schools 
 the connection between geography and mathematics on the on< 
 side, and history on the other, was never taught. It is now desired 
 to give the children such an education that they will get a general 
 view of the economic structure of society in the Marxian sense. 
 It is attempted to introduce the intuitive method of instruction 
 on a grand scale. By means of technical apparatus, for instance, 
 a match box, the children shall be taught mathematics, chemistry 
 and physics. In the 43 gouvernements of Soviet Russia there are 
 about 3,600 public elementary schools with 29,000 teachers and 
 
 104 
 
470,000 pupils. But there is a total of 6,801,000 children of 
 school age, so that the largest part of the children do not go 
 to school. This has its cause in several circumstances. 1) There 
 are not sufficient schools. 2) There is not sufficient school equip- 
 ment. 3) Many parents purposely neglect to send their children 
 to school, because many schools are demoralized. Many children 
 are speculating, and are then picked up and sent to institutions 
 for the bringing up of children. 
 
 For children who desire to get a technical education the 
 instruction between 12 and 17 years is more vocational. Those 
 who are gifted and want to train further can go to the university. 
 All instruction is free. The students receive, in addition to food 
 rations and lodgings, a small contribution in money by the state. 
 
 Besides these schools there are technical continuation schools, 
 some of them organized by the Commissariat of Education, and 
 some by the unions. There are also art industrial schools and 
 a "proletkult" where young workers have produced quite splendid 
 work. 
 
 Many private villas and palaces were transformed into 
 Children's Homes. Even in the country I have visited many 
 estate mansions where there are now children's homes. The 
 children feel quite happy there. But there is one short-coming 
 that is noticeable about all this, and that is the lack of equipment. 
 No books, no lead pencils, no writing paper. The war and the 
 blockade are responsible for this. All over, wherever one goes 
 the complaint is heard about the blockade. Bolsheviks and 
 mensheviks, revolutionaries and reactionaries, all of them com- 
 plain of the blockade and wish it lifted. Maybe there are Russian 
 counter-revolutionaries outside of Russia who desire a continua- 
 tion of the blockade, in order to combat the bolsheviks, but in 
 Russia itself all are against the blockade and' long for its discon- 
 tinuance with the greatest impatience. 
 
 The bringing up of man to a free personality is one of the 
 most important tasks for a new society. A growing person must 
 be fitted out with the conquest of science and technique, in order 
 that he may be able to build up a new society. But he must 
 also be fitted out with the positive qualities of a socialist world 
 conception, he must learn that the human and socialist ideal must 
 be transplanted into actual life and that he must realize that in 
 his own person. Education is not only a problem for the young 
 but also for the old. 
 
 According to bolshevik theory, the dictatorship is the period 
 which shall carry the working masses over to socialism or com- 
 munism. This shall be realized by the fact that the conditions 
 of economic and political life under which people live and which, 
 without doubt, exert a great influence on the thoughts and ac- 
 tions of men the Marxians say that this influence is absolute 
 assume other forms, through which men will then experience 
 a change in their actions and will-expressions, a change for the 
 better. 
 
 105 
 
The essential difference between the capitalist and socialist 
 order of society consists in this that in the latter wealth and 
 poverty, mastery and servitude, shall be abolished. In practice 
 the abolition of wealth and poverty means that a few people 
 shall not live very well while others are living very poorly. But 
 we must say that in Russia there are still in existence great 
 differences in the standard of living of the people, and that 
 ruling over people is by no means abolished. Judging from 
 everything one cannot say that in Russia the economic and poli- 
 tical conditions, such as they have been in the last three years, 
 have exerted a particularly favorable or a decisive influence on 
 the bringing up of people to socialism and communism. It has 
 become evident that a revolutionary government, or a prole- 
 tarian-communist state, or a state striving towards communism 
 cannot create the economic and political life forms of freedom 
 and justice, if men do not do it themselves, in each community, 
 in each shop; that the interference of the state, however well- 
 meant it may be, must always appear as forcible dictation from 
 the outside, through which men are prevented from coming 
 nearer their ideal; that each individual must prepare himself, 
 technically and culturally, and that this socialist training is 
 possible not only later, when capitalism shall have been over- 
 thrown, but right now and today, just as socialist propaganda 
 has always been more or less possible, whether openly or secretly. 
 
 It is my sincere wish that each reader of this book may 
 draw this lesson from it. If we want to liberate the world from 
 capitalism and class rule and state, then we must remember that 
 this world emancipation is largely also self -emancipation. 
 
 106 
 
The Revolution in Ukraine 
 
 AT the end of 1919 the bolsheviks for the third time got a firm 
 footing in Ukraine. Ukraine was again declared a Soviet Re- 
 public, and due to the fact that the Ukrainians made a strong 
 demand for independence it was affiliated as an independent 
 Soviet Republic to the central Russian Soviet Republic. 
 
 Originally the Soviet Republic in Central Russia wanted to 
 include the lands of Ukraine in its own domain. But this proved 
 to ,be impossible, due to the strong demand for independence. 
 The opposition between North Russia and South Russia, or 
 Ukraine, dates far back. Ukraine comprises all South Russia. 
 Ukraine has its own culture, its own history, its own language, 
 its own national development. The Russian czars have always 
 striven to put Ukraine, rich in natural resources and the most 
 fertile country in Europe, under their dominion. In this they 
 succeeded. But the Ukrainian population was always rebellious 
 against the ruling tendencies of Great-Russia. Great-Russian 
 rule had for result the hatred and the distrust of the Ukrainian 
 peasants towards the Great-Russians. Therefore it was natural 
 that this old antagonism did not disappear after the outbreak 
 of the revolution; on the contrary, the population took a rather 
 frigid stand towards the Central Russian Council or Soviet Re- 
 public and demanded independence; a free republic independent 
 of the rest of Russia. This demand the bolsheviks had to comply 
 with if they did not want to live in a permanent war with the 
 Ukrainians. 
 
 But even this new Soviet Republic had not sprung from the 
 ranks of the Ukrainians themselves, and it still remains a foreign 
 body for the peasants, and that is one of the many reasons why 
 Ukraine continues to be the child of sorrow of the Russian Soviet 
 Republic, and will long remain so. The president of the Ukrainian 
 Soviet Republic is not an Ukrainian and is not elected by the 
 Ukrainians. He is a Roumanian, and was put in his place by 
 Lenin. His name is Rakovsky. 
 
 The situation in Ukraine as a result of the war and the 
 revolution is so complicated, and will in the next few years be 
 so complicated, that it is necessary to know the history of the 
 development since the outbreak of the war, in order to understand 
 the revolutionary situation. 
 
 The war of Russian czarism was not the Ukrainian peasants' 
 business. They were against the war not only because they had 
 
 107 
 
to send their sons to the war but also because they had to 
 supply the provisions for the army. The dissatisfaction of the 
 peasants increased with the duration of the war, and when the 
 revolution broke out in Central Russia, Ukraine was also soon 
 in flames. But as the Ukrainians were against the Kerensky 
 government, the bolsheviks soon gained the upper hand and at 
 the end of 1917 they were in power in Ukraine. Bui there, was 
 another reason why the bolsheviks found an open ear with the 
 Ukrainian peasants. This was the peace of Brest-Litovsk. The 
 peasants wanted to have peace at any price. The bolsheviks who 
 concluded this peace were preferred to all other parties by the 
 Ukrainian peasants. 
 
 But through this peace the Germans and the Austrians got 
 a free hand in Ukraine. They began their imperialistic policy. 
 Particularly Germany, which through the economic blockade of 
 the allies had been precipitated into a "food crisis, now saw in 
 Ukraine its savior in their hour of need. Ukraine is the land 
 that flows with milk and honey. Europe's largest sugar fac- 
 tories and its largest grain fields are in Ukraine. These great 
 supplies German militarism felt compelled to acquire for its 
 armies which were then fighting on the battlefields of Western 
 Europe. 
 
 General Eichhorn was sent to Ukraine and his armies oc- 
 cupied the country in the beginning of 1918. But in order to 
 hide the foreign rule from the people they put in Skoropadski 
 as hetman over the country. German militarism began to func- 
 tion. They proclaimed that they wanted to "save the land from 
 bolshevism and decay." By the entry of the German and Aus- 
 trian armies the bolsheviks were crowded out of Ukraine. 
 
 Eichhorn received orders from the supreme military com- 
 mand to deliver grain, sugar, etc., to Germany. The peasants 
 also gave up a good deal at the start for payment, but when 
 they could not later buy anything for the money, for lack of 
 industrial products, as the Germans had more important things 
 to do with their war industry than to supply Ukraine with goods, 
 they finally did not want to supply anything. Then the Germans 
 began the requisition policy. The peasants still refused. They 
 were threatened with force, and finally force was used. 
 
 Thus began the peasant insurrections 'against the armies of 
 occupation. Although all this was officially done under the name 
 of Skoropadski, it was clear that the Germans were the origin- 
 ators. Skoropadski's power in the Ukraine rested on German 
 bayonets and machine guns. It was not Ukrainian soldiers but, 
 principally, German and Austrian soldiers which suppressed 
 the peasants. It was these soldiers who executed the death sen- 
 tence over those peasants who offended against the proclamations 
 of the state of war. Military law was declared all over Ukraine, 
 and shooting and hanging was the order o/ the day. The traveler 
 who visits Ukraine today has an opportunity to see many photo- 
 graphs where peasants by the hundreds hang on the gallows, in 
 
 108 
 
front of which stand Austrian officers or Ukrainian and Russian 
 priests. The fury of the Central European soldiery was ,at its 
 height in the summer of 1918. But the exasperation and the 
 despair of the peasants was also at its height. During the rule 
 of Eichhorn-Skoropadski a total of about 80,000 workers and 
 peasants were killed. 
 
 Now the peasants began to rise against their tormentors 
 everywhere. The party of the left social-revolutionaries remained 
 true to their old terrorist traditions and one of their members 
 killed general Eichhorn. 
 
 The death of Eichhorn was a signal for the peasants. The 
 West-European soldiers, brutalized through the war, had learnt 
 murder on a grand scale, and the naturally brutal peasants, 
 without the gloss of European culture, continued this handiwork 
 in still more barbarous forms. They started to arm themselves. 
 Everywhere bands and little troops appeared, in the beginning 
 primitively armed with pitchforks and flails, they started an 
 insurrection, and killed the Austrian and German soldiers where- 
 ever they could get hold of them. 
 
 It is easy to understand that morals have suffered terribly 
 through this. A human life had hardly any value any longer. 
 One no longer negotiated with one's enemy, but beat him to 
 death. The peasants finally succeeded in procuring modern fire 
 arms, but, to begin with, in very small quantities. A revolutionary 
 who lived through this state of affairs gives the following account 
 of the terrible situation, and about the desperate courage of the 
 peasants. 
 
 "The bolsheviks in Moscow complain about the un- 
 communistic spirit of the Ukrainian peasants. They came 
 to the conclusion that such an un-communistic spirit existed 
 from the fact that the peasants revolt against the Soviet 
 republic. They call the peasants "kulaks." Kulak is in Rus- 
 sia the name for the richer peasants who are against the 
 abolition of private property and oppose the introduction 
 of communism. It is said that the peasants band together 
 and fight and kill communists. The people who talk so have 
 not the slightest idea of the events that took place in Uk- 
 raine, to which events the present situation can be traced. 
 "When the peasants under the leadership of the social- 
 revolutionaries, anarchists, maximalists, bolsheviks, etc., 
 fought against the oppression by Skoropadski, the Germans, 
 the Austrians, Kaledin, etc., they were very inadequately 
 supplied with arms. Thus for instance I was in a battle, in 
 which 500 peasants had only 200 rifles. For each rifle there 
 were two cartridges. The enemy was over 1000 strong. 
 The 500 peasants stood in one troop, the 200 who were 
 armed with rifles stood in the front ranks. The numerically 
 superior enemy was very well supplied with the most modern 
 arms. They had machine guns, we had nothing. All knew 
 that the foremost ranks must fall first and that the turn 
 
 109 
 
thereafter would come to the others. And, still, nobody left 
 his place. On the contrary, each man waited until his front 
 man had fallen, in order that he might then take his rifle. 
 
 "Such a blind courage could spring only from extreme 
 despair and from the most mortal hatred, conjured up in 
 the hearts of the peasants through the draconic measures 
 of a most inhuman reaction. 
 
 "Those who lived through such things, and who have seen 
 the butchering of the peasants and their desperate struggle, 
 only they can understand the state of the Ukrainian peasant's 
 soul, and shall find it possible then to understand that the 
 peasants now also combat the bolsheviks and reject the 
 bolshevik theories, which are strange to the peasants. But 
 they will never approve of the tactics of the Central Russian 
 bolsheviks towards the Ukrainian peasants, which show an 
 absolute lack of understanding of the life of the peasants; 
 a lack of understanding which brands all the efforts of the 
 peasants as counter-revolutionary risings of "kulaks" who 
 wish to defend their private property." 
 
