Kiev Communard
28th August 2010, 17:39
Role of the Anarchist Movement in 1917 – 1921 Social Transformations in Russia
Part I
This article by contemporary Russian historian D. Rublyov was published for the first time in the collection Military Intervention and Civil War in Russia (1918 - 1920) – Moscow, 2009. The article is based on the paper presented by the author at the Scientific Conference on Civil War and Intervention of 1918 - 1921 held in Moscow on February, 28th, 2009. Later the paper with a number of essential additions was also presented at Prjamuchino Readings of 2009.
Researchers of Anarchist movement in Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917 - 1921) periodically turn to Anarchists’ views on the problem of establishing the stateless society, as well as to the social transformations conducted under their leadership.[1] Nevertheless, the generalizing researches on the issues of Anarchist-led social transformations in 1917 - 1921 are absent as such. It is hardly reasonable, as during the specified historical period in territory of the former Russian Empire Anarchists tried to turn into reality their model of a new society under conditions of establishment of their (or joint with other left-wing forces) control over certain territories. As the largest precedents of such developments it is possible to distinguish the activities of Makhnovist movement in Ukraine (1917 - 1921), policies of the Anarchist-led Soviet leadership in Bezhetsk, Krasnokholmsk and Vesegonsk districts of the Tver Governorate (spring of 1917 - July of 1918) and Cheremkhovsk Coal Basin of Siberia (March 1917 - spring 1918). However, a number of the insurgent movements which were under the influence of Anarchists, as, for example, peasants’ revolt under the leadership of E.F. Rogov and I.P. Novosyolov (May - December 1920), were not known for their approaches towards any appreciable social transformative activities.
A number of known researchers of Anarchist movement have noted in their works such important feature of social experiments of Anarchists during the Civil War, as well as of the programmatic evolution of certain sectors of Anarchist movement in Civil War, as the resort in theory and practice to certain elements of statism.[2]
For the Russian Anarchists of early 1900s it was conventional to repudiate any possible progressive role of the State both in social development processes and during the social revolution, in particular.[3] The theorists of Anarchism contrasted to the notion of “revolutionary State” the ideal of spontaneous expression of solidarity and mutual aid of the toiling masses, which would smash, in a uniform destructive and creative impulse of revolution, the state machinery and embark on building an Anarcho-Communist society. It was supposed (the Anarcho-Syndicalists expressed this point of view especially pronouncedly) that a role of the lever of social transformations would be performed by the free associations created by workers to protect their class interests in daily economic struggle (workers’ and peasants’ unions, co-operative associations, communes, cultural and scientific associations, rural land communes). According to P.A. Kropotkin and his pupils (G.I. Gogelia, M.I. Goldsmit, etc.), relations of self-management, federalism and solidarity developing in these structures were to prepare the broad layers of the populace for embracement of Anarchist ideas.[4]
However, already in 1900s – 1910s one could observe certain realignment in Anarchists’ views on power structures’ role in social transformations. Its principal cause was the limited influence of Anarchist organizations at that time, demonstrated both by the working class movement’s experiences in the advanced capitalist countries and the events of the Russian Revolution of 1905 – 1907. Already in 1906 J. A. Maryson, one of the Jewish Anarchist movement’s chief theorists, called for Anarchist participation in “parliamentary struggle” in his article Anarchism and Political Activity. [5] The recognition of the role of centralized power structures in the process of social revolution was most seriously promoted by Anarchists participating in Revolutionary Syndicalist working-class movement of West Europe and America. In working out the projects of social transformations they consistently advocated an idea of concentrating not only coordination functions (that was traditional for Anarchists) but also management functions in hands of democratically elected but nevertheless statist bodies of quasi-parliamentary type (the “Confederal Congress” of the General Confederation of Labour as envisaged by É. Pouget and É. Pataud in their book Comment nous ferons la Révolution (How We Shall Bring About the Revolution). The same role was to be played by the “industrial” parliament, the model of which was actually laid out in the IWW programmatic documents.[6] The statist elements in the IWW members’ views on future society are especially interesting, as this organization, together with the GCT, was considered by Russian Anarchists to be a perfect model of organizational form of working-class movement.
