5Arrival and LifeinRussia

On 10 October 1929, wrote aletter to Arthur L. Ross—alawyer and since 1924 her legal representativeinthe United States¹—in which she con- fessed thather deportation from the United States had destroyed her life and that “the misery that has been mine since” was almost unbearable.² Goldman, who was forced to leave the country she loved, hoped,like manyother revolutionaries that went to Soviet , to find anew world, autopia thathad become true and of which she had dreamed for so long.³ Herexperiences between late Janu- ary 1920 and late December 1921⁴ are important to understand whyGoldman turned from apro-Bolshevist supporter into an anti-Bolshevist critic who would relentlesslytry to persuade the international Left,and especiallyanar- chists outside of Russia, thatthe revolution had failed and that Lenin had creat- ed nothing more than anew system of exploitation and suppression, aperver- sion of Marxism and aviolationofall the dreams of the international workers’ movement.Yet at the time Goldman and Berkman weredeported, theyfelt at least some joy about the possibilityofworking with other revolutionary minds to forge anew and better society in Soviet Russia. Berkman would later express this feeling in TheRussian Tragedy (1922),also highlightingthe Russian-Ameri- can dichotomy, as follows:

It was two years ago. Ademocratic government, “the freest on earth,” had deported me— together with 248other politicals—from the country Ihad livedinoverthirty years. Ihad protested emphaticallyagainst the moral wrong perpetrated by an alleged democracy in re- sortingtomethodsithad so vehementlycondemned on the part of the Tsarist autocracy. I branded deportation of politicals as an outrageonthe most fundamental rights of man, and Ifoughtitasamatter of principle. … Russia!Iwas goingtothe country that had swept Tsardom off the map, Iwas to behold the land of the Social Revolution! Could therebegreater joy to one who in his very childhood had been arebelagainst tyranny, whose youth’sunformeddreams had visioned human brotherhood and happiness,whose entirelife was devoted to the Social Revolution?!⁵

 Avrich, Anarchist Voices,72.  Emma Goldman to Arthur Ross, St.Tropez, October 10,1929, Emma GoldmanPapers, Tami- ment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, TAM0.12(henceforth EGP-TAM), Box1, Emma Goldman CorrespondencetoArthur Ross, Jul. 18, 1925 – Dec. 23,1929.  Abidor, “Abidor,Victor Serge,” 159.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,291–302; Falk, Love,Anarchy,and Emma Goldman,183 – 196;Shulman, To the Barricades,203–213; Wexler, Emma Goldman in Exile,57–91.  , TheRussian Tragedy: AReview and An Outlook (Berlin: Der Syndikalist, 1922),6–7. Accessed May20, 2020,https://ia800808.us.archive.org/27/items/al_Alexander_

OpenAccess. ©2020 Frank Jacob, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110679403-005 120 5Arrivaland Life in Russia

However,this enthusiasm, which was partlyshared by Goldman—who, accord- ing to Vivian Gornick’soveremphasis on the famous anarchist’santicipation of her days in Soviet Russia, “was intenselyexcited at the thought of joining the RussianRevolution”⁶—,disappeared very fast,and the two anarchists be- came bitterlydisappointed by the post-revolutionary realities and the system that Lenin had erected while corruptingthe ideas and ideals of February 1917. AccordingtoBerkman, “Russia seemed to reflect the Revolution as afrightful perversion. It was an appallingcaricature of the new life, the world’shope.”⁷ YetinJanuary 1920,theirfeelingsmight still have been more enthusiastic, and Goldman and Berkman were, to quote Gornick once more in this context, “more than readytohavebourgeois American rejection undone by revolutionary Russian welcome.”⁸ In away,the two anarchists were, maybe duetotheir recent experiencesoftheirharsh treatment by the US government and deportation, not willing,asBerkman lateradmitted, “to be convinced thatthe Revolution in Rus- sia had become amirage, adangerous deception. Longand hard Istruggled against this conviction. Yetproofs wereaccumulating,and each daybrought more damningtestimony. Against my will, against my hopes, against the holy fire of admiration and enthusiasm for Russia which burned within me, Iwas con- vinced—convinced that the had been done to death.”⁹ Con- sidering the highhopes and numerous reactions of joy the news about the Feb- ruary Revolution had caused in New York’sLower East Side—where “[i]n the cafés, in the synagogues, on street corners,the immigrant world waserupting in around-the-clock party”¹⁰ with Goldman and Berkman at its radical center —one can getanidea of the tragedy, the anger,and the frustration the two anar- chists must have felt when their dream of arevolution collapsed, to be solelyre- placed by aperverted Marxist party regime. Even in October 1917, when the Bolshevists had taken over in Petrograd (modernSaint Petersburg), the joy about the events was unbroken—not only among left and radicals but also among members of the German ArmySupreme Command like Erich Ludendorff (1865–1937), who, in accordance with aplan hatched by the German Foreign Office, tried to use the Bolshevist

Berkman_The_Russian_Tragedy_A_Review_and_An_Outlook_a4/Alexander_Berkman__The_ Russian_Tragedy__A_Review_and_An_Outlook__a4.pdf. My emphasis.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,106.  Berkman, TheRussian Tragedy,8.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,108.  Berkman, TheRussian Tragedy,8.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,106. 5Arrival and LifeinRussia 121 takeover to end the war on the Eastern Front.¹¹ Of course, Goldman and Berkman had heard news and reports from Russia between the events of the October Re- volution and their deportationinDecember 1919,but all in all they were still willing to support the revolution. ForGoldman, all doubts had to be repressed, especiallysince the Bolshevist policy seemed to be aconsequenceofthe fact that the revolution was endangered by internal and external enemies alike. After four weeks on board the USAT Buford, the radicals who had been de- ported from the United States arrivedinTerijoki, . The group was then transported by train to the Russian border,which they would cross on 19 January 1920 close to the town of Beloostrov.¹² There, they “weregiven what might be termed an official reception just outside of this village,” and, accordingtothe New York Times, “[i]n the crowdthatgreeted Alexander Berkman, Emma Gold- man and theircomrades was Zorien, memberofthe All-Soviet Executive Commit- tee, who, after abrief conferencewith Berkman, agreed to permit the whole party to enter Bolshevist Russia.”¹³ Their arrival had been of no surprise since Europe- an anarchist newspapers and journals, like the Norwegian Alarm,the organ of the Norwegian Syndicalist Federation, to name just one example, had reported on Goldman’sand the other radicals’ fatebefore they arrivedinFinland.¹⁴ Once in Soviet Russia, the radicals weretherefore met by acommittee that rep- resented the Bolshevist government,who “greeted them warmlyand welcomed them to the People’sState.”¹⁵ Nevertheless, the struggle between anarchists and Bolshevists had alreadybroken out,and Goldman and Berkman conse- quentlyarrivedatatime whenthe future of the revolution wasalreadybeing contested and the fight for its theoretical interpretation had begun. Manyanar- chist groups had alreadydeclared open resistance, and the radicals who had just arrivedseemed to be obliged to choose their side within the RussianCivil War that the Bolsheviki werenot onlywagingagainst the counter-revolution from within and without but alsoagainst formerpolitical allies who criticized too openlytheir transformation of the political system into aparty-based bureaucra- tic state that declaredthat it solelyfollowed Marxist ideals but,inreality,ruled even more autocraticallythan the Czar had ever done before.