 Thus my informant, a Russian who before the war had spent 
 five years in America, ended his story. This man's name is 
 Baron. He is at present one of the most active members of the 
 anarchist federation of Ukraine, which calls itself "Nabat." 
 
 These reports place us to some extent in a position to under- 
 stand the psychology of the Ukrainian peasants. People who 
 have for some time lived in this atmosphere feel as though they 
 were transplanted to a different world when they read column- 
 long articles in humanistic papers on the theory of force and 
 on the use of force, and where force is treated as a problem. 
 For the people of Eastern Europe, particularly of Ukraine, force 
 is no problem, but a fact, a matter of course, a principle of life. 
 It may be admitted that matters have reached this point of 
 development only through the war and the revolution, but force 
 would never have spread to such a great extent, if it had been 
 foreign to the life of the people. Not only in world wars and 
 civil wars, not only in class struggles, or in periods of the social 
 revolution, but also in common every-day life, hostilities, yes, 
 even differences of opinion are settled by primitive people prin- 
 cipally through resort to the law of might. How can one wonder, 
 then, that under such conditions as existed in Ukraine, force 
 was made the all-powerful principle and the deciding factor, 
 which took the place of every kind of justice, agreement or nego^- 
 tiation. 
 
 Not only for the non-partisan peasants, but also for the 
 political parties and organizations, force is the most important 
 means in their struggle. Thus the anarchists and maximalists 
 of Ukraine are daily and hourly facing the alternative whether 
 to use force or to succumb in the struggle against counter-revolu- 
 tionary generals, as well as against the bolsheviks. It has even 
 
 110 
 
gone so far that it has been spoken of in anarchist circles to 
 conduct the struggle against the bolsheviks by means of terror- 
 ism, if the persecutions do not cease. 
 
 Machno 
 
 At the time when the peasants in all parts of Ukraine rose 
 against Skoropadski, and against the Germans and the Austrians, 
 there was one man who particularly distinguished himself among 
 the leaders. This man later became famous and is still a hard 
 nut to crack for the bolsheviks, a nut on which they time and 
 again break off their teeth. This man is Machno. 
 
 The reason why the name Machno has acquired such an 
 importance in Ukraine lies less in the prominence of Machno's 
 personality than in the spirit of the Ukrainian peasants which 
 is personified and symbolized in Machno. 
 
 Platon Machno was born in the village of Gulai-Pole in the 
 gouvernement Alexandrovs. As a young man he came into the 
 socialist movement. He was a partner publisher of the paper 
 "Euro Vjestnik." Not yet 20 years old he shot a "Pristov," a 
 member of the Russian czarist secret police. He was condemned 
 to death, pardoned to penal servitude for life and banished to 
 Siberia. The revolution of 1917 released him. He was over ten 
 years in exile. Through the sufferings and hardships of prison 
 life he became consumptive. He is a small man, suffering in the 
 highest degree and often afflicted by violent hemorrhages which 
 overwhelm him while walking or speaking. By extraction and 
 in his habits of life he is a peasant. He calls himself an anar- 
 chist, but is more of an Ukrainian peasant than a theoretical 
 anarchist. And it is this that connects him with the peasants 
 and makes him so popular and loved among them. 
 
 But if Machno has his Ukrainian peasant extraction in com- 
 mon with the peasants, the latter have anarchism in common 
 with Machno. The Ukrainian peasants are attached to the Machno 
 brand of anarchism with the strongest ties. Machno is, properly 
 speaking, nothing but the theoretical expression of this peasant 
 anarchism. The anarchism of the Ukrainian peasants is not 
 built on the theories of a Goodwin, a Proudhon or a Kropotkin, 
 but the fact of the matter is that parts of the anarchist theories 
 find expression in the tendencies and manifestations of the 
 Ukrainian peasants. 
 
 The anarchist theories contain negative and positive parts. 
 The negative parts are antimilitarism, decentralization and the 
 negation of the state. The positive parts are the connection of 
 the independent free communes into federative units, federalism, 
 respect for the free personality in the necessary unification on 
 the economic and political field. 
 
 The efforts of the Ukrainian peasants are covered by the 
 negative parts of anarchism. The peasants do not want to re- 
 
 111 
 
cognize any government. Theoretically expressed we could say 
 that they deny the state. They combat the functions of the 
 state: they do not want to become soldiers, they hate and abhor 
 officialdom and bureaucracy, do not want to pay any taxes, in 
 short, they take a hostile stand towards all the functions of 
 the state. They are anti-militarists when up against the mili- 
 tarism of the state, but they defend their own freedom with all 
 means. But even if the negative parts of anarchism are the most 
 prominent parts of the anarchism of the Ukrainian peasant move- 
 ment ,this movement is not purely negative as a movement. The 
 peasants are not theoretical but rather sentimental anarchists. 
 They have also showed, on different occasions, that they are 
 capable of regulating their affairs in consonance with their 
 libertarian tendencies, and even in the sense of communism. 
 
 If we now ask ourselves wherefrom these comparatively 
 strong anarchist tendencies of the Ukrainian peasantry come, 
 we can say that, besides the natural desire for liberty, the con- 
 ditions of the last years of revolution and war have exerted a 
 strong influence. Who will not be able to understand that a 
 people will hate all political governments when in the course of 
 six years it has had thirteen different governments, ias the case was 
 in some gouvernements, such as Kievsk, Poltava and Berdiansk. 
 But these governments were all war governments and must, 
 consequently, show themselves from the worst side. They re- 
 quisitioned grain, horses, etc., from the peasants, in short, the 
 peasants were for the governments only the means of carrying 
 on the war. 
 
 In regard to the theories of anarchism the revolutionary 
 movement of the peasants has only parts of anarchism in it. But 
 this movement is not identical with the anarchist movement of 
 Ukraine. Although the bolsheviks label the whole peasant move- 
 ment, (which under Machno causes them so many difficulties) 
 sometimes as anarchistic and sometimes as a common bandit 
 movement, the anarchists in no manner identify themselves with 
 the Machno peasant movement. And still a large part of the 
 anarchists of Ukraine join the Machno peasant movement, in 
 order to work for their ideas. And while they, for the reasons 
 above mentioned, and because of the related character of this 
 movement, found a good field for their ideas and made great 
 progress in these circles, the whole Machno movement was by 
 outsiders designated as an anarchist movement. 
 
 When Machno came from the prison in Siberia, he first 
 stopped in Moscow. The rumors of the peasant massacres 
 penetrated to Moscow and he went to Ukraine, and to his home 
 place Gulai-Pole. 
 
 The following description of the development of the Machno 
 movement comes not alone from his most intimate friends, his 
 aids and comrades, but also from the bolsheviks, who formerly 
 served him as soldiers but who later entered the Red Army and 
 fought against Machno. 
 
 112 
 
Machno organized the peasants against the Germans and 
 against Skoropadski-Warta. There were in Gulai-Pole, a village 
 of about 30,000 inhabitants, seven men who were good rebels. 
 Among them were Machno, Tschubenko and Gribelenko. They had 
 some rifles and took in the first day 80 Skoropadski soldiers pris- 
 oners. Besides they took rifles and collected money for a fighting 
 fund, and for the first 3,000 rubles they bought a machine gun. 
 some bombs and one revolver. Machno is a splendid, fiery orator 
 and understood how to inspire the peasants to fight. Through his 
 successes he became famous among the peasants and was soon 
 known in the whole gouvernement and later in all Ukraine. From 
 all sides the peasants gathered round him and wanted to serve 
 under his flag. His power became stronger from day to day, and 
 towards the end of the year 1918 he had an army of 50,000 or, 
 according to some reports, 70,000 men. 
 
 Towards all other generals and adventurers the peasants 
 stood skeptical. But not to Machno. The peasants loved Machno, 
 and for him they voluntarily gave everything that the Germans 
 and Skoropadski as well as all other counter-revolutionary 
 generals could not get from them. Thus Machno was able to 
 send 30 wagon loads of foodstuffs to Moscow in December, 1918. 
 The Moscow paper of the bolsheviks, the "Isvestija" then wrote 
 very approvingly of Machno. Machno's army at that time held a 
 front of over 300 kilometers (about 186 miles). 
 
 The Germans and the Austrians, as well as Skoropadski, 
 wdre thus driven from the Ukraine by the peasants, principally 
 under Machno. It was, consequently, not the Red Army, which 
 came into existence only later, but the peasants themselves who 
 cleaned out Ukraine. This is a historic fact of great importance. 
 It shows us that well organized and great modern armies were 
 conquered by peasants and peasant generals who had no mili- 
 tary training whatsoever. Here we see repeated what we be- 
 fore have seen in history; the French peasants, after the revolu- 
 tion of 1789, threw back the invasion of the Prussians and the 
 Austrians. In Russia we have still more instances of this pheno- 
 menon. Such historic experiences from the French, Mexican, 
 Russian and Ukrainian revolutions compress themselves into a 
 lesson which can be of great use to us for the future. 
 
 But the counter-revolution was not settled through the ex- 
 pulsion of the Germans, Austrians and the Skoropadskis from, the 
 Ukraine, Not for a moment. France and England as well as 
 Roumania, who thereby got the danger of revolution directly in 
 their neck, were not at all suited by the fact that in Ukraine, 
 it was the peasants, the anarchists and bolsheviks who ruled. 
 The aim of the entente was, and is up to the present time, to 
 break down Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine. They provoked 
 and supported counter-revolution. They financed the old czarist 
 generals Petljura, Kaledin, Grigorjev, Denekin, and Wrangel and 
 encouraged them to reactionary advances. As Germany was van- 
 quished, the conquerors of Germany took over the role of watch- 
 
 113 
 
dogs for the reaction, formerly played by Germany in Europe. 
 Germany throttled with iron fist the revolution in Finland through 
 general Goltz. The entente tried to do the same in the Ukraine 
 through the old czarist officers. 
 
 From Podolia and from the East Galician frontier came 
 Petljura, from the region of Don came Kaledin, and later Denekin 
 took possession of the Don basin. Besides, a former czarist 
 general, Grigorjev, gathered dissatisfied peasants around him, 
 and he succeeded in drawing to himself great numbers under 
 pretense that he brought the peasants freedom. 
 
 The bolsheviks in Moscow saw the danger which threatened 
 them from Ukraine. It was clear that the counter-revolution 
 which raised its head in such manifold shapes, would not con- 
 tent itself with Ukraine but would extend further into Central 
 Russia. In fact, Denekin later came far outside of Ukraine. He 
 occupied Orel and stood before Tula, the last strategically im- 
 portant point before Moscow. But now the aim of the Soviet 
 government was to overthrow all other powers in Central Rus- 
 sia and establish one single soviet power of the Communist Party. 
 The peasant movement under Machno stood in the road of this 
 policy. Economically they were dependent upon Ukraine. Cen- 
 tral and North Russia needed Ukraine's grain and sugar. Cen- 
 tral and North Russia is higher developed industrially than Uk- 
 raine, but through the war and the revolution it was so im- 
 poverished that they were not capable of entering into purely 
 economic exchange with an independent Ukraine but had to 
 amalgamate politically with that country. Besides, it would not do 
 to allow Machno to become too strong, for just as well as 
 Denekin the Machno movement could crowd over into Central 
 Russia, and that had to be prevented. The position of the bol- 
 sheviks regarding the situation in the Ukraine was also very 
 vacillating. The reaction had to be beaten down. This could 
 not be done without the Ukrainian peasants and workers. But 
 these stood suspicious towards the bolsheviks, although they went 
 together with them in breaking down reaction. The bolsheviks 
 needed the peasants but sought to become masters of their 
 separatist libertarian movement. Denekin they could openly com- 
 bat with the Red Army. He was a reactionary and the peasants 
 and the workers were also against him. But the Red Army was 
 not strong enough to quash Denekin. For that purpose they 
 needed the peasants and Machno. At the outset, about the end 
 of 1918 and the early part of 1919, the reactionary wave of the 
 czarist generals was not yet so dangerous and not so powerful. 
 The power of the peasants was stronger. But it was not pos- 
 sible to fight them openly without coming to a complete rupture 
 with them, for they needed the peasants badly, in the first 
 place for providing food stuffs, and in the second place to help 
 the Red Army against the counter-revolution. 
 
 The bolshevik plans were that the peasant army of 50,000 
 to 70,000 men should be kept in Ukraine and, as far as possible, 
 
 114 
 
held in inactivity. This could be accomplished quite painlessly. 
 The lack of arms and ammunition, which already in the begin- 
 ning of the risings developed such tragic effects, made itself 
 again noticeable. That was one of the weakest points of the 
 peasant army. This the bolsheviks knew. Machno asked the 
 Soviet government for arms and ammunition. He turned to 
 Debenko, the highest commander of the Red Army of Crimea. 
 Debenko delayed the munitions shipment and gave him first in 
 February, 1919, a single wagon load of cartridges. 
 