The issue of statist forms as the stage preceding the establishment of Anarchist society was touched upon by the Russian Anarchists either. In 1906 A.A. Borovoy, an Anarcho-Individualist theorist, argued in favour of establishing the “State Socialist” regime as a step towards “the economic and psychological preparations” for life in stateless society.[7] At the same time, I.S. Knizhnik-Vetrov, Kropotkin’s disciple, raised an idea about the possibility of evolution of Anarchist society towards the centralist form of social organization: “It is possible to establish the most complex centralization and the most detailed division of labour on the basis of free association, as long as it seems necessary for the interests of economy or culture but at the same does not contradict the principles of personal freedom”.[8] P. A. Kropotkin himself reached the similar conclusions in 1914, proposing an idea, first having been formulated in About Current Events (1914 – 1918) and afterwards developed in his speech at State Conference in Moscow (August, 14, 1917) and in the programmatic documents of “Federalists’ League”, of Russia’s reorganization into confederal democratic republic with the broadest rights of local self-government akin to Switzerland’s political form,[9] with central government’s powers being minimized. All issues falling within the federal government’s competence (i.e. defence, foreign relations, federal-level policy measures, etc.) were to be worked out on the basis of “covenant of provinces” rather than the governmental decrees.[10] These measures, he believed, would objectively facilitate the setting of pre-requisites for development of Anarcho-Communist relations.
The most serious contribution towards the revision of Anarchist perceptions of the role of power structures in social revolution was made by L.I. Fishelev (under alias of Maksim Rayevsky). Proceeding from the fact that Anarchist-led Revolutionary Syndicalist unions incorporated only the minority of the working class in most developed capitalist nations in comparison with the numbers of members of reformist trade unions, he came to the conclusion that the workers are not ready yet to participate in the “immediate” Anarcho-Communist revolution. As an alternative he suggested the idea of transitional “Syndicalist regime”, “feasible only as the result of conquest of power by workers’ syndicates”, as the period of workers’ unions’ economic domination. State structures, being subordinated to the federation of unions and deprived of the majority of their functions, were to “wither away” so far as the workers’ self-management would expand. Basing his ideas on the practice of workers’ movement in the course of the First Russian Revolution of 1905 – 1907, Fishelev pointed out the possible forms of new power in Russia – Councils of Workers’ Deputies, representing the meetings of delegates from workers’ unions, industrial enterprises and services.[11]
During the 1917 revolutionary events initially Anarchists were infused with hope that the social revolution as portended by Bakunin and Kropotkin was soon to come to fruition.[12] The processes of radical democratization of all fields of social life, associated with the formation of various bodies of people’s self-government (Councils of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, shop committees, military units committees, etc.) were regarded by many Anarchist political writers as the expression of anarchic tendencies in social movements. “There is the State no more, there is a Council that is to become a political form of even the smallest of villages! There is no more private property and no proprietors, there is socialized property, with free Factory Commune and fabzavkom (shop committee) that must become economic forms of Syndicalism! There is no Army – it is substituted by the Red Guards, that is by the armed workers and peasants! There are no more planters-landlords, the toiling peasant and associated agriculture that is to supersede the peasantry’s Kulak individualism! The All-Russian Commune without the God, Tsar and masters has commenced!”,[13] in such a positive manner G.P. Maksimov, an Anarcho-Syndicalist journalist, expounded his views on the Russian realities of that time as late as the 1920s.