 Holger H. Herwig, “German Policy in the Eastern Baltic Sea in 1918:Expansion or Anti-Bol- shevik Crusade?” Slavic Review 32, no. 2(1973): 339.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,302;Berkman, The Russian Tragedy,7;Gornick, Emma Goldman,106.  “Bolsheviki Admit All Deported Reds,” New York Times,January 21,1920: 17.  “Fraskrævældets land,” Alarm,January 17,1920: 1.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,106. 122 5Arrivaland Life in Russia

Regardless of the fact that there were anarchists,like Goldman and Berk- man, who accepted the measures of the Bolshevist leadership for too long, there werealso thosewho activelyconfronted Lenin and his followers.The BrianskFederation of Anarchists demanded that the “social vampires” should be removed from the Kremlin, and an underground anarchist organization—ap- propriatelycalled the Underground Anarchists—had playedarole in the bomb- ing of the Communist Party committee headquarters in Moscow on 25 September 1919.Atthe sametime, the Bakunin Partisans of Ekaterinoslavaddressed at- tempts from the right and the left to establish asuppressive rule with the same dynamite.¹⁶ While the fanatical anarchists considered violence and terror as suitable means to protect the ideals of the revolution, some of the less radical ones at least attempted to confront the Bolshevists with their own sins and, as Paul Avrich described it,followed adifferent path: “Renouncing violent action, the milder anarchists armed themselveswith nothing morelethal than pen and ink and mounted averbalattack on the Soviet dictatorship. Amajor theme of their criticism was that the BolshevikRevolution had merelysubstituted ‘state capitalism’ for privatecapitalism, that one big owner had taken the place of manysmall ones, so thatthe peasants and workers now found themselves under the heel of a ‘new class of administrators.’”¹⁷ AlreadyinApril 1919, there weresevere clashes between anarchists and the Cheka in Moscow,but the Bolshevists had not announcedaclear position on yetand would vacillatebetween support and suppression depending on the situation and its necessities.¹⁸ At the same time, the anarchists failed to gain the support of the masses, who needed to rise again to protect the initial aims of the February Revolution against Bolshevist corruption. Theanarchists in Soviet Russia, in con- trast to other countries likeSpain,toname just one example, had no strongre- lationswith the workers’ unions and seemed rather inexperienced with regardto cooperation with these working-class organizations.¹⁹ An exception with regard to the popularsupport the anarchist movement could gain was the Machno Movement in ,which presented one of the largest,most solid,and most long-livingprotest movements against Bolshevist rule during the Russian Civil War. Nestor Machno (1888–1934) led the movement and had initiated aradical agrarian reform in the territory he controlled even be-

 Avrich, “Russian Anarchists,” 298.  Ibid., 299.  Abidor, “VictorSerge,” 133–135.  Rublew, “Die politische Position,” 64–65. 5Arrivaland LifeinRussia 123 fore the Bolshevikihad taken power in urban Soviet Russia.²⁰ In Machno’sterri- tory,political pluralism was not suppressed, although the anarchists werethe politically dominant forcethere. The leader of this specific anarchist movement accepted the council system as an organizational base for Soviet Russia’sfuture, but he did not trust the Bolsheviki and their claim when they demanded all po- litical power for the soviets.²¹ Machno tried to offer an anarchist alternative and announced his intention to follow an anarcho-communist idea thatwas based on the theoretical reflections of MikhailBakunin (1814–1876)and Pyotr Kropot- kin (1842–1921). Militarily, Machno was able to defend his position and, at the same time,countered Trotsky’sattempt to reorganizehis troops accordingto the regular organizational structure of the Red Army. Trotsky had realized the danger of the continuing existenceofMachno’sforces and his movement, which was considered as astate within the state. Initially, the Bolsheviki needed Machno and his troops to defend the new order against its enemies and therefore granted him aspecial status.²² Once the Bolshevikihad gainedthe upperhand, however,they began to crushthe Machno Movement as well, especiallysince a powerful counterweight in Ukraine would have contestedLenin’sdemand for ab- solutepower and control.²³ When Goldman and Berkman arrivedinJanuary 1920,they mayhavewit- nessed alot of conflicts between the anarchists and Bolshevists in Soviet Russia, although the two deportees might not have had all the necessary information about them. At the beginning,they alsohad to find their own position in the new post-revolutionary order of Soviet Russia;Goldman in particular seemed to struggle with this,and it was reported in the United States thatshe felt quite “homesick.”²⁴ After their arrival, the two anarchists met with former com- rades who had previouslymoved to Soviet Russia in support of the revolution. Bill Shatov,whom the US playwright and author ManuelKomroff (1890 –1974) would laterdescribe as “the Danton of the Russian Revolution,”²⁵ was one of them, and he was unwilling to give up his belief in and support for the revolu- tion.²⁶ In contrast to Goldman and Berkman, Shatov was not really “concerned

 Alexander Schubin, “Die Machno-Bewegung und der Anarchismus,” in Anarchismus und russische Revolution,ed. Philippe Kellermann (Berlin: Dietz, 2017), 67.  Ibid., 70 – 71.  Ibid., 75 – 79.  Ibid., 80 –81.  “Emma Goldman ‘Homesick,’” TheNew York Times,May 8, 1920,2.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,303,note 2.  Ibid., 303–304. 124 5Arrivaland LifeinRussia by the apparent lack of freedoms in post-tsaristRussia,”²⁷ although he had the possibilitytowitness the Bolshevist wrongdoingsinreal time. Goldman would also meet (1887–1920), the US journalist who had provided one of the earliest accounts about the Russian Revolution,²⁸ and she “was shocked by his disquieting reports about conditions in Russia.”²⁹ AccordingtoReed, Goldman was shocked for one simple reason: “Youare alittle confused by the Revolution in action because youhavedealt with it onlyintheory.”³⁰ This eval- uation might be too easy,asGoldman not onlyreferred to theory but alsotofree- dom, which was one of the most important thingsfor her when it came to criti- cism of the Bolsheviki. Of course, Goldman was no fool. She realized that a revolution would not go by the book and that the reality was different than the- oretical assumptions about revolutionary processes. Nevertheless, the famous anarchist was not so shocked by the discrepancies between utopian beliefs and revolutionary realities,but more by the fact thatthe Bolsheviki around Lenin increasinglyneglected anykind of individual freedom when they pressed post-revolutionary Soviet Russia into acorset of new rules that wereenforced by violence and terror. The critical position of Goldman and Berkman made their livesmore diffi- cult,as“true believers” like Reed, Shatov,orBill Haywood “quicklygrew irritat- ed if not downright angry”³¹ about such criticism. The longer Goldman was in Soviet Russia, the clearer she sawthe problematic situation and the Bolsheviki she had supported so stronglyinthe years while she was still in the United States.Her mood was consequentlynot onlydarkened by homesickness but also by the understanding that she had made amistake. Consequently, the eu- phoria the two anarchists had felt when they initiallyarrivedended quickly as, in contrast to many visitors, they could travel without too much “guidance” and actuallytalk to people without the “help” of an official translator.Goldman argued that Marxism had corrupted the revolution, as astate and party structure wereresponsible for the end of the ideal revolutionary aims, and it had simply erected astate rule that was even worse than that of Czarist Russia.Her mood was alsoworsened by the fact that her sister Helena had died in February

 Ibid., 304.  John Reed, TenDaysthat Shookthe World (New York: Boni and Liveright,1919). Also see Eric Homberger, ed., John Reed and the Russian Revolution: Uncollected Articles,Letters, and Speeches on Russia, 1917–1920 (New York: St.Martin’sPress,1992).  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,304.  Cited in ibid.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,112. 5Arrival and LifeinRussia 125