 In order to discuss the situation Machno called a conference 
 of the peasants, which took place in Machno's birthplace, Gulai- 
 Pole. This was a conference of revolting peasants. They are in 
 Ukraine called "Povstanzi." These povstanzi are guerilla soldiers, 
 rebellious peasants who fight in armed groups. The anarchists, 
 left social-revolutionaries and maximalists, in a resolution con- 
 demned the conduct of the bolsheviks. But the peasants still had 
 confidence in the bolsheviks and demanded the striking out of 
 those paragraphs of the resolution which were directed against 
 them. Still, the situation did not improve. The munition ship- 
 ments became smaller and smaller. The leaders of the Machno 
 army called a second conference in Gulai-Pole about the end of 
 March. This conference was dissolved by the bolsheviks. 
 
 The bolsheviks now sent the anarchist Roschtschin-Grossman, 
 professor of philology and philosophy at the Moscow University, 
 to Machno, in order to prevail upon him to join with the Red 
 Army. Machno was to remain supreme commander of his army 
 but place his force under the supreme commander of the Red 
 Army, Trotzky. Machno, who was embittered by the conduct of 
 the bolsheviks refused this on the ground that he did not want 
 to work under those whose desire was to conquer power. And 
 no change could be made in this position of his by the bolsheviks 
 sending him a wagon load of paper. 
 
 From that moment began the war between the bolsheviks 
 and the Machno warriors. That it had to come to an open break 
 between these two powers, lay in the very nature of these two 
 armies. Here were two hostile principles which stood against 
 one another. The principle of an army which was formed through 
 compulsory mobilization and naturally stood on centralistic 
 ground, and on the other side peasants who' had sprung together 
 voluntarily, guerilla bands which were held together only for 
 the moment through the hour of danger and through common 
 suffering. With the former, iron discipline was a matter of fact; 
 with the latter enforced discipline was a matter of taste. Machno, 
 as the leader of the rebellious peasants, could never submit to 
 the superior command of a high army commander. Even if he 
 had personally desired to do so, the very nature of the army he 
 commanded would not have permitted it. To demand this bears 
 witness of complete ignorance of the essential difference between 
 these two bodies. The Red Army is militarism; the Machno army 
 consisted of rebellious peasants, militants, but not military. 
 
 115 
 
It is, therefore, absolutely false and unjust to brand Machno as 
 a bandit and a traitor, as the bolsheviks did. Only the defenders 
 of Roman law can designate rebellious peasants as bandits, but 
 the bolsheviks who themselves are revolutionaries have no right 
 to do so. 
 
 Not only in principle, but also as a matter of tactics, was 
 it impossible for the Machno army to co-operate with the Red 
 Army, at least for any length of time. The Machno army which 
 consists of revolting peasants, is no army in the military sense 
 of the word. When the work in the fields begins, then the 
 peasants go to tend to that work, and when the harvest begins 
 they go out harvesting. Machno's army is, thus, anything but 
 stable, and its strength varies extremely, according to circum- 
 stances and seasons. Also the mode of fighting used by this army 
 is fundamentally different from the methods used by the Red 
 Army, drilled around the barracks. The rebellious peasants 
 principally carried on a guerilla warfare. However successful 
 a guerilla war may be, still it can never be the tactics used by 
 a centralistically organized, militaristic national army. It is and 
 remains the tactics of insurgents in a revolution, no more and 
 no less. 
 
 Although the Red Army of Trotzky and the peasant army 
 of Machno, due to their nature, stood completely strange to one 
 another, still they struggled on a common platform and, for the 
 time being had a common aim. It was therefore clear that 
 Trotzky should want to make use of this considerable power of 
 the peasants. But the impossibility of getting rid of Denekin 
 without Machno made Trotzky blind to the unbridgeable cleft 
 which existed between him and Machno. 
 
 Trotzky was really in an extremely difficult situation. The 
 Red Army stood in the North, Denekin in the South, and Machno 
 with his army was in the middle between the two. Trotzky was 
 compelled to force Machno to recognize his superior command, 
 in order to be able to conduct uniform operations, that could 
 have given the victory to the Red Army, which was not any too 
 strong. This could be done only with the aid of Machno. But 
 from the above mentioned causes of fundamental nature it was 
 impossible for Machno to recognize Trotzky's supremacy. And 
 Machno himself was in a very critical situation, between two 
 fires. Munitions he had none. Trotzky wanted to give him 
 munitions only if he completely accepted all the conditions of 
 the Red Army. This was impossible for Machno. Then Trotzky 
 conceived the idea of annihilating Machno. 
 
 Machno needed 5 million cartridges. He had then about 
 50,000 men. According to Riefkin, the leader of the maximalists, 
 even 70,000 men. They sent him only half a million cartridges, and 
 instead of 5,000 rifles, only 300. They prolonged the negotiations, 
 in order to gain time, and thereby 3 to 4 days were lost. In 
 the meantime Denekin kept advancing. Machno had no muni- 
 tions and had to retreat under terrible losses. Through the pres- 
 
 116 
 
sure the Red Army also was compelled to draw back. Machno's 
 war committee wished to call a peasant conference, in order 
 that they might take counsel in the situation. Even the second 
 conference in Gulai-Pole was dissolved by the bolsheviks. One 
 must not think that there were unified, distinctly marked fronts, 
 but one front ran into the other. Thus it came that a part of 
 the riding messengers, who were to announce the conference to 
 the peasants in the villages, were picked up and arrested in the 
 region where the Red Army had a firm footing. The conference 
 thus came to naught, and seven of these messengers were shot 
 in Charkov as members of the revolutionary war committee. 
 
 Trotzky was in Charkov and spoke on April 29, 1919 in a 
 meeting against Machno. He called Machno a bandit and a 
 robber and said that it would be better if the white guards took 
 possession of Ukraine than to have it in the hands of Machno. 
 For when the whites have come back, the peasants will call the 
 bolsheviks back. But if Machno remains in power, then the 
 middle peasants will retain the upper hand. 
 
 On the ground of these theories the bolsheviks decided to 
 open the front at Josufka. At this place the Red Army was 
 directly facing Denekin. The result was that Denekin's armies 
 attacked Machno' in the back. Machno, without munitions, at- 
 tacked in the front as well as from the rear, had to retreat, but 
 was completely defeated and lost the largest part of his army. 
 With a few thousand men he succeeded in saving himself by 
 fleeing. He retreated to the Dnieper region in the Southwest. 
 
 But on this account the Red Army was also forced to retreat, 
 and Denekin advanced still further. He took Charkov, penetrated 
 into Central Russia, took Kursk and Orel, and even got as far as 
 Tula. 
 
 The bolsheviks said that Machno had committed treason and 
 they declared him outlawed. He was placed outside the law. His 
 brother was discovered in a hospital, was taken for Machno and 
 murdered. Machno', who was accused of treason against the 
 Red Army, should have thus acted to the advantage of Denekin! 
 
 These were the hardest days, not so much for Machno as 
 for the Red Army. The peasants again gathered around him. 
 Gulai-Pole and the capitals Jekaterinoslav, Mariopol and Poltava 
 fell into Machno's hands. 
 
 This was in the late summer and the fall of 1919. Machno 
 became a danger to Denekin. Denekin's main army stood already 
 in Russia; his rear guard was still in Ukraine. Machno cut the 
 rear guard off from the main army and bound Denekin's trans- 
 ports of munitions and provisions up tightly in the South. 
 Denekin was thus forced to retreat and the Red Army took to 
 the offensive. Most experts and participants in these struggles 
 were of the firm conviction that Denekin then would have come 
 to Moscow had Machno not frustrated his plans. 
 
 Through this decisive blow in a critical situation Machno 
 
 117 
 
again found favor with the bolsheviks. The sentence hanging over 
 his head was revoked, and he was no longer labeled a ''counter- 
 revolutionary." 
 
 While the Red Army was pressed back by Denekin's vic- 
 torious army, a new, reactionary czarist general made his ap- 
 pearance in Ukraine: Grigorjev. He fought against the bolshe- 
 viks and promised the peasants freedom and the soviet system, 
 and he succeeded in gathering quite a large following. 
 
 Machno desired to know whose spiritual child Grigorjev was. 
 He began negotiating with him. At one of these negotiations 
 Machno killed him after he had learnt that Grigorjev was a 
 reactionary. This also was counted in his favor by the bolsheviks. 
 
 Between October 30 and November 1, 1919, Jekaterinoslav 
 fell from Denekin's into Machno's hands. As Denekin's main 
 army, on account of Machno's exploits, was then compelled to 
 retreat, it came from Central Russia down into Ukraine. What 
 formerly had happened to Machno, now happened to Denekin: 
 he had no ammunition. Machno held Jekaterinoslav for a month. 
 During this whole month, parts of the Denekin army stood only 
 10 versts from Jekaterinoslav on the other side of the Dnieper. 
 Machno could not get over, but neither could Denekin. He 
 bombarded the city but could not take it. Both of them, Machno 
 and Denekin, bombarded the bridge across Dnieper, in order to 
 prevent the other from coming over. In December Denekin's 
 North army, driven back by the Red Army, advanced upon 
 Jekaterinoslav from the North side. 
 
 Machno was thus forced to turn back and retreat to Alex- 
 androvsk. In the meantime Denekin retreated still further, and 
 the Red Army followed upon his heels. On January 10 and 11 
 the Red Army also arrived at Alexandrovsk. Trotzky now 
 demanded that the peasants under Machno disarm. This they 
 refused to do. It came again to conflicts, and Machno was once 
 more outlawed. Part of his people were disarmed. He himself 
 drew back his troops in the night and fled. From that time his 
 power weakened. At the time the agricultural work had to be 
 performed, in the spring and the summer of 1920, he did not 
 have more than a few thousand men. The bolsheviks became 
 more powerful in Ukraine and pursued him. He retreated to 
 the woods and kept himself between Poltava, Berdiansk and 
 Alexandrovsk. 
 
 The entente, particularly France, saw itself deceived in the 
 hopes it had placed on the Denekin undertaking. But France 
 did not yet surrender its hopes of \making Ukraine the starting 
 point for its attack upon the bolsheviks. It looked around 
 for other hirelings and found one in Baron Wrangel, "the white 
 baron," as he is called in Ukraine and in Russia. 
 
 Through French support Wrangel became stronger. Espe- 
 cially after the war that broke out between Russia and Poland, 
 Russia was compelled to concentrate its power against Poland 
 and could not occupy itself very much with Ukraine. The defeats 
 
 118 
 
of the Red Army on the Polish front weakened the position of 
 the bolsheviks in the Ukraine also. About the end of September 
 the danger of the advance of the Polish army was so great that 
 the bolsheviks again evacuated Kiev. Wrangel threatened the 
 Don basin. Ukraine was not unlike a boiling kettle. Everywhere 
 the peasants congregated and formed bands. These bands fought 
 against the Poles, against the bolsheviks, and also againstt 
 Wrangel. Machno also became stronger again. As a few months 
 before, the bolsheviks had liberated West Ukraine from the Poles, 
 who had taken Kiev and penetrated into the gouvernement of 
 Poltava, the peasants looked upon the bolsheviks as their liberat- 
 ors. To begin with, they got along quite well with the Soviet 
 government. But as the bolsheviks later, through the protraction 
 of the war, were forced to requisition provisions for the Red 
 Army which fought against Poland, the harmony came to an end. 
 The peasants began to fight also against the bolsheviks, as before 
 against the Poles. They became dissatisfied and rebelled, and, 
 naturally, Machno was again their man. 
 
 Machno operated once more against Wrangel. But the bol- 
 sheviks wrote that he co-operated with Wrangel. The fact was 
 that the peasants fought against both Wrangel and the bolsheviks. 
 The bolsheviks, in their turn, fought against Wrangel and Machno, 
 but did not meet with any success. The peasants, including those 
 who fought under Machno' s banner, fought against all foreign 
 troops that entered their territory. It was immaterial to them 
 whether it was the Poles, Wrangel or bolsheviks. If they only 
 succeeded in driving away the enemy they were satisfied. They 
 were not strategists sufficiently to take advantage of their suc- 
 cesses. They did not pursue the beaten foe. They were satisfied 
 when he had left their territory. In this respect the peasants are 
 no imperialists, who wish to conquer other domains, but neither 
 are they idealists who, for higher purposes or for the sake of an 
 ideal, pursue the counter-revolution. In their innermost soul they 
 are conservative and do not want to be annoyed or disturbed 
 from the outside. But if this happens, then they rise and start 
 a rebellion, slay their oppressor, and return to< their work in the 
 fields. That is all. 
 
 About this time Machno sent a note to the President of the 
 Soviet Republic of the Ukraine in which he laid claim to the 
 gouvernements of Jekaterinoslav and Cherson for himself and 
 his followers, in order that the peasants might organize then> 
 selves as they desired. Besides he demanded the release of his 
 friends from prison. To this note Rakovsky did not give any 
 answer. But the bolsheviks spread the information: Machno 
 works together with Wrangel. 
 