However, the hopes for spontaneous anarchisation of the masses proved futile. The conditions of the Civil War and Intervention, especially the need to protect the social gains of the Revolution, served as important factors of adjustment of attitudes of sections of Anarchist movement. The first serious attempt of such kind was undertaken by A.M. Atabekian, a representative of Anarcho-Communist movement (1918). Taking into account the unlikelihood of impending world revolution, in fact he proposed to proceed to the establishment of Anarchist model of socialism in one country. Proceeding from that, Atabekian pointed to the need to create a revolutionary army with unitary leadership and even used such terms, “heretical” for Orthodox Anarchism, as “revolutionary patriotism”, “anarchic State”, “anarchic republic”, etc. The government of Russian Soviet Federative Republic, according to Atabekian, was to be reconstructed via the people’ self-government structures’ (such as Soviets, trade unions, shop committees, etc.) and their associations’ takeover of the functions of economic regulation and governance. The broadest autonomy of the regions was to be implemented. Atabekian proposed as the basis of economic transformations the principle of cooperative production domination in industrial centres, with peasants’ communes and even private sector playing substantial role in other regions. On April 2, 1918 this project was adopted by the Anarchist-dominated Klin District Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, but was never put into practice.[14]
The certain groups of Anarchist leaders under conditions of the Civil War went even further than Atabekian, drawing the conclusions about “historical causality” and objective character of Bolsheviks’ extreme measures of mobilization and military dictatorship. I.S. Grossman, one of the leaders of Anarcho-Syndicalist Golos Truda (“Workers’ Voice”) group, stood the closest to this point of view. “… In order to create not the abstract system of free associations but the real force, the establishment of system of organic production is needed. The State need should be counterimposed by the need arising out of the logic of autonomous production, as this very need presumes the freedom of Labour. However, the global Imperialism, by means of blockade and invasion, impedes our turning into the system of organic production. It forced us to substitute the logic of militarism for the logic of production. Therefore, one needs to defeat the global Imperialism in order to overcome the mechanical Statehood. … Under the logic of militarism the foundation of the basis of our anti-State system is impossible – neither for Anarchists, nor for Bolsheviks!” And later on he wrote: “The militarism is the mother of Authoritarianism”. From this onwards he draws the conclusion that Anarchists, if they were in place of the Bolsheviks, would have to act in accordance with the military dictatorship logic either: “the psychology of militarism, even the “freest” one (including the “insurrectionist” militarism) is inherently Authoritarian”. [15]
The War Communism policy turned the attention of some Anarchist political writers towards the possibility of carrying out the social transformations in the spirit of “Anarcho-Communism” “from above”. If Grossman merely regarded the Bolshevik policies as positive, M. Golovinsky and Y. Nersey, the Anarcho-Communist followers of A.A. Karelin, Soviet loyalist and the head of All-Russian Anarcho-Communist Federation, proposed to Soviet Government in 1918 – 1919, in the columns of Volnaya Zhizn (“The Free Life”) journal, to carry out a number of measures transitional to Anarcho-Communist system: the abolition of money circulation, the rejection of rationing system and transition towards direct distribution of the goods on the labour books’ basis; the devolution of economic regulation functions to the trade unions with the planning functions being reserved for the state organs.[16]
To Be Continued
References
1 Golovanov, V.Y. Nestor Makno. – Moscow, 2008. (Russian: Голованов В.Я, Нестор Махно. М. 2008).
2 Sapon, V.P. The Liberty’s Crown of Thorns: Libertarianism in Russian Left-Wing Radicals’ Ideology and Practice (1917 – 1918). – Nizhny Novgorod, 2008. (Russian: Сапон В.П. Терновый венец свободы. Либертаризм в идеологии и практике российских левых радикалов (1917 — 1918 гг.). Нижний Новгород. 2008).
3 Korn, M. (Goldsmit,M.I.). The Revolutionary Syndicalism and Anarchism. The Struggle Against the Capital and the State / The Image of the Future in Russian Socioeconomic Thought of late XIX – early XX Centuries. – Moscow, 1994. – P. 348 – 351. (Russian: Корн М. [Гольдсмит М.И.] Революционный синдикализм и анархизм. Борьба с капиталом и властью // Образ будущего в российской социально-экономической мысли конца XIX — начала XX века. М. 1994. С. 348 — 351).
4 Orgeian, K. (Gogelia, G.I.). On Workers’ Unions. – London, 1907. (Russian: Оргеиан К. [Гогелия Г.И.] О рабочих союзах. Лондон. 1907).
5 Goncharok, M. Essays on Jewish Anarchist Movement (Yiddish-Anarchism) – Jerusalem, 1998. – P. 217-218. (Russian: Гончарок М. Очерки истории еврейского анархистского движения (идиш-анархизм). Иерусалим. 1998. С. 217 – 218).
6 Workers’ Syndicalism: (Industrialism): Collection of Articles. – Moscow, 1919. (Russian: Производственный синдикализм: (Индустриализм): сб. статей. М. 1919).
7 Borovoy, A.A. The Societal Ideals of Modern Mankind. Liberalism. Socialism. Anarchism. ¬– Moscow, 1906. – P. 88. (Russian: Боровой А.А. Общественные идеалы современного человечества. Либерализм. Социализм. Анархизм. М. 1906. С. 88).