1920,and melancholyruled her spirit afterward.³² She simply could not getout of her isolationinSoviet Russia, not even when she met MaximGorky (1868–1936), the famousRussianwriter, whom Goldman had so manyhopes for with regard to receiving some guidance. In ,the anarchist describes her hopes and disappointment in relation to this meeting with Gorky,which shall be quot- ed here in some detail:

Maxim Gorki, he would surelytell me which side of the Russian face was the real one and which one false. He would help me, he the great realist,whose clarion voicehad thundered against every wrongand who had castigated the crimes against childhood in words of fire. I dispatched anote to Gorki, requestinghim to see me. Ifelt lost in the labyrinth of Soviet Russia, stumblingconstantlyoverthe manyobstacles, vainly groping for the revolutionary light.Ineeded his friendly, guidinghand, Iwrote him. … Maxim Gorki stood beforeme, his peasant facedeeplylined with pain. … Ihad looked forwardwith much anticipationtothe chanceoftalkingtoGorki, yetnow Idid not know how to begin. “Gorki knows nothing about me,” Iwas sayingtomyself…. “He maythink me merely areformer,opposed to the Revolution as such. Or he mayevenget the impression that Iamjust fault-finding on accountofpersonal grievances or because Icould not have ‘butteredtoast and grape- fruit for breakfast’ or other material American blessings.”…[N]ow Iwas upset by the ap- prehension lest Maxim Gorki consider me also apampered bourgeois, dissatisfied because I had failed to find in Soviet Russia the flesh-pots of capitalist America. … Surelythe seer whocould detect beauty in the meanest life and discover nobility in the basest was toopen- etratingtomisunderstand my groping.Hemorethan anyother man would grasp its cause and its pain. … Icontinued: “Ialso hope youwill believemewhenIsay that,though an anarchist,Ihad not been naive enough to think that anarchism could rise overnight, as it were, from the debris of old Russia.” He stopped me with agestureofhis hand. “If that is so, and Idonot doubt you, how can youbesoperplexed at the imperfections youfind in Soviet Russia?Asanold revolutionist youmust know that revolution is a grim and relentless task. Our poor Russia, backwardand crude, her masses,steepedincen- turies of ignoranceand darkness,brutal and lazy beyond anyother people in the world!” I gasped at his sweeping indictment of the entireRussian people. His charge was terrible, if true, Itoldhim. … [H]e replied that the “romantic conception of our great literary genuises” had entirelymisrepresentedthe Russian and had wroughtnoend of evil. The Revolution had dispelled the bubble of the goodness and naïveté of the peasantry.Ithad proved them shrewd,avaricious,and lazy,evensavage in their joy of causingpain. … The roots wereinherent in Russia’sbrutal and uncivilized masses,hesaid. They have no culturaltra- ditions,nosocial values,norespect for human rights and life. They cannot be moved by anythingexceptcoercion and force.All through the ages the Russians had known nothing else. … Iprotested vehementlyagainst these charges. Iargued that in spiteofhis evident faith in the superior qualities of other nations,itwas the ignorant and crude Russian peo- ple that had risen first in revolt.They had shaken Russia by threesuccessive revolutions within twelveyears,and it was they and their will that gave life to “October.”³³

 Ibid., 305–307.  Goldman, Living My Life,ch. 52. 126 5Arrivaland LifeinRussia

Considering how much Goldman adored Russian writers,this experience was quite harsh for her: “Maxim Gorki had been my idol, and Iwould not see his feet of clay. Ibecame convinced, however,ofone thing:neither he nor anyone else could solve my problems. Onlytime and patient seeking could do it, aided by sympathetic understanding of cause and effect in the revolutionary struggle of Russia.”³⁴ Berkman also realized the incapacity of the anarchists to use the revolution, and their “dream began to morph into nightmare.”³⁵ Next to the true believers, there wereatleast some who shared her concerns, such as the British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970),³⁶ who visited So- viet Russia as part of aBritish Labour Party delegation and whom Goldman met in Moscow.³⁷ She described to her niece what she experienced thereinaletter on 25 May1920:

The English Mission was here and is now in Moscow.Bertrand Russell is with them—very interesting man. If onlythey will grasp the black crime that the world is committing against poor sufferingRussia. They arevery touched by the hospitality they received. Will their pro- test when they reachhome express itself onlyinmild words?S[asha] and Ispent much time with the labor men and with Russell. We left nothingundone to impress upon their minds the debt the world owes to Russia, to the marvelous people who have alreadysufferedso much. Iwish Ihad atongue of fire—Iwould burn it into the hearts of the American people what crime is beingcommitted against this great country.³⁸

Goldman and Berkman could obviouslynot persuade the delegation members to actively protest against in Britain, wherethe formerwould later spend some time and try again (this effort will be described in more detail in the next chapters). While still in Soviet Russia, the two anarchists planned to have aone-month trip through the country to, as Goldman described it, “get in touch with the new Russia which is so different from the old.”³⁹ After that,

 Ibid.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,114.  Russell published his views on Bolshevism in Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theoryof Bolshevism (London: Allen &Unwin, 1920). There, he wrote: “Ibelievethat is ne- cessary to the world, and Ibelievethat the heorism of Russia has firedmen’shopes in away which was essential to the realization of Communism in the future.Regarded as asplendid at- tempt,without which ultimatesuccess would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind. But the method by which Moscow aims at establishingCommunism is apioneermethod, rough and dangerous, tooheroic to countthe cost of the oppositionitarouses.Ido not believethat by this method astable or desirableform of Communism can be established.” Ibid., 6.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,305.  Emma Goldman to [Stella Comyn], Petrograd, May25, 1920,LMP,Folder 26,2.  Ibid. 5Arrival and LifeinRussia 127 the future of the two anarchists was unclear: “I[Goldman] maythen go into the work of the Board of Health. They are doing wonderful work. They have asked me to join them. In fact,wehavehad all sorts of offers. But we want to do what will bring the greatest good to the Russian people and yetlet us remain true to our ideal. But first of all, we must getclose to the Russian people.”⁴⁰ It has often been argued that Goldman onlyobserved the steadycorruption of the revolutionary process and did not criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviki before late 1921 or early1922. Thisisnot the case, as the New York Times had already publishedaninterview with her in mid-June 1920 in which the famous anarchist criticized the failures and tyrannyofthe Bolsheviki, and thereby tried to make up for her praise for Lenin and Bolshevist policies in the past:

We always knew the Marxian theory was impossible, abreeder of tyranny. We blinded our- selvestoits faults in America because we believed it might accomplish something. I’ve been herefour months now,and I’ve seen what it has accomplished. Thereisnohealth in it.The StateofSocialism or StateofCapitalism … has done for Russia what it will do for every country.Ithas takenawayeventhe little freedomthe man has under individual capitalism and has made him entirelysubjecttothe whims of bureaucracy which excuses its tyrannyonthe ground it all is done for the welfare of the workers.⁴¹

Regardless of this earlycriticism that was aired in the United States,Goldman and Berkman werestillnot openlycriticizing the Bolshevist rule in Soviet Russia. There, they receivedastipend from the government and used their freedom to travel alot through the country,although they might have felt,asVivian Gornick highlighted, “restless, lonely, and confused, unable to find useful work, much less stability and purposefulness.”⁴² Officially,the trip wasrelated to the plan of the Bolshevist leadership to open aMuseum of the Revolution in Petrograd, for which Goldman and Berkman weresupposedtocollect evidence in all parts of Soviet Russia. Regardless of the purpose, for the two anarchists,this task meant that they wereabletotravelrelatively freelytoall parts of the country and to talk to all kindsofpeople.⁴³ In July 1920,they started their tour and could see factoriesinwhich workers weretreated like slaves, prisons that werefilled with the “political enemies” of Bolshevism—i.e. Mensheviki, Social Revolutionaries, anarchists of all sorts, etc.—and, supposedly, the revolution. In Kiev,Berkman was robbed and lost