 About the end of September, 1920, Machno's forces became 
 considerably stronger. At this time the position of the bolsheviks 
 on the political front was most critical. Machno succeeded in 
 carrying out some favorable operations against Wrangel. He took 
 possession of Gulai-Pole, his native city, and soon also occupied 
 
 119 
 
Mariopol and Alexandroysk. The Soviet government, which only 
 shortly before wrote in its papers that Machno co-operated with 
 Wrangel, was compelled to report that Machno "now" again 
 was operating against Wrangel. Machno again sent a note to 
 the Soviet government, in which he once more demanded the 
 freedom of Wollin and the rest of his friends. As Machno this 
 time had power behind his words, the bolsheviks were compelled 
 to give in. On Friday, October 1, 1920, Machno's friends, the 
 theoretical anarchist W. M. Eichenbaum (Wollin), and Machno's 
 aids, Tschubenko and Gabrilenko, were released from prison, 
 where they had up to that time been held as hostages for Machno. 
 Both the first mentioned were in the Butirky prison in Moscow, 
 the latter in the prison of Charkov. At the same time Machno, 
 who had been outlawed since January 13, 1920, was pardoned. 
 But on October 2 and 3, 1920, there appeared in the Moscow 
 "Isyestija" a report that the Red Army was making progress 
 against Wrangel. From Mariopol and Alexandrovsk, Wrangel had 
 been driven away. Further it also said that Machno again had 
 united with the Red Army. Those on the inside had to laugh 
 over this ridiculous and absolutely unnecessary disfigurement of 
 the truth. The truth was, as appears from the "Isvestija" itself, 
 that it was Machno who defeated Wrangel! But we must admit 
 that, as Machno, after his demands had been conceded to, declared 
 himself prepared to fight with the Red Army against Wrangel, 
 they had some reason for declaring Machno as part of the 
 operating Red Army, and so they did, through their announce- 
 ment that "the Red Army had taken Mariopol, Gulai-Pole and 
 Alexandrovsk." ! ! 
 
 In the middle of November, 1920, Wrangel was almost 
 completely beaten. It could be foreseen that the Red Army, which 
 through the peace with Poland in Riga, had become free, would 
 throw itself upon Wrangel and crush him. But the beginning of 
 the end for Wrangel should be credited to Machno. 
 
 In consideration of this state of affairs it was a signal lack 
 of good taste for the bolshevik papers, who should not have 
 fought against other revolutionaries, that they, nevertheless, did 
 that. How wrong they had been, they themselves saw some time 
 later. Thus one of their papers which is published in English 
 at Moscow ("Russian Press Review," edition of October 29, 1920) 
 says, in an article under the heading "Machno and Wrangel," 
 as follows: 
 
 "The War Commissariat has published the following 
 correction: The French press has, as is probably known, 
 written a good deal about Machno joining Wrangel. The 
 Soviet press, in its turn, has also published documents which 
 have shown that a formal alliance existed between Wrangel 
 and Machno. But it has now been ascertained that this 
 information was not correct. Without doubt, Machno has 
 de facto helped Wrangel as well as the Polish army, by 
 fighting against the Red Army. But a formal alliance has not 
 
 120 
 
existed between them. All documents published about a 
 formal alliance between Machno and Wrangel were forged 
 by Wrangel. A bandit chief from the Crimea, who called 
 himself chief Voldin, who was under the command of 
 Machno, received his instructions from the Wrangel staff. 
 But in reality there was no connection between them. The 
 whole forgery was undertaken by Wrangel, in order to 
 deceive the French and other imperialists. 
 
 "For some weeks Wrangel was really trying to get into 
 contact with the Machno forces and sent two delegates to 
 Machno's headquarters, in order to begin negotiations. But 
 the Machno' troops showed that they did not want to have 
 anything to do with Wrangel, that they saw their error in 
 fighting against the Soviet army by the fact that Wrangel 
 wanted to get in contact with them. And united with the 
 Soviet army of the South and jointly fought against Wrangel. 
 Soon thereafter they proposed to the commander of the army 
 of the South to undertake common action against Wrangel. 
 This proposition was accepted under certain conditions. At 
 the present time Machno is carrying on his operations of war 
 under the direct supervision and orders of the commander of 
 the army of the South, Comrade Frunze." 
 
 This document shows conclusively that all reports, stating 
 that Machno fought on the side of Wrangel, were false. The 
 bolsheviks excuse themselves by saying that they learnt only later 
 that these documents were forged. In the first place it is quite 
 peculiar that they had not found out sooner, as they otherwise 
 do not put any faith in the capitalist press, but on the contrary 
 always emphasize their lying tendencies. Second, one would think 
 that the bolsheviks would not first go to foreign countries like 
 France, to> get the news of what takes place in their own land. 
 Because the French press wrote so and so (the French knew, 
 consequently, better what took place in Russia) the bolshevik 
 press took it up as the truth. But as the bolsheviks are not as 
 naive as all that, there is good cause for asserting that it was 
 not lack of correct information but evil intention that put the 
 pen in the hand of their paper and their high command, when 
 they spoke of co-operation between Machno and Wrangel. 
 
 In regard to the other statement, which is to be found in the 
 article quoted above, that the Machno forces de facto, (that is, 
 indirectly) had helped Wrangel when they fought against the 
 Red Army, we have also to do with a conscious distortion of the 
 facts, a conscious lie, for it was not the peasants under Machno 
 which fought against the revolution. It was these peasants ivho 
 made the revolution. It was when the centralistic Red Army 
 wanted to rob the peasants of their freedom that the peasants 
 rose against this new rulership also. Thus, it was not Machno 
 who fought against the Red Army but it was the Red Army 
 who wanted to strike down the peasants under Machno who were 
 insurgents. When the peasants then defended themselves by 
 
 121 
 
fighting against the Red Army, it naturally appeared to the 
 uninitiated as if the peasants under Machno fought against the 
 Red Army. 
 
 Although we today stand in the midst of the struggle and 
 dispassionate objectivity does not yet prevail, still, the writer 
 of the history of the revolution in Ukraine will be able to sum up 
 these battles of the peasants and the Red Army from the fol- 
 lowing points of view: The Red Army battled against the capi- 
 talist world imperialism of the entente and against all the Rus- 
 sian czarist generals sent forth by this imperialism, as well as 
 against the smaller states, like Poland, Roumania, etc., which 
 were economically and politically dependent upon the entente. 
 But the Ukrainian peasants fought against all, and even against 
 the Russian Soviet Republic. The word "imperialism" coupled 
 to the word "red" has, of course, only a symbolic meaning. 
 
 It further says in this article that the Machno troops have 
 united with the Red Army. This only means that the peasants 
 prefer the Red Army to the Wrangel army, not, however, that 
 they consider the Red Army the savior of liberty, for they will 
 also fight the Red Army if it tries to circumscribe their liberty. 
 As long as the Soviet government of the bolsheviks does not 
 annoy them, they take no exception to it. But if it demands 
 their subjection, then they fight against it. 
 
 It is quite sure, however, that the bolsheviks, who now co- 
 operate with Machno, will fight him again at their first oppor- 
 tunity and then, perhaps, will annihilate him. But with Machno's 
 person they have not killed the rebellious spirit of the peasants. 
 Of course, it might happen that a general exhaustion of the 
 peasants, a relaxing of the revolutionary tension sets in, and 
 that then the peasant movement comes to an end. Therefore later 
 historians of the revolution could, chronologically, connect these 
 things, but between Machno's person and his eventual separation 
 from the movement, and the revolutionary movement of the 
 peasants on the other side, there is no causal connection. 
 
 In Russia there are strong differences of opinion in regard 
 to the character of the Machno movement. The Russians and 
 the Russian revolutionaries do not allow themselves to be guided 
 by the facts in passing judgment on this movement. Apprecia- 
 tions of this movement are almost altogether colored by pre- 
 conceived theoretical views and opinions. Thus, the bolsheviks 
 condemn the Machno movement, and so do the counter-revolu- 
 tionaries. Both of them see in the peasants who flock around 
 Machno, as well as in himself, only bands and bandits, which must 
 be fought and exterminated, because they stand in the way of any 
 government. The mensheviks, as well as the right social-revolu- 
 tionaries, yes, even part of the left, condemn the base tactics of 
 the bolshevik government in dealing with Machno, but they also 
 turn against Machno, because they are for a unified and central- 
 istic state army and against the Povstanzy. The maximalists, 
 the social revolutionaries of the left, the largest part of the syn- 
 
 122 
 
dicalists and the anarchists defend the Machno movement, be- 
 cause they themselves desire no party rule and combat centralism. 
 Thus one learns, when Machno is under discussion, less truth 
 about Machno than truth about the standpoint of the disputants. 
 An objective opinion of this movement one can only get by doing 
 like the writer of this story, that is, by listening to all opinions 
 in the matter without being a member of any of the Russian 
 parties. 
 
 If we now free ourselves from all party opinions and hold 
 fast to the objective facts of the case, the following historic facts 
 are undeniable. The Machno movement in Ukraine was originally 
 a movement of the peasants against hostile invasion. The re- 
 bellious peasants did not content themselves with fighting against 
 the Germans and Austrians, but in the course of their battle they 
 turned against every government. As in the course of events all 
 governments through the war came into Ukraine from the out- 
 side, the peasants, who in some localities had had 13 govern- 
 ments, conceived of each one of them as a tyranny coming from 
 the outside. 
 
 Their fight is a struggle for their own independence. Whether 
 they are in a position to regulate their own affairs according to 
 libertarian principles, that is a question of the greatest historic 
 significance. But this question cannot be answered, solved or de- 
 cided through the different governments who wished, and still 
 wish, to get a footing in Ukraine. It exclusively depends on the 
 peasants. 
 
 The position of the Russian Soviet Government towards 
 Ukraine and the rebellious peasants is conditioned by the char- 
 acter of the Soviet government in itself. Although the bolshevik 
 party is a revolutionary party, it still is the representative of the 
 Russian state. That it calls that state a proletarian state changes 
 nothing in the fact that they judge everything from the point of 
 view of the interest of this state, and must act in the interest of 
 that state. The maintenance of that state requires a central con- 
 trol of all territory, and the subordination of all groups, unions 
 and organizations under the central body which in Russia is the 
 Council of the Peoples Commissars; in bourgeois democracies the 
 parliaments. The Russian Soviet government must insist on the 
 subordination of the Machno peasant movement if it does not 
 want to sacrifice the fundamental principle of its being. 
 
 As the main thing is the maintenance of that principle, the 
 question as to the means for that end is of a subordinate nature. 
 I submit it to the conviction of each individual to approve of or 
 reject the tactics of the bolsheviks against Machno. The defenders 
 of the state idea cannot in principle reject any means which 
 serve to support and keep up the state. They may reject the 
 special tactics of the bolsheviks but, unless they are anti-state 
 opponents of the bolsheviks, they reject these tactics only be- 
 cause it is the bolsheviks. But they have always proven to do the 
 very same thing when they themselves have the power. Partic- 
 
 123 
 
ularly the defenders of the bourgeois order of society, who pre- 
 cipitated the people of the earth into the valley of sorrow through 
 the war, have no right to condemn the bolsheviks. For they have 
 proven whither their world order leads: to the greatest misery 
 that has ever come over man. 
 
 One of the things which runs against our taste and which 
 is constantly being used by the defenders of the state, not only 
 by the proverbial diplomat but also by all politicians, is lying. 
 As a matter of fact, the bolsheviks can no more get along without 
 this means than the capitalist state can. As an example, the bol- 
 shevik papers write that Gabrilenko, who was taken captive by 
 the bolsheviks and imprisoned in Charkov, as well as Tschubenko, 
 and other Machno men, had said that Machno was a bandit and 
 that they did not want to have anything more to do with him. 
 This was do<ne for the purpose of discrediting Machno with the 
 population. When later, in October 1920, Gabrilenko was let out 
 of prison and heard of this, he was terribly agitated and chal- 
 lenged them rather to kill him, for when he came to Machno, 
 his men would do it anyhow, as they would consider him a traitor. 
 
 A second example. When the bolshevik papers in Ukraine 
 wrote, in July, 1920, that Machno fought against the bolsheviks 
 and worked together with Wrangel, then two Charkov anarchists, 
 Joseph, the Emigrant, and Makrousov went to Rakovsky, presi- 
 dent of the republic, and said that they held this untrue. They 
 asked the permission of the government to send an anarchist 
 delegation to Machno, in order to investigate the case. Rakovsky 
 promised to do so. Makrousov was a brigade commander of the 
 Red Army, and it was his division which drove the Poles out of 
 Kiev. But when Makrousov, whom they respected for his mili- 
 tary achievements (although he was an anarchist) was away, 
 about twenty anarchists were arrested by the extra-ordinary com- 
 mission of Charkov, because it was assumed that the anarchists 
 who wished to go to Machno had connection with him. They were 
 accused of conspiracy. Most of them had to be released for lack 
 of evidence. But one of them, Josef, the Emigrant, was kept in 
 prison. He went on a hunger strike and after eight days was re- 
 leased. 
 