8 Vetrov, I.S. Anarchism, Its Theory and Practice. – Saint Petersburg, 1906. – P.11-12. (Russian: Ветров И. С. Анархизм, его теория и практика. СПб. 1906. С. 11 – 12).
9 Markin, V.A. Unknown Kropotkin. – Moscow, 2002. – P. 355, 370. (Russian: Маркин В.А. Неизвестный Кропоткин. М. 2002. С. 355, 370).
10 The State Archive of Russian Federation (GARF). – File Copy 1129. ¬ – Letter 1. (Russian: ГАРФ. Ф. 1129. Оп. 1. ед. хр. 733. Л. 1).
11 Rayevsky (Fishelev, L.). Anarcho-Syndicalism and Critical Syndicalism. – N.Y., 1919. – P. 6, 67-68.
12 Churakov, D.O. The Russian Revolution and the Workers’ Self-Management. – Moscow, 1998. – P.7. (Russian: Чураков Д.О. Русская революция и рабочее самоуправление. 1917. М. 1998. С. 7).
13 The Workers’ Way # 1. – P. 7. (Russian: Рабочий путь. № 1. С. 7).
14 Atabekian, A.M. The Turning Point in the Anarchist Teachings. – Moscow, 1918. – P.3. (Russian: Атабекян А.М. Перелом в анархическом учении. М. 1918. С. 3).
15 Grossman-Roschin, I. The October Revolution and the Tactics of Anarchists-Syndicalists // Golos Truda # 1, 1919. – P.10. (Russian: Гроссман-Рощин.И. Октябрьская революция и тактика анархистов-синдикалистов // Голос труда. 1919. № 1. С. 10).
16 Nersey, A.Y. Trade Unionist Movement and Anarchism // Volnaya Zhizhn #9, January 1921. – P. 9 – 10. (Russian: Нерсей. А.Я. Профессиональное движение и анархизм // Вольная жизнь. № 9. Январь 1921. С. 9 – 10).
Primary Hyperlink - http://st-kropotkin.livejournal.com/110818.html#cutid1 (http://st-kropotkin.livejournal.com/110818.html#cutid1)
It is quite profound and provoking article on the relatively unknown issues of Anarchists - Bolsheviks' relations during the Civil War. The comments are waited for.
Part I
This article by contemporary Russian historian D. Rublyov was published for the first time in the collection Military Intervention and Civil War in Russia (1918 - 1920) – Moscow, 2009. The article is based on the paper presented by the author at the Scientific Conference on Civil War and Intervention of 1918 - 1921 held in Moscow on February, 28th, 2009. Later the paper with a number of essential additions was also presented at Prjamuchino Readings of 2009.
Researchers of Anarchist movement in Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917 - 1921) periodically turn to Anarchists’ views on the problem of establishing the stateless society, as well as to the social transformations conducted under their leadership.[1] Nevertheless, the generalizing researches on the issues of Anarchist-led social transformations in 1917 - 1921 are absent as such. It is hardly reasonable, as during the specified historical period in territory of the former Russian Empire Anarchists tried to turn into reality their model of a new society under conditions of establishment of their (or joint with other left-wing forces) control over certain territories. As the largest precedents of such developments it is possible to distinguish the activities of Makhnovist movement in Ukraine (1917 - 1921), policies of the Anarchist-led Soviet leadership in Bezhetsk, Krasnokholmsk and Vesegonsk districts of the Tver Governorate (spring of 1917 - July of 1918) and Cheremkhovsk Coal Basin of Siberia (March 1917 - spring 1918). However, a number of the insurgent movements which were under the influence of Anarchists, as, for example, peasants’ revolt under the leadership of E.F. Rogov and I.P. Novosyolov (May - December 1920), were not known for their approaches towards any appreciable social transformative activities.