 Ibid.  “Emma Goldman Sees TyrannyinRussia,” New York Times,June 18, 1920,7.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,112.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,309.For the experiences of the journey see also Drin- non, Rebel in Paradise,232–233. 128 5Arrivaland Life in Russia his Ingersoll typewriter.⁴⁴ Goldman was also able to observe “incredible misman- agement,favoritism, corruption, [and] centralizedauthoritarianism” on every dayoftheir journey,which was like “anightmarerealized.”⁴⁵ While in Petrograd, Goldman could have believed that her experiences and observations would not be the norm but rather onlyaphase of the revolutionary process that would pass, but seeing all these thingsduringthe tour through Soviet Russia, she had to realize that the revolution had failed. In particular, the use of force, the systematic suppression of freedom, and the widespread terror were obviously bothering the famous anarchist,whose loveoffreedom has alreadybeen de- scribed in Chapter 2. Bolshevism had begun to centralize Soviet Russia and to use the Cheka and its terror to suppress anyform of resistanceagainst this proj- ect.Lenin had become the new Czar of Russia, although he claimedtorule in the name of the workers and peasants as he had announced the establishment of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Likeher visit of Maxim Gorky before, Goldman’s visit of Kropotkin in July 1920,shortlybefore the beginning of the country-wide tour of the two anarchists,was more than disappointing. Goldman later recount- ed the visit,which seemed to offer some enlightenment about the problems in- herent in the Russian Revolution and the related processes, as follows:

In the afternoon, assembled in his study, he [Kropotkin] had again become the scientist and thinker, clear and penetratinginhis judgment of personsand events.We had discussed the dictatorship, the methodsforcedupon the Revolution by necessity and those inherent in the natureofthe party.Iwanted Peter to help me to abetterunderstanding of the situation which was threatening to bankrupt my faith in the Revolution and in the masses. Patiently and with the tenderness one uses towards asick child he had soughttosoothe me. There was no reasontodespair,hehad urged. He understood my inner conflict,hehad as- sured me, but he was certain that in time Ishould learn to distinguish between the Revo- lution and the régime. The twowere worlds apart, the abyss between them bound to grow wider as time went on. The Russian Revolution was far greater than the Frenchand of more potent world-wide significance. It had struck deep into the livesofthe masses everywhere, and no one could foresee the rich harvest humanity would reap from it.The Communists, irrevocablyadheringtothe idea of acentralized State, weredoomed to misdirect the course of the Revolution. Their end beingpolitical supremacy, they had inevitablybecome the Jes- uits of socialism, justifying all means to attain their purpose. Their methods, however,par- alyzedthe energies of the masses and terrorized the people. Yetwithout the people, without the direct participation of the toilersinthe re-construction of the country,nothingcreative and essential could be accomplished. Our own comrades,Kropotkin had continued, had in the past failed to give sufficient consideration to the fundamental elements of the social revolution. The basic factorinsuch an upheavalisthe organization of the economic life of the country.The Russian Revolution proved that we must prepare for that.Hehad

 Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,309–310.  Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise,233. 5Arrivaland Life in Russia 129

cometothe conclusionthat was likelytofurnish what Russia lacked most: the channel through which the industrial and economic upbuilding of the country could flow. He was referring to anarcho-syndicalism, indicating that such asystem, by aid of the co- operatives, would save futurerevolutions the fatal blunders and fearful sufferingRussia was passingthrough.⁴⁶

Kropotkin, who had been exiledfrom the metropolis to the countryside, wherehe resided in the small villageofDmitrov,clearlyidentifiedthe dilemma of the Rus- sian Revolution and the anarchist movement. At the sametime, however,they could not criticize the Bolshevikiand thereby support the enemiesofthe revo- lution.⁴⁷ Kropotkin, aleading figureofthe anarchist movement,consequentlyre- mainedsilent,and so would Berkman and Goldman until they left Soviet Russia in December of the following year.While Kropotkin, however,had addressed the international workers to put pressure on their governments to stop the interna- tional interventions against the Bolshevikiand the Russian Revolution, he had also warned that arevolutionary dictatorship would destroy the revolution as such.⁴⁸ After her meeting with Kropotkin, Goldman was outraged and also com- plained about the current situation to Angelica Balabanov (1878 – 1965),⁴⁹ who would speak with Lenin about it,who then invited Goldman and Berkman to the Kremlin. Lenin would arguethattherewerenoproblems and that the men and women in jail werenoanarchists,but simplybandits.⁵⁰ When Goldman asked about freedom of speech, Lenin just told her thatthis was nothing more than “abourgeois luxury.”⁵¹ While such astatement could onlyoffend Goldman, who had fought for so manyyears for freedom of speech and mind, in the United States people werebeing told that the anarchist wanted to return to the United States,eventhough they were “living comfortably, without working”⁵² in the new Soviet order.Another report in the New York Times on 23 October 1920 confirmed the “Discontent of Emma Goldman,” who, when met by newspaper correspond- ents, “had atinyAmerican flag in her room and was enthusiastic about the Unit- ed States,towhich she desired to return. In fact,she had been spoiled in Amer- ica, and made soft.InAmerica she was regarded as alittle godinher circles,but

 Goldman, Living My Life,ch. 52. My emphasis.  Abidor, “VictorSerge,” 135.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,306–307.  Angelica Balabanoff, My Life as aRebel (New York: Harper,1938), 254.  Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise,234–235.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,111.  “Deportees to Russia Want to Come Back,” New York Times,October 9, 1920,14. 130 5Arrival and LifeinRussia when she arrivedinRussia she was forced to discover thatquite adifferent spirit reigned there; that the proletarian movementhad left her far behind.”⁵³ The re- port continues by emphasizing that Goldman’sRussian utopia had nothing to offer when compared to the life she had in the United States: “In America her wayofliving was certainlynot proletarian, but for manyyears comfortablybour- geois. Andnow,inproletarian Russia,wherethe shortageforces every one to the greatest restrictions, she suddenlyhad to give up manycomforts and to be con- tent with the meagrerations of the Russian people.”⁵⁴ Nevertheless, her status as an internationallyfamous anarchist provided her with some privileges, such as when she and Berkman were allowed to travel “over the country in aspecial car gatheringstatistics on the conditions of labor on the different provinces for the Labor Museum in the Winter Palace.”⁵⁵ In fact,between July and November1920, the two wereallowed to travel rel- atively freelythrough the country,wherethey “weretocollect all material con- cerningthe entire life of Russia since 1917”⁵⁶ for the Museum of the Revolution. In aletter to Stella Comyn and Eleanor Fitzgerald, Goldman alsoenclosed ade- tailed description of her experiencesduringthe trip, which did not solelyrelate to the revolution but also to its horrible impact for minorities, likethe Jewish communities,written in her and Berkman’snames, which shall be presented here in some more detail. In Ukraine,Goldman had witnessed pogroms against the Jewish population and wrote the following with regard to these events: “the terrible pogroms most impressed itself upon my mind. There are no words to pic- ture the suffering, horrors and outragetowhich the have been subjectedby the various pogrom beasts.When Iwas in America Idid not believeinthe Jewish question removed from the whole social question. But since we visited some of the pogrom regionsIhave come to see that there is aJewish question, especially on [sic!] the Ukraine.”⁵⁷ The consequences of the Russian Revolution could espe- ciallybefelt therefor the Jewishpopulation, because “with every changeofau- thority on the Ukraina [sic!] and therehavebeen 17 changes already, the unfor- tunate Jews are the first to payabloodytoll. Entire towns are wiped out,the male population brutallymurdered or crippledfor life. The women, young and old outraged and mutilated. The most dreadful conditions are those of the chil- dren, they are hald crased [sic!] with the recollections of the scenes they were