 If it had been as the bolsheviks wrote, they would have had 
 no reason to arrest these people. This proves rather that they 
 feared to be convicted of lying. 
 
 In spite of all these means which the Soviet government 
 used in the struggle against Machno, they did not succeed in dis- 
 crediting Machno before the population. The peasants honor and 
 love Machno as one of their own, and there is hardly another 
 man in all Ukraine who is so* popular as Machno. The peasants 
 gave him the surname Batkno, meaning Little Father. They have 
 woven a wreath of stories about his head and relate the most in- 
 credible tales among themselves about Batkno. Machno is to 
 them not a "Mister" (Gospodin) but their "Little Father" (Bat- 
 kno) . No matter what dangers Batkno throws himself into, he al- 
 
 124 
 
ways comes out of them whole, as by a wonder. Because Machno 
 had such great armies that were always dissolved again, only in 
 order to rise up anew; because he had to flee so often, but al- 
 ways came back again, the peasants said that Batknp could not be 
 defeated. There is a tale that Batkno was in Denekin's camp and 
 in his tent. He was disguised and talked with Denekin. Suddenly 
 he said : "I am Machno," and disappeared. As a sample of Mach- 
 no's tactics it is said that, when he has taken a place, he orders 
 one or several houses vacated and then pretends that he is to live 
 there. When evening comes he goes disguised into some other 
 village and sleeps there without being known. Another tale about 
 Machno is: in some village a small, insignificant peasant (that is 
 how Machno looks) sells a dish of butter. The buyer, who gets 
 the dish also*, can, when he gets home, find the following words 
 on the plate: "He who bought this butter has seen Batkno- 
 Machno." 
 
 Such a figure of story and myth is Machno in the mind 
 of the peasants. For that reason it is plain that the Machno 
 movement finds better response and reception than all the gov- 
 ernment troops coming from the outside. When Machno needs 
 horses, provisions, or rather material of war, the peasants gen- 
 erally give to him voluntarily what others cannot get with force. 
 It needs only to be said that "Batkno needs it," and it is given 
 without question. 
 
 Is is also said that Machno, who as an anarchist rejects 
 every compulsory mobilization, once sent out a call for a volun- 
 tary mobilization. At the end of this call the following words are 
 said to have been added: "Who does not come voluntarily will 
 be shot." Naturally, a peasant movement such as Machno's can- 
 not escape such humorous contradictions. It also happens that the 
 peasants, when the bolsheviks want to mobilize them, declare that 
 they already are mobilized by Machno. Nor is the Machno move- 
 ment free from coarse, brutal and savage traits. Thus, an offi- 
 cer of the Red Army relates that the Machno troops had made 
 an attack upon a railroad train in which traveled a Wrangel dep- 
 utation, of whom some are said to have been Frenchmen. The 
 leader of the delegation is said to have been a very stout gentle- 
 man. The Machno soldiers in the struggle killed the whole delega- 
 tion. But the thick leader they opened up, after he was dead, and 
 then buttoned the coat again. When the leader later was discov- 
 ered, he could not be recognized, because it was a corpulent man 
 they sought. But among the dead were only thin ones. 
 
 For such horrors Machno should not, of course, be held re- 
 sponsible. The peasants are so brutalized through the incessant 
 wars, revolutions and struggles, during which they had to suffer 
 terribly. When, for instance, the Poles staged their entry into 
 the Poltava gouvernement, the peasants looked with avaricious 
 eyes at their well fed horses and decided in advance on how they 
 should be divided when they had chased the Poles away. A noisy 
 quarrel arose in the presence of a Polish officer. When he asked 
 
 125 
 
them what they were fighting about, they answered him bluntly: 
 " About who will own your horse." The logic of the peasants is 
 very simple: We want to live for ourselves and not be disturbed. 
 Who comes "to us and wants to rule over us will be slain and his 
 property will be distributed. 
 
 To have thrown the peasants upon this primitive, savage, 
 uncultivated level, through which the cultural development not 
 only was stopped but set back, that is the work of those who lit 
 the flame of. the world war. The blame for this brutalizing of 
 men falls upon them. 
 
 The conditions under which the Machno army declared itself 
 prepared to fight together with the Red Army against Wrangel 
 were laid down in the form of a pact on October 16, 1920, which 
 was signed by the former Hungarian People's Commissar Bela 
 Kun and by a representative of the Machno army. It reads as 
 follows : 
 
 AGREEMENT. 
 
 in regard to provisional co-operation in the military opera- 
 tions between the Ukrainian Soviet Republic and the revo- 
 lutionary guerilla army of Ukraine, called "Machnovtzi" : 
 
 (1) The revolutionary guerilla army of the Machnovtzi 
 joins the forces of the republican army as a guerilla army, 
 which in its operations is subordinated to the supreme com- 
 mand of the Red Army. But it retains its previous organ- 
 ization, without adopting the principles and the fundament- 
 als of the regular Red Army. 
 
 (2) The revolutionary guerilla army of the Machnovtzi, 
 which is located o<n the territory of the Soviets along or 
 across the front, shall not take up in its ranks such parts of 
 the Red Army as wish to desert to it. 
 
 Note: The parts of the Red Army or the isolated red 
 soldiers who in Wrangel's rear come together with the revo- 
 lutionary guerilla army, shall again unite with the Red Army 
 when they meet with it. 
 
 The guerilla Machnovtzi who are still in Wrangel's rear, 
 as well as the population which in those parts of the country 
 have entered the guerilla army, remain in the ranks of the 
 latter, even if they have before been mobilized by the Red 
 Army. 
 
 (3) The purpose of the argreement between the com- 
 mand of the Red Army and the revolutionary guerilla army 
 "Machnovtzi," is to annihilate the common enemy, the white 
 army. The Machnovtzi declare themselves in agreement with 
 the request of the command of the Red Army to discontinue 
 the hostilities of the population against the Red Army. At 
 
 126 
 
the same time the Soviet Government announces the agree- 
 ments entered into, in order to obtain the greatest possible 
 results in the tasks designated. 
 
 (4) The families of the soldiers of the revolutionary 
 guerilla army "Machnoytzi," who live on the territory of the 
 Soviet republic, are entitled to the same rights as the soldiers 
 of the Red Army and shall receive from the Ukrainian Soviet 
 Government the relief agreed upon. 
 
 AGREEMENTS 
 
 in regard to provisional co-operation in political questions 
 between the Soviet Government of Ukraine and the revolu- 
 tionary guerilla army of the Machnovtzi : 
 
 (1) The immediate liberation of all those persecuted and 
 the discontinuance of all further persecution in the domain 
 of the Soviet Republic against all Machnovtzi and anarchists, 
 with the exception of those who have carried on an armed 
 fight against the Soviet Government. 
 
 (2) Complete free agitation and propaganda in words 
 as well as through the press for all Machnovtzi and anarch- 
 ists and their ideas and principles, with observance of mili- 
 tary censorship in military matters. For the issuing of all 
 anarchist and Machnovtzi publications (books, magazines, 
 papers, etc.), which are recognized by the Soviet Government 
 as revolutionary organizations, the Soviet State places all the 
 technical material at their disposition on the basis of the gen- 
 eral rules which apply to publications. 
 
 (3) Free participation in the election to the Soviets, 
 as well as right for Machnovtzi and anarchists to become 
 members of the Soviets, and besides, free participation in the 
 preparations for the next V. Soviet Congress of Ukraine, 
 which will take place in December, 1920, is guaranteed. 
 
 Accepted by the representatives of both parties to the 
 agreement at the conference on October 16, 1920. 
 
 Signed by 
 
 BELA KUN, 
 POPOFF, 
 
 After these agreements were entered into, it became possible 
 to conquer Wrangel's white armies, due to the co-operation be- 
 tween the Red Army and the Machnovtzi. But after the victory 
 of the Red Army, the Soviet Government broke these agreements 
 and started a merciless battle against the Machno detachment. 
 And all anarchists of Ukraine were again put in prison. 
 
 The Soviet government used the same methods against the 
 anarchists and the Machnovtzi as the German government used 
 
 1C7 
 
at the outbreak of the world war when marching into Belgium; 
 all agreements are nothing but a scrap of paper. This is apt to 
 mean the end of the Machno movement. 
 
 How rapidly the Soviet government forgot its agreement, 
 their conduct toward the Machno people shows. Wollin and Tschu- 
 benko, mentioned abo<ve, who were 9 months in a Moscow prison 
 and released in October, were again arrested in the house of their 
 friend N. Pavlov, Bolschoi Tschernitschevski No. 18. When, on 
 October 24, a membership meeting of the anarchists took place 
 in that house, the Tscheka (Extra-ordinary Commission) broke 
 in and wanted to arrest Tschubenko. But as he could not be found, 
 all of those present about 50 men were taken along, and to-day, 
 January, 1921, some of them are still in prison. But Wollin was 
 arrested on December 1 at a conference of the anarcho-syndical- 
 ists in Charkov the conference was entirely legal and permitted 
 by the Tscheka together with all the other participants, among 
 whom was also the above mentioned Pavlov. 
 
 The forecast I made in regard to Machno's early annihila- 
 tion by the bolsheviks proved to be correct. Fourteen days after 
 I had the manuscript of this book ready, and before it was yet 
 in print, the telegraph brought the information (a Rosta notice) 
 that Machno's troops were being disarmed by the bolsheviks. The 
 Rosta bureau in Stockholm, which has the most direct connection 
 with Russia over Reval, sent out a telegram in these words: 
 
 "Moscow, December 7, 1920 (Rosta). The Soviet comman- 
 der at the Southern front has started a merciless fight on all 
 the robber bands under Machno, which still operate in the 
 Ukraine. The operations have been very successful. The largest 
 part of the Machno detachments are already split up or dis- 
 armed." 
 
 But now the "Rothe Fahne" (Red Flag) of Vienna also 
 prints a news item coming from Christiania, in which it says: 
 
 "In the struggle with Wrangel the Machno troops have, 
 without obeying the orders of the Red Army command, con- 
 tinued to plunder peaceful inhabitants and to irresponsibly 
 take up various robber bands in their army. The revolution- 
 ary War Council of the Southern front has, after the liqui- 
 dation of the Wrangel army, sent out an order to change the 
 Machno troops into common disciplined parts of the Red 
 Army. The order was caused by the fact that the Machno 
 troops had undertaken regular plunderings of cities and vil- 
 lages, plundering not only the population but the store of 
 ammunition, and had attacked red soldiers, in order to get 
 hold of weapons. In the villages the Machno troops have 
 aided the rich peasants, who sabotaged the grain deliveries 
 to the hungering gO'Uvernements. After a partial change 
 of the Machno troops into a regular army, they were given 
 orders to immediately start off for the Caucasus. Instead of 
 obeying this order, Machno started hostilities against the Red 
 
 128 
 
Army on November 23. Machno' s traitorous plan was not 
 successful, and at present his main forces are already beat- 
 en, thanks to the prompt and energetic steps of the com- 
 mander of the South-front. The Machnp artillery has fallen 
 into our hands. Our troops have received order to merci- 
 lessly exterminate the Machno bandits, who traitorously dis- 
 turb the building up of Soviet Ukraine." 
 That the bolsheviks, after the victory over Wrangel, would 
 annihilate Machno was plain after they had used them as their 
 instrument in the struggle against Wrangel. But it is also clear 
 that they had to try to surround this act with an appearance of 
 righteousness and to justify their actions. For that reason it 
 need not surprise anybody that the bolsheviks again take recourse 
 to lies. Having previously read how they before took back their 
 own lies, calling it all a mistake and blaming it all on the re- 
 ports of the French capitalist papers, we will also properly ap- 
 preciate the news now before us. It is really quite remarkable 
 that "the peaceful inhabitants" of Ukraine themselves never have 
 anything against Machno, but only against the foreign Red Army. 
 But what is correct in this report is, that "the peaceful building up 
 of the Soviet government of Moscow" was being sabotaged by the 
 Ukrainian peasants who fought under Machno, for that is a gov- 
 ernment the peasants do not want. They would rather be "plun- 
 dered" by Machno than by the requisition detachments of the Red 
 Army. 
 
 The Socialist Movement in Ukraine 
 
 The socialist movement of Ukraine has a more or less an- 
 archist character. This character is to be traced back less to 
 theories and doctrines than to the influence which the political 
 and economic conditions of the country exerted upon the mind 
 of the peasants. 
 
 Marxism, which in Russia came to expression in the form of 
 bolshevism and menshevism, has less of a footing in Ukraine. 
 On the other hand, the Russian Peasant and People's Socialism of 
 the Narodnik Social-Revolutionaries is more strongly represented. 
 This "people's socialism," which is penetrated with strong an- 
 archist tendencies, has been able, so far, to hold back Marxian 
 and West-European socialism. In Ukraine, Bakunin lives stronger 
 than Marx. 
 