A number of known researchers of Anarchist movement have noted in their works such important feature of social experiments of Anarchists during the Civil War, as well as of the programmatic evolution of certain sectors of Anarchist movement in Civil War, as the resort in theory and practice to certain elements of statism.[2]
For the Russian Anarchists of early 1900s it was conventional to repudiate any possible progressive role of the State both in social development processes and during the social revolution, in particular.[3] The theorists of Anarchism contrasted to the notion of “revolutionary State” the ideal of spontaneous expression of solidarity and mutual aid of the toiling masses, which would smash, in a uniform destructive and creative impulse of revolution, the state machinery and embark on building an Anarcho-Communist society. It was supposed (the Anarcho-Syndicalists expressed this point of view especially pronouncedly) that a role of the lever of social transformations would be performed by the free associations created by workers to protect their class interests in daily economic struggle (workers’ and peasants’ unions, co-operative associations, communes, cultural and scientific associations, rural land communes). According to P.A. Kropotkin and his pupils (G.I. Gogelia, M.I. Goldsmit, etc.), relations of self-management, federalism and solidarity developing in these structures were to prepare the broad layers of the populace for embracement of Anarchist ideas.[4]
However, already in 1900s – 1910s one could observe certain realignment in Anarchists’ views on power structures’ role in social transformations. Its principal cause was the limited influence of Anarchist organizations at that time, demonstrated both by the working class movement’s experiences in the advanced capitalist countries and the events of the Russian Revolution of 1905 – 1907. Already in 1906 J. A. Maryson, one of the Jewish Anarchist movement’s chief theorists, called for Anarchist participation in “parliamentary struggle” in his article Anarchism and Political Activity. [5] The recognition of the role of centralized power structures in the process of social revolution was most seriously promoted by Anarchists participating in Revolutionary Syndicalist working-class movement of West Europe and America. In working out the projects of social transformations they consistently advocated an idea of concentrating not only coordination functions (that was traditional for Anarchists) but also management functions in hands of democratically elected but nevertheless statist bodies of quasi-parliamentary type (the “Confederal Congress” of the General Confederation of Labour as envisaged by É. Pouget and É. Pataud in their book Comment nous ferons la Révolution (How We Shall Bring About the Revolution). The same role was to be played by the “industrial” parliament, the model of which was actually laid out in the IWW programmatic documents.[6] The statist elements in the IWW members’ views on future society are especially interesting, as this organization, together with the GCT, was considered by Russian Anarchists to be a perfect model of organizational form of working-class movement.
The issue of statist forms as the stage preceding the establishment of Anarchist society was touched upon by the Russian Anarchists either. In 1906 A.A. Borovoy, an Anarcho-Individualist theorist, argued in favour of establishing the “State Socialist” regime as a step towards “the economic and psychological preparations” for life in stateless society.[7] At the same time, I.S. Knizhnik-Vetrov, Kropotkin’s disciple, raised an idea about the possibility of evolution of Anarchist society towards the centralist form of social organization: “It is possible to establish the most complex centralization and the most detailed division of labour on the basis of free association, as long as it seems necessary for the interests of economy or culture but at the same does not contradict the principles of personal freedom”.[8] P. A. Kropotkin himself reached the similar conclusions in 1914, proposing an idea, first having been formulated in About Current Events (1914 – 1918) and afterwards developed in his speech at State Conference in Moscow (August, 14, 1917) and in the programmatic documents of “Federalists’ League”, of Russia’s reorganization into confederal democratic republic with the broadest rights of local self-government akin to Switzerland’s political form,[9] with central government’s powers being minimized. All issues falling within the federal government’s competence (i.e. defence, foreign relations, federal-level policy measures, etc.) were to be worked out on the basis of “covenant of provinces” rather than the governmental decrees.[10] These measures, he believed, would objectively facilitate the setting of pre-requisites for development of Anarcho-Communist relations.