 “Cofirms DiscontentofEmma Goldman,” New York Times,October 23,1920, 10.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Alexander Berkman to [StellaComyn] and [EleanorFitzgerald], Petrograd, November 3, 1920, LMP,Folder 26.Emphasis in the original.  Ibid., 1. 5Arrivaland Life in Russia 131 made to witness duringthe pogroms.”⁵⁸ With regard to antisemitic violence, the Russian Revolution had consequentlyhardlyprovided anybetter perspective for the Jewish people living on Ukrainian territory.Goldman could onlyreact with shock and pain to the thingsshe had seen and emphasized; according to her own considerations and in relation to her own witnessing, “[i]t is almostcertain that the entire Jewish race willbewiped out should manymore changes take place on [sic!] the Ukraina [sic!]. If for no other reason this alone ought to induse [sic!] the Jews of America to demand recognition of Soviet Russia. But the cap- italist Jews of America, likeother capitalists, are much more concernedin their class interests thaninthe unfortunate members of their race who are being murdered by the enemies of the Russian Revolution.”⁵⁹ In the letter to her niece, Goldman would, however,also refer to her personal situation in Soviet Russia.With regard to the reports about her homesickness, she emphasized:

That Ilong for America is quitetrue, but let no one think it is the America of … reaction, the America which is robbing and exploitingthe people, the America which has sacrificed her ablest youth on the fields of France … for profits and for the strengtheningofher Imperialist power.The America Ilong for is the one of my beloved people, of my numerous devoted friends—of my bravecomrades,the America where Ihave … struggledfor 30 years to awak- en areal understanding for liberty amongthe masses and adeep lovefor whatisworth while and true in the country.Ido indeed long for that America. … Ihavenot and shall not change my attitude towards capitalist America. Ishall fight it always.Astothe America[n] government both stupid and brutal, nothingcan change my hatred for it.⁶⁰

Goldman alsofelt it necessary to let her niece and Eleanor Fitzgerald know that “Ihavenot and do not intend to give interviews.Ifeverthe time comes when I can write my version of the RussianRevolution it will be over my own signature and not otherwise. But thattime has not yetcome, not until the combined wolvesatthe throat of Russia now have released her,not until she can breeth [sic!] freely, stretch her limbs and strike out for her new life have Ianything to say … Istill feel that Iknow Russia toolittle for anyprofound estimate of what is going on in the country.”⁶¹ With this statement,Goldman at least parti- allyexplains whyshe remained silent for so long and did not criticizethe Bol- shevist rule too openly, although, as mentioned before, reports in the US press had alreadygiven aglimpse of the fact that she and Berkman werenolonger

 Ibid.  Ibid.  Ibid., 1–2.  Ibid., 2. 132 5Arrival and LifeinRussia in support of the revolutionary process and the related utopia of abetter world in Soviet Russia. In aletter on the following day, 4November 1920,Goldman stressed that it was the circumstances that were responsible for her silence: “Even if Icould write freelyyou wouldn’tunderstand. No one outside of Russia understands.”⁶² She stressed the fact that even she and Berkman, “who have been in the country almost10months, [who] know the language, … even we do not understand many things, how should youorthe others. Andsomuch must remain unsaid. Time is the clarifier of all doubts and misunderstandings. Time will also throw light on the greates[t] event of our time, great and tragic.”⁶³ At this point,however,Gold- man also still believed that the revolution was not yetlost,that its ideals could still be savedand defended against the Bolshevist rule, which is whyshe enthu- siasticallydeclared: “Thus, the Russian people will yettriumph, the fires which they have lighted threeyears agowillyet inflame the world. Ihaveundying faith in the Russian people whatever faith Imay have lost in other directions….”⁶⁴ The two anarchists tried to reach this triumph by supporting the Russian people, but they wereunwillingtosupport anyform of governnment directly. Goldman had, to name just one example, also proposed to set up aLeagueofRussian Friends of AmericanFreedom, which would supposedlystimulate asimilar revolutionary upheavalashad occurred in Russia in the United States, and Lenin seemed to be willing to support the idea. Yet, in the end, Goldman and Berkman weremostly involved in the work for the Museum of the Revolution and werethereby virtu- allysidelined from political processes.⁶⁵ While they continued their work, the twoanarchists were “quartered in del- egatehouses whereone is certainlynot starved,”⁶⁶ and Goldman reallydisliked the coverageofher person in the Americanpress,asitpresented her as ahome- sick whiner all the time. In addition,she complained to Stella about the reports about Soviet Russia:

As for myself, Ireallydonot carewhat is beingwritten about me. Icare much moreabout the superficialstuff written about Russia. Here is the greatest historic panorama in view of the whole world. Here areapeople heroicallystarvingand freezing and enduring untold misery.Hereisasocial cataclysm uprootingthe old, transvaluing the old values,smashing theories,tearing as under preconceived motions.Yet some … writeabout after afew months

 Emma Goldman to [Stella Comyn], Petrograd, November 4, 1920,LMP,Folder 26,1.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,308.  Emma Goldman to Stella Cominskyand M. Eleanor Fitzgerald, Moscow,January 29,1921, LMP,Folder 27,2. 5Arrival and LifeinRussia 133

or even weeksinRussia. Wells spends 14 days,Mrs. Sheridan afew weeks. Amazingpeo- ple!⁶⁷

On Clare Sheridan (1885–1970)⁶⁸ and her writingsabout Soviet Russia, Goldman did not have asingle positive wordtosay,because “Mrs. Sheridan’sEnglish blood boils when she has to git [sic!] in the same boxwith Hindoos and Egyp- tians. Ihope the blood of the Hindoos and Egyptians boiled even more when they had to be near this English snub whose class has shedsomuch Hindoo, Egyptian and Irish blood.”⁶⁹ Stella must have liked Sheridan’swritingthough, seeing as Goldman added that “the ‘lady’ writesinterestingly and humanly. She writes not badly, but the stuff is sillyand superficial.”⁷⁰ Again, Goldman em- phasizedher respect for Bertrand Russell, who seemed to be “The onlyone who shows some understanding much fairness and aboveall alarge grasp of R[ussia] … Iamjust reading his book. But even he is not in aposition to do the matter justice. Without the language, and onlyafter one month in Russia,how can [he] or anyone else?”⁷¹ This alsoshowsthat Goldman considered onlyherself able to trulywrite about the failure of the RussianRevolution, as she was one of the few who had actuallywitnessed its corruption first-hand. Ironically, Gold- man criticized manyobservers and intellectuals who wrote about the events without actuallyknowing manydetails, criticizing exactlywhat she herself had done before being deported from the United States. Goldman, however,atthe same time also fought with Berkman, who defend- ed the Bolshevist position against anycriticism and argued that the problems would end once the enemies of the Russian Revolution had been defeated and the situation stabilized. That does not mean that Berkman did not criticize the Bolsheviki at all. He,for example, refused to translate Lenin’s TheInfantile Sick- ness of “Leftism” in Communism (1920)⁷² when Karl Radek (1885–1939) asked