 In Ukraine all socialist tendencies are represented. The men- 
 sheviks, the bolsheviks, the right and the left social-revolution- 
 aries, the maximalists, the barbists, the syndicalists and the an- 
 archists. The bolsheviks and the mensheviks are both Marxians. 
 In consonance with their theories they, principally, sought their 
 following among the industrial proletarians of the cities. All 
 other tendencies mentioned here paid their principal attention 
 to the peasant question, as was natural in an agrarian country 
 
 129 
 
like Russia, and for this reason these parties enjoy a greater fol- 
 lowing among the peasants than the former. With the exception 
 of the right social-revolutionaries, who, like the mensheviks, were 
 in favor of the national assembly, the other parties and organiza- 
 tions stand close to one another, especially in their agrarian 
 program. They are all in favor of the soviet system, but not in 
 favor of party Soviets. In this they differ from the bolsheviks, 
 who by Soviets mean the Soviets of their own party. Thus, there 
 are in Kiev and Poltava, in the cities as well as in whole gouv- 
 ernements, no Soviets at all, but only revolutionary committees. 
 The revolutionary committees are put in by the bolshevik party, 
 and a\re not elected by the people. In Poltava the Soviets have 
 never been called together. After the Poles had been driven away, 
 the Executive Committee of the Communist Party (bolsheviks) 
 took over the power and organized everything themselves. Not 
 even the communists were called in to the meetings of the Ex- 
 ecutive Committee, nor called in for meetings of their own. For 
 these communists were workers. The party of communists con- 
 sists, for the- present, largely of non-workers. After Kiev went 
 over from the hands of the Poles into the hands of the Red 
 Army, no Soviets were elected during the whole summer of 1920, 
 only revolutionary committees being installed. When later, in 
 September, the elections took place, there were over 100 non- 
 workers out of the 125 communists who were elected to the 
 soviet from the district of Kiev. It was principally Soviet offi- 
 cials, specialists, etc. 
 
 These figures speak a plain language. They show us that the 
 Ukrainian Soviet government carries this name, partly without 
 right, as there are important and significant gouvernements which 
 have no Soviets. They show us further that the Communist Party 
 of the bolsheviks is no absolute soviet party, properly speaking, 
 but only an opportunist soviet party. For when it pleases the 
 party it calls in the Soviets, and when the Soviets do not suit them, 
 they send them home. 
 
 The other parties and movements are in favor of the Soviets, 
 as the idea of the Soviets came to light through the revolution 
 itself and all revolutionary parties, naturally, had to accept that 
 system. The peasants themselves are in favor of the Soviets. 
 Although the largest part of them do not belong to any party, 
 they still are all for the Soviets. They write on their banners: 
 "Long live the Soviets." The Maximalist Union, who stands for 
 a maximum program, the left social-revolutionaries, the Interna- 
 tionalists and the barbists, the syndicalists and the anarchists 
 are for the slogan: All poiver to the Soviets. No power to the 
 parties. 
 
 Against these slogans the bolshevik party stands in opposi- 
 tion. They declare that these paroles are counter-revolutionary 
 and therefore they combat all these parties as counter-revolution- 
 ary. Thus it is that the business offices of these parties, their 
 
 130 
 
propaganda bureaus and their book stores were closed by the 
 Soviet government. They now continue their work illegally. 
 
 We cannot deny that there is a certain justification for the 
 opinion of the bolsheviks, that the parole, "All power to the Sov- 
 iets; no power to the party," is useful to the counter-revolution. 
 In some cases it has been shown that in the soviet elections the 
 bourgeoisie got the majority through election frauds, trickery, or 
 other manipulations, yes, many times through pure slipshodiness, 
 or that they, when in the minority, had prevented the workers 
 from coming to the Soviets, through obstruction or sabotage, so 
 that there was no quorum. The counter-revolutionaries pointed 
 to this, and it was easy for them to show that the revolution did 
 not bring what they had hoped for. The road was smoothed for 
 the counter-revolution. 
 
 But these are only a few cases against which we can bring in 
 a great number of other cases which show the opposite. The fault 
 of which the bolsheviks here are guilty is, that they are drawing 
 general conclusions and thus wish to handle everything according 
 to one recipe. By this route they themselves come to the position 
 of contra-revolution. In order to arrive at one-sided party rule 
 there is, naturally, no> revolution necessary. The revolution is sup- 
 posed to create the freest political forms, and even a social rev- 
 olution has to take note of that. Although in a social revolution 
 the change in economic conditions, the abolition of private prop- 
 erty, just forms of possessions, equal rights of consumption, ra- 
 tional production of the necessities, are the most important points, 
 such a revolution must mean progress even on the political field 
 and not retrogression or stagnation. But the rule of one party 
 is not to be considered a revolutionary conquest, for such a party 
 rule we had in the pre-revolutionary epochs and have in countries 
 where the revolution has not yet taken place. Even if we in Marx- 
 ian fashion call this class rule, this rule in politics always mani- 
 fests itself as the rule of one or more parties. And it is exactly 
 against this rule that the revolution turns. 
 
 As will be seen, the slogan, "All power to the Soviets, no 
 power to the party," is originally and practically a revolutionary 
 parole and one cannot on account of a few cases permit a whole- 
 sale condemnation of the Soviets as counter-revolutionary. For we 
 can also present examples from the revolution in the Ukraine, 
 which show the exact opposite. 
 
 When in October, 1919, Machno captured Alexandrovsk, he 
 called a congress of the peasants and the rest of the population 
 of the whole gouvernement of Alexandrovsk. The organizer of 
 this was Wollin. As an anarchist, Wollin was against all party 
 politics. On that account it was impossible for him, for reasons 
 mentioned above, to be active under bolshevik rule. He, conse- 
 quently, called this congress for the benefit of the followers of 
 Machno. Machno needed for his army the support of the peas- 
 ants. They sent messengers to the villages in order to invite the 
 peasants to elect delegates to this congress and send them to the 
 
 131 
 
city of Alexandrovsk. The representatives of different parties 
 came to Wollin and pleaded with him not to do anything foolish 
 and for God's and the revolution's sake to put up party lists, in 
 order to enable the peasants to send delegates to the congress ac- 
 cording to party lines. They held that the rich peasants, the 
 Kulaks, were in the majority and would dominate the congress. 
 The whole thing would be a great disappointment, they prophe- 
 sied. Wollin answered that the people had had enough of parties 
 and that they now, once and for all, must cut out all party non- 
 sense. The congress met, without any party delegates. The 
 peasants themselves did not want to have any parties. When the 
 congress opened they asked if any parties were represented. Yes, 
 from the city of Alexandrovsk there were seven mensheviks 
 present who had been sent by the unions. The peasants did 
 not want to have anything to do with the politicians. They 
 did not want to start their deliberations before the politi- 
 cians had left the hall. The mensheviks had to leave, and only 
 then did they start with business. According to the reports of 
 some of those present, they had never before taken part in such 
 a fine, harmonious congress. All party political squabbling and 
 all party hatreds were eliminated. The peasants discussed only 
 the practical questions. It was a question of helping Machno to 
 continue the war against Denekin. It was decided that everybody 
 must help. Those who had four horses would have to give up two ; 
 those who had three would have to give one. Those who had only 
 two horses would not have to give any horses, but only hay, feed 
 and other things. Thus the congress progressed without any party 
 politics, to the satisfaction of all the participants and without any 
 domination of the kulaks. 
 
 This example does not only show the emptiness of the phrase 
 that party-less Soviets or councils of workers and peasants had 
 to be counter-revolutionary. It also shows positively that it is the 
 party-less Soviets which are best able to order the economic and 
 political affairs of the revolutionary population. 
 
 A further difference in tactics between the bolsheviks and 
 the others, which can be traced back to the theoretical differences, 
 showed itself in Jekaterinoslav. When the city was captured by 
 Machno, he insisted that all socialist movements should have abso- 
 lute freedom to carry on their propaganda. As is well known, the 
 bolsheviks reject this freedom as "bourgeois superstition." Par- 
 ticularly does Trotzky go on the warpath against it in his anti- 
 Kautski book 'Terrorism and Communism." As you know, in 
 the places where the bolsheviks rule, they allow no opposing party 
 to issue a daily paper or more than one paper. Under Machno' s 
 regime it was possible for all socialist movements to issue their 
 papers and to hold their meetings, in short, to propagate their 
 ideas. In Jekaterinoslav 7 daily papers were issued, two anarchist, 
 two communist, right and left social revolutionary* and menshevik 
 papers. All socialist tendencies were represented. Only the bour- 
 geois had no publicity organ. They were, naturally, so terrified 
 
 132 
 
because it was the Machnovtzi who ruled, that they did not 
 dare to. 
 
 The proportional strength of the different parties in Ukraine 
 is at present difficult to indicate, as all parties, with the excep- 
 tion of the ruling Communist Party of the bolsheviks, are illegal. 
 At the elections to the National Assembly, November, 1917, the 
 social-revolutionaries obtained 62.77% of the total number of votes. 
 The anarchists and the maximalists, being anti-parliamentarians, 
 did not take part in the elections. The maximalists have a union. 
 They do not call themselves a party, being as they are opposed 
 to parties. The left social-revolutionaries, the barbists and the 
 left social-revolutionary internationalists are also strongly repre- 
 sented. The anarchists have in Ukraine a special federation sepa- 
 rated from the anarchists of Central Russia, which calls itself 
 "Nabat," that is, "Alarm." In numbers this federation is hardly 
 larger than the maximalists and the left social-revolutionaries. 
 Still, the anarchists had a greater influence for the reason that 
 they stood under the protectorate of their Little Father (Batkno) 
 Machno, who gave more support to them than to any other par- 
 ties. The anarchists have never identified themselves with the 
 Machno movement, but make use of the Machno movement to the 
 greatest possible extent and wanted to make it serve their pur- 
 poses. 
 
 The bolsheviks arrested Wollin in Alexandrovsk in the begin- 
 ning of January, 1920, after Machno had fled. As reason for his 
 arrest they gave out that he was called the father of the Machno 
 movement. But this was impossible. The Machno movement ex- 
 isted since the summer of 1918. But Wollin came first a year later 
 to Machno, namely in the summer of 1919. The truth is that 
 through Wollin the movement received a more distinct anarchistic 
 character and won in depth and purity. Wollin himself is a deep, 
 pure and noble man, and he succeeded in exerting a strong cult- 
 ural influence on the Machno troops. But this was, of course, dan- 
 gerous to the bolsheviks, because it made the movement more 
 threatening to them. 
 
 Communism and the Peasantry 
 
 Through the preceding discussion we have elucidated the 
 reasons why the peasants of Ukraine only with much difficulty 
 can be brought under the common scepter of a central govern- 
 ment. These reasons are less of an economic nature than of a 
 political and national character. If we want to classify the re- 
 fusal of the peasants to supply the government with provisions 
 as an economic reason, then we have to concede that economic 
 reasons play their part. But in addition there are racial peculiari- 
 ties, which also exert some influence. Among an agricultural 
 people in a fertile country there develops, as a result of the rela- 
 tive economic independence, in the people or in the race a certain 
 
 133 
 
sense of independence with which a centralist government is al- 
 ways bound to get into collision. A powerful state can never de- 
 velop in such a country. The "free-from-Rome" tendencies will 
 always give the government plenty to worry over. We need only 
 remember the permanent anarchist tendencies in Spain and Italy. 
 
 The bolsheviks asserted that these instincts constituted anti- 
 communist tendencies among the peasants. They pointed to the 
 fact that the Ukrainian peasants did not have such a wide-spread 
 mir-organization as the Russian peasants, that they did not have 
 common forests, common pasture, and common fields to the same 
 extent, and declare that the peasants are for private property and 
 against the introduction of communism. They further say that 
 the peasants who fight under Machno are Kulaks and fight for 
 private property against the introduction of communism. But as 
 quite large masses of the peasants, yes, the majority, are of that 
 mind, even if it is only the most active part of them who flock to the 
 Povstanzy, it would be foolish to force the ideas of bolshevik- 
 communism on them against their will. That would mean any- 
 thing else but freedom. And it is freedom that the peasants want ; 
 that is what they have been fighting for during half a decade. 
 One can force people to everything but not to freedom, even if 
 one were the most powerful on earth. 
 
 But the assertion of the bolsheviks is wrong. On the con- 
 trary, the Ukrainian peasants take at least a sympathetic stand 
 towards the social revolution and the new-construction of Ukraine, 
 even more so than the peasants in Russia, where the great mass 
 of the peasants became conservative as soon as they had taken 
 the land away from the estate owners. The peasants are in no 
 way unfriendly to socialism, but even show quite outspoken com- 
 munist tendencies. 
 