The most serious contribution towards the revision of Anarchist perceptions of the role of power structures in social revolution was made by L.I. Fishelev (under alias of Maksim Rayevsky). Proceeding from the fact that Anarchist-led Revolutionary Syndicalist unions incorporated only the minority of the working class in most developed capitalist nations in comparison with the numbers of members of reformist trade unions, he came to the conclusion that the workers are not ready yet to participate in the “immediate” Anarcho-Communist revolution. As an alternative he suggested the idea of transitional “Syndicalist regime”, “feasible only as the result of conquest of power by workers’ syndicates”, as the period of workers’ unions’ economic domination. State structures, being subordinated to the federation of unions and deprived of the majority of their functions, were to “wither away” so far as the workers’ self-management would expand. Basing his ideas on the practice of workers’ movement in the course of the First Russian Revolution of 1905 – 1907, Fishelev pointed out the possible forms of new power in Russia – Councils of Workers’ Deputies, representing the meetings of delegates from workers’ unions, industrial enterprises and services.[11]
During the 1917 revolutionary events initially Anarchists were infused with hope that the social revolution as portended by Bakunin and Kropotkin was soon to come to fruition.[12] The processes of radical democratization of all fields of social life, associated with the formation of various bodies of people’s self-government (Councils of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, shop committees, military units committees, etc.) were regarded by many Anarchist political writers as the expression of anarchic tendencies in social movements. “There is the State no more, there is a Council that is to become a political form of even the smallest of villages! There is no more private property and no proprietors, there is socialized property, with free Factory Commune and fabzavkom (shop committee) that must become economic forms of Syndicalism! There is no Army – it is substituted by the Red Guards, that is by the armed workers and peasants! There are no more planters-landlords, the toiling peasant and associated agriculture that is to supersede the peasantry’s Kulak individualism! The All-Russian Commune without the God, Tsar and masters has commenced!”,[13] in such a positive manner G.P. Maksimov, an Anarcho-Syndicalist journalist, expounded his views on the Russian realities of that time as late as the 1920s.
However, the hopes for spontaneous anarchisation of the masses proved futile. The conditions of the Civil War and Intervention, especially the need to protect the social gains of the Revolution, served as important factors of adjustment of attitudes of sections of Anarchist movement. The first serious attempt of such kind was undertaken by A.M. Atabekian, a representative of Anarcho-Communist movement (1918). Taking into account the unlikelihood of impending world revolution, in fact he proposed to proceed to the establishment of Anarchist model of socialism in one country. Proceeding from that, Atabekian pointed to the need to create a revolutionary army with unitary leadership and even used such terms, “heretical” for Orthodox Anarchism, as “revolutionary patriotism”, “anarchic State”, “anarchic republic”, etc. The government of Russian Soviet Federative Republic, according to Atabekian, was to be reconstructed via the people’ self-government structures’ (such as Soviets, trade unions, shop committees, etc.) and their associations’ takeover of the functions of economic regulation and governance. The broadest autonomy of the regions was to be implemented. Atabekian proposed as the basis of economic transformations the principle of cooperative production domination in industrial centres, with peasants’ communes and even private sector playing substantial role in other regions. On April 2, 1918 this project was adopted by the Anarchist-dominated Klin District Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, but was never put into practice.[14]
The certain groups of Anarchist leaders under conditions of the Civil War went even further than Atabekian, drawing the conclusions about “historical causality” and objective character of Bolsheviks’ extreme measures of mobilization and military dictatorship. I.S. Grossman, one of the leaders of Anarcho-Syndicalist Golos Truda (“Workers’ Voice”) group, stood the closest to this point of view. “… In order to create not the abstract system of free associations but the real force, the establishment of system of organic production is needed. The State need should be counterimposed by the need arising out of the logic of autonomous production, as this very need presumes the freedom of Labour. However, the global Imperialism, by means of blockade and invasion, impedes our turning into the system of organic production. It forced us to substitute the logic of militarism for the logic of production. Therefore, one needs to defeat the global Imperialism in order to overcome the mechanical Statehood. … Under the logic of militarism the foundation of the basis of our anti-State system is impossible – neither for Anarchists, nor for Bolsheviks!” And later on he wrote: “The militarism is the mother of Authoritarianism”. From this onwards he draws the conclusion that Anarchists, if they were in place of the Bolsheviks, would have to act in accordance with the military dictatorship logic either: “the psychology of militarism, even the “freest” one (including the “insurrectionist” militarism) is inherently Authoritarian”. [15]
The War Communism policy turned the attention of some Anarchist political writers towards the possibility of carrying out the social transformations in the spirit of “Anarcho-Communism” “from above”. If Grossman merely regarded the Bolshevik policies as positive, M. Golovinsky and Y. Nersey, the Anarcho-Communist followers of A.A. Karelin, Soviet loyalist and the head of All-Russian Anarcho-Communist Federation, proposed to Soviet Government in 1918 – 1919, in the columns of Volnaya Zhizn (“The Free Life”) journal, to carry out a number of measures transitional to Anarcho-Communist system: the abolition of money circulation, the rejection of rationing system and transition towards direct distribution of the goods on the labour books’ basis; the devolution of economic regulation functions to the trade unions with the planning functions being reserved for the state organs.[16]
To Be Continued
References
1 Golovanov, V.Y. Nestor Makno. – Moscow, 2008. (Russian: Голованов В.Я, Нестор Махно. М. 2008).
2 Sapon, V.P. The Liberty’s Crown of Thorns: Libertarianism in Russian Left-Wing Radicals’ Ideology and Practice (1917 – 1918). – Nizhny Novgorod, 2008. (Russian: Сапон В.П. Терновый венец свободы. Либертаризм в идеологии и практике российских левых радикалов (1917 — 1918 гг.). Нижний Новгород. 2008).
3 Korn, M. (Goldsmit,M.I.). The Revolutionary Syndicalism and Anarchism. The Struggle Against the Capital and the State / The Image of the Future in Russian Socioeconomic Thought of late XIX – early XX Centuries. – Moscow, 1994. – P. 348 – 351. (Russian: Корн М. [Гольдсмит М.И.] Революционный синдикализм и анархизм. Борьба с капиталом и властью // Образ будущего в российской социально-экономической мысли конца XIX — начала XX века. М. 1994. С. 348 — 351).
4 Orgeian, K. (Gogelia, G.I.). On Workers’ Unions. – London, 1907. (Russian: Оргеиан К. [Гогелия Г.И.] О рабочих союзах. Лондон. 1907).
5 Goncharok, M. Essays on Jewish Anarchist Movement (Yiddish-Anarchism) – Jerusalem, 1998. – P. 217-218. (Russian: Гончарок М. Очерки истории еврейского анархистского движения (идиш-анархизм). Иерусалим. 1998. С. 217 – 218).
6 Workers’ Syndicalism: (Industrialism): Collection of Articles. – Moscow, 1919. (Russian: Производственный синдикализм: (Индустриализм): сб. статей. М. 1919).
7 Borovoy, A.A. The Societal Ideals of Modern Mankind. Liberalism. Socialism. Anarchism. ¬– Moscow, 1906. – P. 88. (Russian: Боровой А.А. Общественные идеалы современного человечества. Либерализм. Социализм. Анархизм. М. 1906. С. 88).
8 Vetrov, I.S. Anarchism, Its Theory and Practice. – Saint Petersburg, 1906. – P.11-12. (Russian: Ветров И. С. Анархизм, его теория и практика. СПб. 1906. С. 11 – 12).
9 Markin, V.A. Unknown Kropotkin. – Moscow, 2002. – P. 355, 370. (Russian: Маркин В.А. Неизвестный Кропоткин. М. 2002. С. 355, 370).
10 The State Archive of Russian Federation (GARF). – File Copy 1129. ¬ – Letter 1. (Russian: ГАРФ. Ф. 1129. Оп. 1. ед. хр. 733. Л. 1).
11 Rayevsky (Fishelev, L.). Anarcho-Syndicalism and Critical Syndicalism. – N.Y., 1919. – P. 6, 67-68.
12 Churakov, D.O. The Russian Revolution and the Workers’ Self-Management. – Moscow, 1998. – P.7. (Russian: Чураков Д.О. Русская революция и рабочее самоуправление. 1917. М. 1998. С. 7).
13 The Workers’ Way # 1. – P. 7. (Russian: Рабочий путь. № 1. С. 7).
14 Atabekian, A.M. The Turning Point in the Anarchist Teachings. – Moscow, 1918. – P.3. (Russian: Атабекян А.М. Перелом в анархическом учении. М. 1918. С. 3).
15 Grossman-Roschin, I. The October Revolution and the Tactics of Anarchists-Syndicalists // Golos Truda # 1, 1919. – P.10. (Russian: Гроссман-Рощин.И. Октябрьская революция и тактика анархистов-синдикалистов // Голос труда. 1919. № 1. С. 10).
16 Nersey, A.Y. Trade Unionist Movement and Anarchism // Volnaya Zhizhn #9, January 1921. – P. 9 – 10. (Russian: Нерсей. А.Я. Профессиональное движение и анархизм // Вольная жизнь. № 9. Январь 1921. С. 9 – 10).
Primary Hyperlink - http://st-kropotkin.livejournal.com/110818.html#cutid1 (http://st-kropotkin.livejournal.com/110818.html#cutid1)
It is quite profound and provoking article on the relatively unknown issues of Anarchists - Bolsheviks' relations during the Civil War. The comments are waited for.