 Ibid.  Sheridan was an English journalist and had also been part of the British delegation, whose members Goldman had met in Moscow.Sheridan would later publish her writings about her So- viet Russian experiences in 1921.ClareSheridan, Mayfair to Moscow:ClareSheridan’sDiary (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1921).  Emma Goldman to Stella Cominskyand M. Eleanor Fitzgerald, Moscow,January 29,1921, LMP,Folder 27,2.  Ibid.  Ibid., 3.  VladimirI.Lenin, The Infantile Sickness of “Leftism” in Communism (Moscow:Executive Committee of the , 1920). On Radek’sroleduringthe Russian Revolu- tion, see Wolf-Dietrich Gutjahr, Revolution muss sein: Karl Radek – Die Biographie (Cologne/Wei- mar/Vienna: Böhlau2012), 235–320. 134 5Arrivaland Life in Russia him to do so.⁷³ Berkman would not give up his belief thatthe revolution could still be savedbefore 1921,when every hope seemed to have been lost; however, his “stubborn defense of the and Emma’sgrowingalienation from them produced aserious rift between the two old friends.”⁷⁴ Goldman, in con- trast to Berkman, neither believed in apre-determined course of the revolution- ary process and the Marxian idea of aproletarian dictatorship, nor did she sup- port astate- or party-led revolution, because, as she oftenemphasized, a revolutionary process was drivenbythemasses and not led by aMarxist govern- ment.Asananarchist and life-long rebel against anykind of suppression, her daytoday Russianexperience must reallyhavebeen shocking.Berkman’sawak- ening,however,needed areal shock, which would be provided in March 1921 by the “portent” of the Kronstadt Rebellion.⁷⁵ Around one month earlier,on8Feb- ruary,Kropotkin had died, Goldman’s “beloved teacher and comrade, one of the world’sgreatest and noblest spirits.”⁷⁶ It was at his funeral, and onlyashorttime before the Bolshevists would crush one of the lastattempts to save the revolu- tion, that “the black flag of anarchism was paraded through Moscow for the last time.”⁷⁷ The KronstadtRebellion of March 1921 was the dichotomic counterpart to the Kronstadtnaval rebellion of 1917, ⁷⁸ when the second phase of the revolution began to gain momentum and the Bolsheviki could use their influenceinthe fleet and its sailors to gain ground for theirown plans to radicalize the revolu- tionary process further in October 1917. ⁷⁹ The Russian fleet had traditionallybeen “ahotbed of revolution and thus responsive to Bolshevik,Socialist-Revolution- ary,Anarchist and Maximalist propaganda,”⁸⁰ which is whythe events of March 1921 weresotremendouslybad for the Bolsheviki, who seemed to have lost one of their almost traditionalsupport groups.In1917, the writer,journalist and later fleet commander Fyodor Raskolnikov (1892–1939) had playedanim-

 Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise,235.  Ibid., 236.  Helmut Bock, “Das Menetekel: Kronstadt 1921,” in Helmut Bocketal., Das Menetekel: Kron- stadt 1921—Kriegskommunismus und Alternativen (Berlin: Helle Pankee.V., 2011), 5–20.  Goldman, My FurtherDisillusionment in Russia,ch. 5.  Avrich, “Russian Anarchists,” 305.  Francis Poulin, “Velimir Xlebnikov’sNočnoj Obysk, 36+36,and the KronstadtRevolts,” The Slavic and East European Journal 34,no. 4(1990): 511.  On the Bolshevist organizational structures in Kronstadt sinceFebruary 1917, see David Long- ley, “Some Historiographical Problems of BolshevikParty History (The KronstadtBolsheviks in March1917),” Jahrbücher fürGeschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge 22, no. 4(1974): 494–514.  David A. Longley, “Officers and Men: AStudyofthe Development of Political Attitudes amongthe Sailors of the Baltic Fleet in 1917, ” Soviet Studies 25,no. 1(1973): 50. 5Arrivaland Life in Russia 135 portant role in establishingBolshevist influenceinKronstadt, wherehe, together with other agitators, published anewspaper to spread Bolshevist ideas and propaganda, among other things.⁸¹ That this stronghold would now openly rebel against Lenin’sSoviet state in 1921 was problematic in manyways, but first and foremost it eroded the imageofand trust in the Bolshevist leadership. Americanhistorian Robert V. Daniels (1926–2010) emphasized the crisisKron- stadt actuallycreated when he stated that “[t]he effort to comprehend the causes and aims of the Kronstadtrevolt sheds much additional light on the contempo- rary nature of the Soviet regime, the crisiswhich it was then experiencing,and the trend of its evolution. Conversely, the Kronstadtmovement itself becomes much more intelligible when viewed in this broader context.”⁸² In fact,the uprising had not been planned but happened rather spontane- ously.⁸³ The sailors, however, “rose in revolt against the Bolshevik government, which they themselveshad helpedinto power,”⁸⁴ to defend the idea of the so- viets as the organizational expression of the democratic participation of the masses. Due to their fight against Bolshevist dictatorship and Lenin’smoral cor- ruption of the Russian Revolution, they became martyrs for all thosewho had believed in the utopian dream of aclassless society and those who kept fighting for an ideal society against the forces of acentralizedstate power and its ruling party regime.⁸⁵ Like the February Revolution of 1917, the revolt had started as a protest movement,which werebeginning to be seen in manyparts of Soviet Rus- sia in early1921.⁸⁶ It all began in Petrograd, whereastrike wave,led by the same men that had supported the rise of the Bolshevikiin1917, ⁸⁷ shook the Bolshevist rule in late February,duringwhich the workers expressed their criticism of Bol- shevist bureaucracy,the centralization of the state and manyother aspects that made many groups join the protesters.The responsetothe strikes was lock- downs and military force, and news about the harsh reaction of the Bolshevist rulers in Petrograd soon spread to other cities. The anger with the Bolshevist pol- itics randeepinKronstadt as well, and the news from Petrograd wasprobably

 Norman E. Saul, “Fedor Raskolnikov,a‘Secondary Bolshevik,’” TheRussian Review 32,no. 2 (1973): 133.  Robert V. Daniels, “The Kronstadt Revolt of 1921:AStudyinthe Dynamics of Revolution,” TheAmerican Slavic and East European Review 10,no. 4(1951): 241.  Abidor, “VictorSerge,” 137.  Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921 (New York: Norton, 1974 [1970]), 3.  Ibid.  Daniels, “The KronstadtRevolt,” 241.  Forthe continuities with regard to the revolutionary sailors in 1917and 1921,see Evan Mawdsley, “The Baltic Fleet and the KronstadtMutiny,” Soviet Studies 24,no. 4(1973): 508–509. 136 5Arrivaland Life in Russia just the last drop thatwas needed to turn anger into open protest there as well. The people in Kronstadtwanted to support theirfellow workers in Petrograd, and the demandfor freedom seems to have been back on the revolutionary agen- da of the masses. They demanded “free elections to the soviets; freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties; freedom of assembly; apolitical amnesty;abolition of the political departments in the armyand industry …;equal rations for everyone except people in hazard- ous work …;freedom of economic activity and organization for the peasantry …, but not the right to hire labor; [and] permission of craft manufactures.”⁸⁸ ATem- porary Revolutionary Committee was formed in Kronstadt,and one could have gotthe idea that it was1917all over again. Anew soviet needed to be elected soon, especiallysince the revolutionary process was now,like four years before, triggered by war,yet this time by the Russian Civil Warand the failures of Lenin’s overall policy.Itwas warcommunism that had “failed to transform Russia into a socialist society,” and by the time of the KronstadtRebellion, “the worseningpo- litical and economic situation demanded another approach,”⁸⁹ which is whythe protesters this time did not demand the end of the Czar but the end of the rule of Lenin, whose decisions had obviouslyonlyreplicated the evils of the order that people had alreadyprotestedagainst in 1917. People weresuffering all over So- viet Russia and, as Americanhistorian Jonathan Coopersmith emphasizes in his evaluation of the economic situation, in 1921 this “looked bleak: adevastated transportation network, empty factories,rampant inflation, recalcitrant pea- sants, famine and accompanying epidemics, highunemployment,little trade with the West,and distinctlynonrevolutionary,ifnot hostile, international rela- tions.”⁹⁰ What surprised manyobservers, includingAlexander Berkman, was the speed and the violence with which the Bolshevikireacted to the KronstadtRebel- lion. The workers,according to the exiled Americananarchist,weremisrepre- sented as counter-revolutionaries,while they demanded nothing but honestelec- tions and areturn to the revolutionary ideal of direct democracy.The reaction by the Bolshevist leadership was thereforeconsidered too radical, especiallysince the latter should have had the same interest in afree and open discourse.⁹¹ Of course, such adiscourse was impossiblein1921, when Lenin was no longer in-