 The whole peasantry is opposed to the "pomeschtschiks" 
 (large land owners). They do not want the estate owner back 
 under any conditions. They fight desperately against all counter- 
 revolutionary generals, who defended the system of large estates. 
 They chased away Petljura, Kaledin, Denekin, Grigorjev and 
 Wrangel. And still Wrangel had drawn a lesson from the fate of 
 his predecessors and came before the peasants with an agrarian 
 program, in order to gain them over to his side. No land owner 
 was to be allowed to own more than 200 Dessiatins of land. (1 
 Dessiatin equal to 2.7 acres.) Wrangel expected to gain greater 
 sympathies with this than had come to the share of Denekin and 
 his predecessors. He believed that they would succeed in pulling 
 the peasants over to his side, just as the Roumanian government 
 had pacified the peasants and understood how to keep them from 
 revolution through a similar agrarian policy. But while the Rou- 
 manian bo jars (land owners) succeeded in saving themselves with 
 a few sacrifies of land, the Ukrainian peasants, who had become 
 more far-sighted through their long struggle, could see through 
 Wran gel's purposes, and, although Wrangel was able to fool part 
 of the peasants, he had the progressive part of them against him. 
 
 134 
 
In the long run Wrangel could not have held out even if he had 
 not been annihilated by the Red Army and Machno. 
 
 The peasants were opposed to the 200 Dessiatin program of 
 Wrangel's. But they are also opposed to the 50 Dessiatin program 
 of the bolsheviks. The bolsheviks do not want to come into con- 
 flict with the better situated peasants. They need the peasants 
 and cannot afford to have them against them. Hence, they have 
 established the rule that no* peasant can have more than 50 Des- 
 siatins of land. But the peasants have in their congresses taken 
 a stand against this norm. Particularly in this regard we note 
 the above mentioned congress, which was called by Machno and 
 Wollin (in Alexandrovsk, October, 1919). They said that this 
 maximum is too high; it is a bourgeois norm. By that method 
 they would again create pomeschtschiks. 
 
 The Marxian theorists of bolshevism-communism, from their 
 theoretical viewpoint, brand the Ukrainian peasants as anti-com- 
 munists and as defenders of private property; particularly those 
 of them who fight against Machno. But my investigations in the 
 Ukraine have given the result that almost the opposite is the case. 
 The bolshevik-communists decree a more extensive private owner- 
 ship in land than the peasants themselves. The bolshevik-commu- 
 ists, who pretend to be the only representatives of communism, 
 are less communistic than the peasants, whom they designate as 
 non-communists. 
 
 But the peasants would not by far be communists if they only 
 stood for a smaller maximum parcel of land than the bolshevik- 
 communists. This would at most prove that they are more com- 
 munistic than the communist bolsheviks. But this is only speaking 
 comparatively. About the positive communism of the peasants it 
 would give us no information. 
 
 Although the abolition of private property in land is one of 
 the most important parts of communism, there are other things 
 also, which belong under that head, such as the regulation of the 
 working conditions of collective labor according to principles of 
 equality, the organizing of the exchange of the products of labor 
 on the basis of justice, the regulating of mutual relations on a 
 libertarian basis. All this a state cannot give; not even a bolshe- 
 vik state. It can at most counsel, decree and order. If a sound 
 social instinct and a strong sense of fairness is lacking, a people 
 can never arrive at socialism and communism. Communism will 
 not come by order. Have the Ukrainian peasants preserved that 
 instinct through the terrible years of the civil war? If they have, 
 then they will be ripe for communism; if not, then even the 
 Soviet government cannot introduce traits in their ranks which do 
 not live within them. 
 
 My trip through Ukraine, as well as conversations with those 
 who know Ukraine best, have shown to me that there is reason 
 for harboring good hopes. The Ukrainian peasants are coarse, 
 but they are good-natured and helpful and generally have a strong 
 
 135 
 
sense of justice. One instance does not, of course, prove very 
 much, but still it might be used as an illustration. Eichenbaum- 
 Wollin listened to a conversation between a peasant and a bolshe- 
 vik-communist. The bolshevik wanted to explain to him what 
 communism was. But the peasant did not understand him. The 
 explanations were unintelligible to him. Then the peasant be- 
 gan to give his own ideas, how he would order everything in 
 his village as he had thought it out. And when he was through 
 with his explanations the bolshevik-communist said to him: "But 
 you are a communist." 
 
 "What? I, a communist?" the peasant answered in anger. 
 "I am no communist." 
 
 This peasant showed that he knew well how to regulate his 
 affairs in his village, if nobody disturbs his own communist experi- 
 ments through interference from the outside and by checking his 
 private initiative. Numerous examples can be quoted where the 
 peasants independently arrive at communistic husbandry and reg- 
 ulation of their mutual relations. 
 
 A visit to a soviet farm, 30 verst from, Charkov, which form- 
 erly belonged to an estate owner, gave me the opportunity to 
 study the common husbandry of the peasants of that estate. There 
 were about 100 peasants with women and children, a total of 
 160 persons. Not one of them was a communist, and still they 
 had regulated everything nicely in justice and equality. To many 
 individual and joint households the same thing applies. 
 
 The peculiar refusal of the peasants to be called communists 
 may be traced to the fact that the peasants heard the name com- 
 munists only from the government, which calls itself by that 
 name. But the same government sends its soldiers into the vil- 
 lage, in order to requisition provisions, which the peasants are 
 unwilling to give. Communists are, consequently, to the peas- 
 ant's mind, requisitioning soldiers or those who send them. And 
 as there are, besides, a great number of commissars, who also 
 call themselves "communist" but are actually swindlers (a con- 
 dition for which the bolsheviks are not to blame but against which 
 they can fight only with difficulty in the large country) , who fleece 
 the peasants, there has in Ukraine arisen a play upon words 
 among the peasants by which they want to ridicule communism. 
 
 While thus the communists are not well liked among the peas- 
 ants, the bolsheviks have with them a better reputation. For it 
 was the bolsheviks who brought them peace. Through the peace 
 of Brest-Litovsk Lenin has won great popularity for his party. 
 For that reason the peasants love the bolsheviks but hate the com- 
 munists. They do not understand that it is one and the same 
 party. 
 
 With the help of some intelligent elements among them the 
 peasants regulate their larger common affairs. They called in the 
 larger congresses, formed co-operatives, etc. It is true that they 
 have not the right understanding in all things, nor a strong initia- 
 
 136 
 
tive. They still partly believe in the ability of the intelligentzia. 
 Thus they believed that Machno, who was such a good leader for 
 them in battle, should also be able to tell them what they should 
 do in other matters. For that reason they would ask Machno 
 what to do in most any matter of business. Machno is said to 
 have answered them to do what they themselves considered best 
 to do. But the peasants were not helped with that. They wanted 
 advice. And he who can give them disinterested counsel, is natur- 
 ally welcome among them. 
 
 Communism, with the Ukrainian peasant, is not a theory 
 but their practical life. The large estate owners, the pomescht- 
 schiks proved to them the disadvantages of private ownership in 
 land, and the injustice that springs from it. And this injustice 
 nourished their envy. Marxism may eternally proclaim that so- 
 cialism is not a matter of privilege, but the peasants feel the in- 
 justice which has come into their life with unequal distribution of 
 the land and want to abolish it. The others shall not have any 
 more than we. By the enemies of socialism this has always been 
 branded as the envy of the property-less. But this envy of the 
 property-less is for the peasants a regulative principle. It ca/r- 
 ries within itself equality in the ownership of land, and this leads 
 the peasants to communism. 
 
 The Economic Situation in the Ukraine 
 
 If the land of the estate owners had come into the hands of 
 the peasants before the war, it would without question have 
 meant an improvement of the lot of the peasants and therewith 
 an uplift of their economic position. Even as it was, the change 
 brought with it an improvement in the position of the poor peas- 
 ants, that is, an improvement in the position of the peasants who 
 had become empoverished through the war. By this we wish to 
 say that without these measures of the revolution the peasants 
 would have been in a worse position than they now are, but not 
 in a better position than before the war. It is with the peasants 
 as it was with the population in Germany. They complain and 
 wish pre-war times back. Before the war the peasants had boots, 
 clothes and petroleum things that they lack to-day. They have 
 few agricultural implements and fewer agricultural machines. In- 
 dustry is very poorly developed, and during the -war there was 
 practically only war industry. They obtain very few industrial 
 products and had to give up their agricultural products for the 
 war. 
 
 When the bolsheviks had taken possession of the Ukraine, they 
 prohibited free trade, so that the inhabitants of the cities found 
 themselves in great straits for the necessities of life. The pur- 
 pose of the bolsheviks was a double one. 
 
 First, they wanted to prevent the provisions and use-objects 
 from becoming objects of trade and speculation. Theoretically, 
 
 137 
 
from the standpoint of socialism, the matter presents itself this 
 way: that through free trading the goods produced are not di- 
 rectly distributed, but serve for profit mongering, personal en- 
 richment or to maintain the life of those who occupy themselves 
 therewith. Instead of turning to productive work, they ' 'trade." 
 But in practice this is often not the case. Especially is the Rus- 
 sian market the place where the peasants sell their home products, 
 which they have in no manner acquired by purchase or specula- 
 tion. But as it was very difficult under the given circumstances 
 to define who was a peasant and who> was a trader, this measure 
 has quite often hit the wrong person, and particularly in the small 
 cities. The so-called speculators are often the poorest. 
 
 In the second place this measure was calculated to force the 
 bourgeoisie to go to ivork. For if there was nothing for them to 
 buy and if they got nothing to eat, it was thought that they would 
 be compelled to work. But in this calculation they certainly were 
 mistaken, for most of them found other ways and means of evad- 
 ing this rule. In the long run it would not be possible for the 
 bourgeoisie to dodge work. The soviet government gradually dis- 
 covers the tricks of the bourgeoisie and resorts to other measures. 
 Work-books are introduced, the inhabitants are registered, no food 
 stuffs are delivered to non-workers, etc., so that they cannot find 
 any way out except to perform some sort of work. Then they 
 receive food rations like everybody else. 
 
 They have, consequently, not attained what they aimed at. 
 It has been tried on a great scale to introduce production for use. 
 But on a small scale so-called speculation flourishes, namely the 
 trade with food stuffs and other use-objects, stronger than form- 
 erly. All larger factories and farms are nationalized and work 
 for the account of the state. But the smaller establishments (and 
 in the Ukraine small industry prevails everywhere, with the ex- 
 ception of the large sugar industry and the metal industry) are 
 still all in private hands and work for private interests, just as 
 before the revolution. The economic life, consequently, continues 
 in this respect to move on private capitalist lines, even if the in- 
 dividual employers are no Stinnes or Thyssen( the two largest 
 German capitalists) . In Kiev, for instance, 2 or 3 months after 
 the occupation by the bolsheviks, everything remained as in other 
 capitalists countries. Many new shops were opened, and only 
 those were compelled to close which had no more goods. But as 
 they receive no goods from the bolsheviks, one after the other is 
 compelled to give up his business. After that the shop keepers 
 enter the service of the soviet government, in some commissariat 
 or bureau. They become officials, state officials. But on the salary 
 that they now receive they cannot live, and they continue to 
 smuggle and speculate. Others had already started to speculate, 
 contrary to the law, of course. They cannot stop that any more 
 than the cat can stop catching mice. 
 
 Even the peasants, who by nature are against the system 
 of commercialism, as they derive no benefits therefrom, have 
 
 138 
 
now also taken to speculation, as it is called in bolshevik 
 language. This speculation consists in this, that instead of 
 delivering their products to the state, they sell them at the 
 highest possible prices. This is not done out of lust for 
 speculation, but because they cannot do anything else. They 
 would willingly turn it all over to the state, if they could only 
 obtain the goods that they need. But the state has nothing and 
 can give them nothing. Thus they are compelled to buy in. free 
 trade the objects they require. For one pud of flour (34 Ibs.) 
 they receive in free trade about 21,000 rubles, but from the 
 state they receive about 100-200 rubles. It is therefore easily 
 explainable that they would rather sell their goods at speculation 
 prices, although they might get punished for it, than turn 
 them over to the state. But, in spite of receiving so much 
 for their products in free trade, they are not anxious for the 
 money. They are willing to forego the money. They do* not 
 want money at all but would give up everything to the state 
 if they only could get what they need. Money has no value 
 for them. They have so> much money that they paper their 
 walls and their wedding carriages with them. What they want 
 is articles that they can use. The traveler who comes to a 
 village can frequently buy nothing, even if he has ever so much 
 money, but he can get anything for a piece of cloth, a glass 
 of salt, or something similar. 
 
 But there is no doubt that this speculation evil will im- 
 mediately stop at the moment when the peasants receive what 
 they need from the state. Then the government will also receive 
 from the peasants, voluntarily, all that it needs and cannot take 
 even with force. Then the requisitions and the resulting hostility 
 between the peasants and the government will cease and the 
 greatest obstacle separating the peasant and the soviet govern- 
 ment would be removed, and it would be much easier for the 
 latter to become reconciled with the peasants. The peasants 
 would then no longer need to be "counter-revolutionary", the 
 revolution would get a firm footing in the country districts 
 and would have a chance to build up and develop freely. 
 
