THE BOLSHEVIK ILLUSION: A CASE STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANARCHO-SYNDICALISTS AND BOLSHEVIKS IN REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA, 1917 A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History by Kyle Joseph Brislan SUMMER 2018 © 2018 Kyle Joseph Brislan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii THE BOLSHEVIK ILLUSION: A CASE STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANARCHO-SYNDICALISTS AND BOLSHEVIKS IN REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA, 1917 A Thesis by Kyle Joseph Brislan Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Aaron Cohen __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Christopher Castañeda ____________________________ Date iii Student: Kyle Joseph Brislan I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Dr. Rebecca Kluchin Date Department of History iv Abstract of THE BOLSHEVIK ILLUSION: A CASE STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANARCHO-SYNDICALISTS AND BOLSHEVIKS IN REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA, 1917 by Kyle Joseph Brislan The revolutionary semblance between anarcho-syndicalism and Bolshevism, amplified by the reemergence of populist ideals among factory workers, engendered a temporary alliance between Russia’s anarcho-syndicalists and Bolsheviks at various times during 1917 and the Civil War. Lenin’s vague and politically elusive concepts of revolution and social organization persuaded some anarcho-syndicalists to join the Bolshevik vanguard. Many of Russia’s anarcho-syndicalists fell victim to the Bolshevik illusion, which necessitated the revolution’s success upon the unification of Russia’s revolutionary forces, either to overthrow the Provisional Government or defeat the Whites in the Civil War. The cooperation between anarcho-syndicalist and Bolshevik revolutionaries not only highlights Lenin’s pragmatism at this moment but also the sudden importance of anarchists, both with and against the Bolsheviks, in the making of early-Bolshevik Russia. This thesis provides a modern interpretation of anarcho- syndicalism in revolutionary Russia through a prosopographical approach. An examination of the lives of three noted anarcho-syndicalists will illustrate the v development of a distinct relationship between Russia’s anarcho-syndicalists and Bolsheviks, as well as reveal three similar, yet divergent, anarcho-syndicalist responses to Bolshevism. The cases of Vladimir Shatov, Volin (Vsevolod Eikhenbaum), and Grigorii Maksimov not only represent different anarcho-syndicalist perceptions of Bolshevism during the summer and fall of 1917 but also illustrate the transnationalism of Russian- anarcho-syndicalism. _______________________, Committee Chair Dr. Aaron Cohen _______________________ Date vi DEDICATION For my father John Brislan. Your wisdom, guidance, and love opened my eyes to the wonderous possibilities that life has to offer. Your passion for history and all of its intricacies undoubtedly led me down this road. May my work be a continuous demonstration of your dedication to those whose voices have gone unheard. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is the culmination of over two years of reading, researching, writing, and editing. While my dedication and passion for the project is evident in the following pages, its completion would not have been possible without the assistance, guidance, and support of others. The faculty of the Department of History at California State University, Sacramento were instrumental in the development of this project. To Drs. Paula Austin, Christopher Castañeda, Aaron Cohen, Jeffrey Dym, Rebecca Kluchin, Katerina Lagos, Anne Lindsay, Brendan Lindsay, Jim Rose, Mona Siegel, and Michael Vann, thank you. Your knowledge and guidance not only challenged me to be a better historian, writer, and teacher but also inspired me to tell the story of those unknown. I want to distinctly thank Dr. Kluchin, whose guidance as program advisor made my time in the program less stressful and more productive. Her wisdom undoubtedly prevented me from overextending myself. The work presented here is the product of their program and their endless passion for history and education. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Drs. Cohen and Castañeda. Dr. Castañeda introduced me to the field of history which forever altered my path as a historian. His courses on anarchism and transnational radicalism compelled me to delve deeper into understanding how social constructs and conventions engender radical cultures. The mentorship and guidance of Dr. Cohen ultimately made this thesis possible. His persistent viii support pushed me to examine new aspects of Russian anarchism previously overlooked, and allowed me to offer a new and insightful view into understanding the lives of Russia’s anarchists and the transnational forces that shaped their anarchism. This thesis would be nonexistent without them. Last, it would not only be thoughtless but also selfish of me to not acknowledge the loving support of my family, who have continuously championed my every endeavor. As I struggled into the late hours of the night reading, translating, and writing, their words of encouragement revitalized me. To my younger brother Zach: your constant dedication to bettering yourself and the people surrounding you has been an inspiration, showing me that hard work engenders great results. To my mother Janet: your endless love, support, and encouragement has led me down this momentous path; I could not have done it without you and the sacrifices you made to get me here. Finally, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude and thanks to my best friend and wife Jami Brislan, whose passion for learning and knowledge rivals mine, compelling me to dig deeper into the radical world of Russian anarchism. To my wife: thank you for everything; for the late- nights, rereading the countless revisions, and your amazing love. The world is ours. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Dedication .................................................................................................................. vii Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 2. A HISTORY OF ANARCHISM IN RUSSIA, 1905-1917 .................................. 10 3. VLADIMIR SERGEYEVICH SHATOV ............................................................ 41 4. GRIGORII PETROVICH MAKSIMOV .............................................................. 63 5. VSEVOLOD MIKHAILOVICH EIKHENBAUM (“VOLIN”) .......................... 83 6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 107 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 114 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS MRC Military Revolutionary Committee RWA Russian Workingmen’s Association SD Socialist-Democrat SR Socialist-Revolutionary UORW Union of Russian Workers of the United States and Canada xi 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The role of non-communist revolutionaries in the October Revolution vanished as the architects of Soviet memory after 1917 sought to authenticate the Bolsheviks by placing them at the vanguard of the broader Russian revolutionary tradition. Vladimir Lenin’s fundamental antipathy to anarcho-syndicalism, in his words “the twin brother of opportunism,” omitted anarchist participation in the October coup d’état.1 Yet as he sought to establish his vanguard in the summer of 1917, Lenin engaged Russia’s anarchists for the expected revolution. At that time, his ideas and preference for direct action attracted revolutionaries from various economic, political, and social backgrounds, including anarcho-syndicalists, and his rhetoric reflected an amalgam of various left-wing political theories supported by consistent opposition to the Provisional Government. Lenin’s vague and politically elusive concepts of revolution and social organization persuaded some anarcho-syndicalists to join the Bolshevik vanguard. Russian anarcho- syndicalism, a transnational movement created by European-monarchial oppression and molded by the polarity of industrial market capitalism, therefore played an important role in the October Revolution. The cooperation between anarcho-syndicalist and Bolshevik revolutionaries not only highlights Lenin’s pragmatism at this moment but also the sudden importance of anarchists, both with and against the Bolsheviks, in the making of early-Bolshevik Russia. 1 Vladimir Lenin, State and Revolution (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 40. 2 Traditional historical interpretations of the revolution depicted Lenin and the Bolsheviks as ruthless, unpopular usurpers who seized power through unyielding willpower and political treachery in October 1917, painting a picture of revolutionary maliciousness. Yet, modern historical interpretations of the Bolshevik Revolution illustrate a multitude of economic, social, and political forces which shaped Russia in 1917 and allowed for a successful Bolshevik political coup, all of which highlight the