 Daniels, “The KronstadtRevolt,” 243.  Jonathan Coopersmith, TheElectrification of Russia, 1880–1926 (Ithaca, NY:Cornell Univer- sity Press, 1992),192.See also Mawdsley, “The Baltic Fleet,” 506.  Coopersmith, TheElectrification of Russia,192.  Alexander Berkman, TheBolshevik Myth (Diary1920 – 1922) (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1925), 300 –301. 5Arrivaland Life in Russia 137 terested in alternative revolutionary paths that would have led away from him holding supreme power in the new state order.Robert V. Daniels speculated that “Lenin and Trotsky must have made ahurried decision that dealingwith the Kronstadters would be too risky,that it was imperative to discredit Kronstadt in the eyes of the rest of the country,and that thereforethey must without hesi- tation denounce the movement as unqualifiedlycounterrevolutionary.”⁹² Open criticism against Bolshevism in Soviet Russia in early1921simply provoked vio- lent reactions as the regime had alreadythrown the old revolutionary ideals overboard, and the onlyquestion of relevance was how to stayinpower.If Lenin and Trotsky had givenintotalks at this time, they would have tacitlyac- cepted such criticism and openedthe door to thosewho also felt the need to de- mand more than they had, ascenario thatwould have eroded the uncontested position of the Bolshevikiinpost-revolutionary Russia. Therefore, it is hardlysur- prising that violence was the chosen method to suppress anyform of anti-Bol- shevist criticism—even if it came from Kronstadt,asymbol of the revolutionary events of 1917. Furthermore, anti-Bolshevist groups had joined the protests very quickly, which is whyevery dayoftheirexistencethreatened Lenin’sposition. That the sailors had joined the protests in 1921 was not onlydue to the economic situation and theirsolidarity with the workers in Petrograd and other cities but also to the restructuringofthe democratic changes according to the demands of war com- munism.⁹³ What eventuallyunifiedall protesters was the sense that their revo- lution, with all its hopes and ideals, had been betrayed by the Bolsheviki.⁹⁴ Gold- man and Berkman had tried to find away to apeaceful solution and had made an argument for anegotiation between the Bolshevist leadership and the protest- ers in Kronstadt, especiallysince they wanted to “avert abloodbath”⁹⁵ and the further spreadofviolence against political forces who were also solely interested in amore ideal-oriented course of the revolutionary process. Regardlessofsuch attempts and different options at hand, the Bolshevist leaders decided to use forcetosuppress the revolt,and on 17 March 1921,the Kronstadt Rebellion was crushed with violence and withoutany hesitation.⁹⁶ The meteorologist J. Neumann alsoemphasized that the winter season of 1920/21was warmer than usual,which made the Bolsheviki worry about the number of interventional op- tions in the near future,and they might thereforehavechosen the fast but

 Daniels, “The KronstadtRevolt,” 246.  Mawdsley, “The Baltic Fleet,” 511.  Abidor, “Abidor,Victor Serge,” 138;Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,311.  Ibid.  Ibid., 312; Daniels, “The Kronstadt Revolt,” 248. 138 5Arrival and LifeinRussia bloodyanswer to the protestinKronstadtaccordingly: “In afew weeks the ice in the Finnish Gulf would melt,and supplies and reinforcements could then be shipped in from the West,converting the fortress into abase for anew interven- tion. Apart from the propagandainvolved, Lenin and Trotsky appear to have been genuinelyanxious over this possibility.”⁹⁷ In the meantime, the Temporary Revolutionary Committee in Kronstadt had also started to preparethe protesters for the comingfight,and on 10 March 1921 declared that “[t]he Bolshevikpower,with the bloodyfield-marshal Trotsky at its head, preservingthe autocracy of the Party,has decided no matter what to sup- press the will of the laboringmasses by shooting hard-workingpeople and by violence against theirfamilies.”⁹⁸ Less than twoweeks later,the KronstadtRebel- lion ended in abloodbath when troops of the Red Armycrushed the protest there. The eventsofKronstadt were awatershed, and those who had still be- lieved that the Bolshevist rule was anecessitytoachievethe classless society had to accept that it was nothing more than adictatorial rule thathad been es- tablished.⁹⁹ Like manyrevolutions before, the RussianRevolution had failed to achievewhat so manyhad hoped for: abetter and just world. Kronstadtwas real- ly “asevere blow to Soviet prestige at homeand abroad”¹⁰⁰ and left no doubt that the Bolshevikihad alreadysacrificedthe revolutionary ideals of February 1917and wereonlyinterested in keepingtheirpowerful position at the top of the new state bureaucracy.The severe and violent reactions,however,show that the powerful position of the Bolsheviki was not yetuncontested, and the “young and insecure state, faced with arebellious population at homeand im- placable enemies abroad who longed to see the Bolsheviksousted from power,”¹⁰¹ obviouslycould not afford to negotiate acompromise, as this would have emphasized its fragile statusand probablyinvited further interven- tions from the outside and protests from within. Paul Avrich’sassessment that “Kronstadtmust be set within abroader context of political and social events, for the revolt was part of alargercrisismarking the transition from WarCommu- nism to the New Economic Policy,acrisiswhich Lenin regarded as the gravest he

 J. Neumann, “ANote on the Winterofthe KronstadtSailors’ Uprisingin1921,” Soviet Studies 44,no. 1(1992):5.  Izvestija of the Temporary Revolutionary Committee, March10, 1921,citedinDaniels, “The Kronstadt Revolt,” 248.  Abidor, “VictorSerge,” 140.  Ivar Spector, “General Ali Fuat Cebesoy and the KronstadtRevolt(1921): AFootnotetoHis- tory,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 3, no. 4(1972): 491.  Avrich, Kronstadt 1921,4. 5Arrivaland LifeinRussia 139 had faced since comingtopower”¹⁰² is consequentlyright in its emphasis of the overall context of the Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921 and its explanation for the vi- olent course chosen by Lenin and his followers. All in all, Kronstadtwas arather short episode, consideringthe long Russian Civil Warand the fact that the revoltingsailors had no support from the outside, but it wasnonetheless an important event and should be more than this short episode—asymbol of how the revolution eventuallyturned against the revolu- tionariesofthe first hour,ofhow the revolution devoured its own children. Berk- man would later sum up the tragedyasfollows:

Kronstadt is of great historic significance. It sounded the death knell [of]Bolshevism with its Party dictatorship, mad centralization, Tcheka terrorism and bureaucratic castes. It struck intothe very heart of Communist autocracy.Atthe same time it shocked the intelli- gent and honest minds of Europe and America intoacritical examination of Bolshevikthe- ories and practices.Itexploded of the Communist Statebeingthe “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government”.Itprovedthat the Communist Party dictatorship and the Russian Revolution areopposites, contradictory and mutuallyexclusive.Itdemon- strated that the Bolshevik regime is unmitigated tyrannyand reaction, and that the Com- munist Stateisitself the most potent and dangerous counter-revolution. Kronstadtfell. But it fell victorious in its idealism and moral purity,its generosity and higher humanity. Kronstadt was superb. It justlyprided itself on not havingshed the blood of its enemies, the Communists within its midst.Ithad no executions.The untutored, unpolished sailors, rough in manner and speech, were toonoble to follow the Bolshevikexample of vengeance: they would not shoot even the hatedCommissars.Kronstadtpersonified the generous,all for-givingspirit of the Slavic soul and the century-old emancipation movement of Russia. Kronstadt was the first popular and entirelyindependentattempt at liberation from the yoke of StateSocialism—an attempt made directlybythe people,bythe workers, soldiers and sailors themselves. It was the first step towardthe third Revolution which is inevitable and which, let us hope, maybringtolong-sufferingRussia lastingfreedomand peace.¹⁰³

Everyone could clearlysee now that the argument of the critics, namelythat “the Soviet regime was becomingabureaucratic,corrupt,violence-ridden parodyof the ideal,”¹⁰⁴ was true, and Berkman alsohad to eventuallyagree that Gold- man’scriticism was correct.Kronstadt, however,was not arepresentation of in- tellectuals whose eyes wereopened afterward, but the raising of the voices of the revolutionary masses of 1917inthe hope of saving something of what they had protested for during the initial period of the RussianRevolution. What they de-

 Ibid., 5.  Alexander Berkman, TheKronstadt Rebellion (Berlin: Der Syndikalist,1922).Accessed May 20,2020, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-the-kronstadt-rebel lion#toc8, afterword. Emphasis in the original.  Daniels, “The Kronstadt Revolt,” 249. 140 5Arrival and LifeinRussia mandedwas a “third Revolution” that would overcomethe wrongs of the second one, i.e. the Bolshevist one of October 1917thathad initiatedthe centralization and bureaucratization of the Soviet Russian state.¹⁰⁵ Thisaspect is important as Kronstadtwould be emblematic for those who would criticize Lenin and proba- blyevenStalin for their betrayal of the revolutionary ideals in the years to come.¹⁰⁶ Trotsky would later arguethat Kronstadtwas the event that created a “pop- ular front of its ownkind”¹⁰⁷ as it combined Russian Mensheviki, Social Demo- crats in London, and manyothers in theircriticism of the further course of events in Soviet Russia. The anarchists in particular would use the “symbol of Kron- stadt” to arguefor the only “true anti-state communism” and against the Bol- shevist rule.¹⁰⁸ Trotsky would also arguethat the relation between the minority, i.e. party avant-garde, and the majority, i.e. the revolutionary masses, would de- termine the character of the revolution. He considered the KronstadtRebellion to have been acounter-revolutionary expression of the masses, which is whythe minorityhad to use forcetosecure the revolution against atransition of the massestosupporters of the counter-revolution.¹⁰⁹ Such comments would, how- ever,hardlypersuade the critics. After the events in March 1921,Goldman and Berkman had finallylost any thoughtabout abetter futureonce Bolshevism ruled uncontested by foreign in- tervention or the RussianCivil War. They had realized thatthe dream related to the February Revolution of 1917could not become true and that everything they had hoped for had been ruined by aparty-governmentand their suppression of free speech and anyform of criticism against the Bolshevist leadership.¹¹⁰ Due to the latter’s “brutality,mendacity,oppression and hypocrisy,”¹¹¹ Goldman was left bitterlydisappointed. Instead of abetter world, the revolution had only brought hungerand despair and,evenworse for the famous anarchist in exile, she had supported the Bolshevist rise with her praise for Lenin and his fol- lowers between 1917and 1919.During the siege of Kronstadt, “Emma and Berk- man wandered helplesslyinPetrograd’sstreets or sat in unbelieving agonyin

 Ibid., 251.  Avrich, Kronstadt 1921,3.  , “Das Zetergeschrei um Kronstadt,” New International,January 15,1938. Ac- cessed April 12, 2020,https://www.marxists.org/deutsch/archiv/trotzki/1938/01/kronstadt.htm.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,311–312.  Abidor, “Victor Serge,” 159. 5Arrivaland Life in Russia 141 the Hotel International,”¹¹² and in the following months the twoanarchists would denyany cooperation with Bolshevism or reliance on Bolshevist support: “Moving into small quarters in Moscow,they livedlike thousands of other ordi- nary Russians, hauling their own wood, preparingtheir ownfood, caring for their own clothes.”¹¹³ Eventually, “Russia under Bolshevikrule had become un- bearable”¹¹⁴ for both of them, and it seemed time to leave before they fell victim to the Bolshevist terror as well, especiallysince political arrests had increased after the events in Kronstadt.Anarchists werethe victims of these arrests in manycities of Soviet Russia, while journals, book stores, and anarchist clubs had been closed,and eventuallythe Cheka began its bloodywork.¹¹⁵ When friends of the two anarchists wereamong the arrested, they realized that it had become to be too dangerous for anarchists in Soviet Russia, and between March and December 1921,Goldman and Berkman tried not to appear too vividly, i.e. critically, on the Bolshevist radar.InSeptember the Cheka arrested their friend, the anarchist FanyaBaron (1887–1921), who was executed without any sort of trial. While Goldman thought about protesting against these practices by the Cheka and “considered making ascene in the manner of the English suf- fragettes by chaining herself to abench in the hall wherethe Third Comintern Congress was meeting and shouting her protests to the delegates,”¹¹⁶ she ulti- matelydid not sayanything. In December 1921,the two anarchists receivedpassports and left Soviet Rus- sia for Latvia. As they were not allowed to continue their journey to Germanyat this time, they ended up in , wherethey begantheiranti-Bolshevist ag- itation thatwould determine their following years of exile.¹¹⁷ Considering that Goldman herself, however,had supported the Bolshevikibefore she went to So- viet Russia, it made her position and now suddenlyexpressed criticism difficult to classify,especiallyfor her friends in the United States. Furthermore, her works since 1922, like her books on her disillusionment in Russia, “ultimatelyalienated the left as well as the right,”¹¹⁸ and Goldman would feel more isolated in her fight against Bolshevism. Yetregardless of this situation, Goldman would never give up trying to shedlight on the thingsshe had seen in Soviet Russia,

 Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise,237.  Ibid., 238.  Ibid., 239.  Avrich and Avrich, Sasha and Emma,312.  Avrich, “Russian Anarchists,” 305–306.  Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise,239–241; Falk, Love, Anarchy,and Emma Goldman,195–196; Gornick, Emma Goldman,92–139;Wexler, Emma Goldman in Exile,92–113.  Gornick, Emma Goldman,108. 142 5Arrival and LifeinRussia on the fact that Lenin had corrupted the revolution, and on the differencebe- tween revolutionary ideals and Bolshevist rule. The famous anarchist therefore never gave up her belief in revolutions and hoped that the masses would, at one point in her life, become trulyrevolutionarilyconscious. But beforehand, she needed to make sure that people did not make the mistake of equating the Russian Revolution of February 1917and its achievements with the Bolshev- ist rule, which was just born out of the moral degradationofthe former.This fight would become Goldman’slife after December 1921 and will be taken into closer consideration in the remainingtwo chapters.