 But that can only take place if Soviet Russia has peace, 
 if the entente at once ceases to inflict war upon that unhappy 
 country, if the blockade is called off and if goods comes into the 
 country. That the Russian revolution in the form of bolshevism 
 should have become such a regime of terror with its requisition 
 policy, that fact has its causes principally in the war and in 
 the blockade. The originator of this blockade and this war, the 
 enemies of the revolution in France, England and America, 
 the defenders of the capitalist states are the ones upon whom 
 the blame should be placed for the stagnation of the Russian 
 revolution. // with bolshevism we mean the liberty crushing 
 policy of the Russian Soviet government, principally against 
 the peasants, then bolshevism is best co\mbatted with the slogan: 
 Peace with Russia; Lifting of the blockade; Hands off Russia. 
 
 139 
 
As free commerce was tied up by the government, it was 
 forced to create some organs by means of which the population 
 could be supplied with food stuffs. This is, of course, extremely 
 difficult for a political party, even if it has the governmental 
 power. Its character is political and not economic; it is not 
 able to do it. The Food Stuffs Commissariat stood helpless 
 before the situation. It threw itself upon the co-operation of the 
 Consumers' Societies. In Russia, as well as in Ukraine, these 
 societies were well developed. The government took over these 
 societies and made them as before stated, into state organs. 
 Membership became obligatory for the whole population. The 
 bourgeoisie, which also nominally belongs to these societies, has 
 no rights inside them. The proletariat alone has any right to 
 elect officials. Nevertheless, most of the officials spring from 
 the bourgeoisie, because the workers are uneducated and for 
 the largest part illiterates. 
 
 Here we are speaking of the workers and the bourgeoisie 
 but not of the peasants. The peasants are to a large extent 
 not included in the consumers' societies. They do> not need it. 
 They need not obtain any food stuffs; on the contrary, they 
 can spare them for others. This is therefore intended merely 
 for the cities which are dependent upon the country. 
 
 The consumers' co-operatives receive the food stuffs from 
 the government. They distribute them among the workers of the 
 cities and factories. The co-operatives have their branches in the 
 factories, and the workers receive their bread in the factories. 
 But due to the shortage of food stuffs the workers are not 
 sufficiently supplied. The workers cannot possibly live on their 
 rations. They are to receive 1 Ib bread daily. (1 Russian Ib. 
 equal to .88 Ib. American weight or 400 gram). 
 
 But it happens often that they get no bread for days at 
 a time. In a chocolate and confectionery factory in Charkov, 
 the seat of the present Ukrainian Soviet government, the work- 
 ers, in September 1920, received no bread ration for 4 days in 
 succession. This is state factory No. 22, for chocolate and 
 confectionery manufacture. 
 
 As the workers do not receive sufficient bread in the 
 factories through the government, they are compelled to procure 
 their bread themselves, privately. In Russia, bread is the 
 principal food stuff. Most people subsist almost exclusively o<n 
 bread and Kascha (a kind of millet mush). But the workers 
 can not pay the market price of bread. We should remember 
 that the wages in this chocolate factory are 2,400 rubles per 
 month. But the price of a Ib. of bread amounted at the same 
 time (Sept. 12, 1920), in the fish market of Charkov, to 500 
 rubles for white bread and 340 rubles for black bread. The 
 monthly wage will, consequently, buy barely 5 Ibs white bread 
 and a good 7 Ibs. of black bread. 
 
 Irresistibly the question arises; how can the workers live 
 that way. But it is to be noted that in many factories the 
 
 140 
 
noonday meal is delivered to> the workers. This lunch is certainly 
 not very good, but on the contrary, of a very inferior quality. 
 Only in one factory have I found the lunch really nourishing, 
 even if simple. This was in the 4th government factory for the 
 textile industry. But this is still only in the initial stage. In 
 this factory there are 1,500 workers. Only 500 can get their 
 lunch delivered. It still remains necessary to fix up things for the 
 rest of them also. But this meets with great difficulties. There 
 must be space for serving the meals, and there must be food 
 stuffs. For this lunch the workers pay only 20-30 rubles. 
 
 Wtiat do those workers do who get no lunch? They try to 
 procure it themselves. But how? Of the 1500 workers em- 
 ployed there, 10% do not come to work. They remain away 
 from work, although heavy penalties are inflicted for such 
 conduct. Those who remain away from work three days in 
 succession, without being sick, or without some other urgent 
 cause, are legally condemned to* a concentration camp. In practice 
 this is not sternly enforced. Even if the government would like 
 to do it, the workers do not want it done. The first court 
 passing sentence on workers for staying away from work is 
 in many places the factory committee. And as these are workers 
 themselves, few of them being communists, they are naturally 
 inclined to be lenient with their fellows and do not sentence 
 them. In this factory of 1,500 workers there is a relatively 
 high percentage of communists, namely 200, about 13.3%. But in 
 a locomotive factory in the same city there are among 3,350 
 workers only 100 communists, or 2.9%. It frequently happens 
 that the communists in each factory form a communist group, 
 the principal function of which is spying. Of these some are at 
 the same time in the tscheka (extra-ordinary commission or 
 secret police). At the end of August, 1920, 172 workers were 
 arrested in the locomotive factory because they, under the 
 influence of anarchists and left social-revolutionaries, wanted to 
 organize the food stuffs distribution among themselves and 
 remained away from the job. 
 
 The workers also stay away from the job, in order to 
 procure, in a different manner, the necessaries of life which they 
 can not get in the factory. Part of them are only "semi^proleta- 
 rians" ; part of the workers are peasants who still have a piece 
 of land which they work and which supports them a little 
 bit better. Another part strolls out in the country, in order to 
 "rustle". The workers organize themselves for this purpose. They 
 send some of their number out in the country for provisions. 
 These buy provisions for the whole factory or for a group of 
 20 men, according to how many take part in it. In all Ukraine 
 and in all Russia this kind of workers' co-operatives at the 
 place of work are very common. This shows us also> a new 
 form of distribution and of supplying the factory workers with 
 food stuffs and which has sprung up spontaneously among the 
 workers as a result of the economic conditions. The consumers' 
 
 141 
 
co-operatives were formerly free, that is, independent of the 
 state. They were not then constructed in socialist fashion, but 
 like everything else in the capitalist system, in capitalist fashion. 
 After they were nationalized, they were, of course, state socialistic 
 but had lost their efficiency. As organs of the state they are 
 not independent but tied up, dependent upon the state to deliver 
 the food stuffs to them. But the state can do this only to such 
 a small extent that these societies are not able to properly perform 
 their duties. The procuring of food stuffs the state could ac- 
 complish only by means of the requisition policy through the 
 military. It could not follow a different policy due to the bad 
 economic situation. Again we are confronted with the blockade. 
 We are always turning round in a circle which we cannot get 
 out of as long as the blockade is not lifted. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the state had not nationalized the 
 consumers' co-operatives, the independent consumers' co-operatives 
 would have served the peasants better. But the nationalization 
 of the consumers' co-operatives was a necessary result of the 
 strangling of free trade among the prod^lcers. The abolition of 
 the Russian markets of the peasants and the workers proved 
 to be a very disastrous error which revenged itself heavily in 
 the paralyzing of the food stuff supply system, through which 
 again industry and the whole of production was badly injured. 
 After the abolition of private property the economic life should 
 have moved in a socialist direction without further interference 
 by the state. 
 
 All these phenomena are extremely instructive and shoiv us 
 that it is impossible to regulate the economic life of a country 
 through political organizations, yes, even that the political rule 
 over economic life must have far-reaching destructive effects. 
 Independent of the state the workers themselves create their own 
 economic organs for the regulation of economic life, for their 
 own maintenance and for their bare existence. The state could 
 not carry it through with the best will in the world. It his not 
 the intelligence necessary for this purpose. It is strange to 
 economic life. This duty devolves iipon the working people 
 themselves*' 
 
 The supplying of the cities with fu&l and building material, 
 principally wood, the Soviets of the cities are taking in hand. 
 The soviet of Charkov, has for its duty to supply the city with 
 wood for the winter. The executive committee of this soviet 
 puts itself in connection with the executive committees of the 
 Soviets of the districts. Each commune, each village is ordered 
 to deliver a certain quantity, according to its size and number 
 of inhabitants. The Soviets are responsible for compliance with 
 orders. In the year of 1920 Ukraine received a total of 6,000 
 saws and 4,000 axes. These were distributed to the various 
 communes, which in their turn were bound to deliver wood. 
 But the peasants are not very willing to deliver cut wood for 
 the government because they are not sufficiently paid for it. Even 
 
 142 
 
here the military has to interfere once in a while, which again 
 creates bad blood among the peasants. 
 
 The Unions of Ukraine are organized exactly as the unions 
 in Russia and have the same functions, and for that reason a 
 special treatment of this subject at this time is unnecessary. In 
 Ukraine there are a total of 1,173,000 workers organized in the 
 unions. These numbers fall on 13 gouvernements. Of these 
 280,000 are railroad workers, 162,000 are soviet employees, 
 134,000 mine workers, 113,000 metal workers, 72,000 workers 
 in the food stuffs industry, 58,000 in the sugar industry, 58,700 
 telegraph and postal employees, 49,660 agricultural laborers on 
 the soviet estates, 42,135 employees of the hospitals and asylums, 
 38,000 educational workers (teachers, party agitators, journal- 
 ists), 31,500 clothing workers, 23,800 chemical and glass work- 
 ers, 22,900 leather workers, 20,600 building construction work- 
 ers, 18,800 wood workers, 18,000 tobacco workers, 13,000 textile 
 workers, 11,000 graphical workers and 3,000 paper workers. 
 
 Membership in the unions is obligatory for the workers. 
 They elect factory councils. These factory councils elect a soviet 
 in their industry for a whole gouvernement. This gouvernement 
 soviet elects an executive committee consisting of 9-14 men. 
 In this soviet are also the representatives of the Commissariat 
 of labor and of the Supreme Council of National Economy. 
 These commissariats carry on their activities through the unions. 
 Or, expressing it differently, the Supreme Council of National 
 Economy organizes production through its representatives in 
 the unions, whose orders must be carried out unconditionally, 
 they decide what the workers shall do and how they shall work. 
 The Commissariat of Labor controls the workers through its 
 representatives in the unions, whose orders must also be strictly 
 carried out over the workers: where and how long they must 
 work. The workers in their unions have no influence ovev 
 production, nor over the conditions of work. 
 
 The executive committee o/ the gouvernement Soviets has 
 5 departments: 1) The economic department, 2) Wage tariffs, 
 3) Education, 4) Organization and Instruction, 5) General 
 Business. Each department has further its sub-departments. The 
 Economic Department is subdivided into two sub-departments: 
 1) For organization of Industry, 2) For distribution of provisions 
 and working clothes. But the workers have not the right to 
 control the labors of the departments, but only have the right 
 to decide over such work as is assigned to them by the department. 
 
 Industry in Ukraine may be devided in three parts : The 
 largest industry, the metal industry, is under the direct control 
 of the Supreme Council of National Economy and the industries 
 of the second and third class stand under the provisional council 
 of the Supreme Council of National Economy. There are in 
 Ukraine 42 larger and 14 smaller textile factories. The large 
 metal works of the country, 16 in number, are combined into 
 one great trust. The mines of the Don basin are divided into 16 
 
 143 
 
districts, which are subject to the central executive committee 
 of the unions of the whole of Ukraine, subdivided in the manner 
 described above. 
 
 The working hours are legally determined to 8 hours daily, 
 but during the war there was overtime work in all those in- 
 dustries which were connected with the war. The renumeration 
 for overtime consists principally of natural products. The work- 
 ers receive more bread. 
 
 Bread and Freedom! That is what workers and peasants 
 all struggle for. In how far they have come into possession 
 of them through the revolution, the investigations described 
 above will show. In how far they shall be able to advance further 
 in that direction, the future will show. But in any case this 
 depends upon the politics of the entente towards Russia and 
 Ukraine. Just as Russia will be capable of further development 
 generally, in the direction of socialism, if it unmolested and 
 unhindered can develop the powers that lie within the people, 
 just so will the workers and the peasants be able to gain bread 
 and freedom in the same measure as they are left unmolested 
 by the governments and can bring their inherent powers to free 
 development. Not the soviet government, but only the peasants 
 and the workers can create socialism for themselves. This has 
 been proven to us by the development of the Russian and 
 Ukrainian revolution. The bolsheviks as state socialists have 
 showed to us that they cannot bring socialism about. 
 
 THE END 
 
 144 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the 
 
 date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 2Jun'54lW 
 
 8 1957 
 
 
 APR ^ 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 APR 21 '64 -9 AM 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 our. 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 F EB2V65-1 PM 
 
 V J 
 
 ^REC 
 
 C'D LD 
 
 31'65-UPM 
 
 LD 21-100m-l,'54(1887sl6)476 
 
I /. 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY