SigPhiSigPhi

The Kronstadt Rebellion

Alexander Berkman

Language:
English
Status:
Complete work
Authorship:
Written by the author
Condition of the text:
No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
Extent:
~15,200 words · 72 passages
Cite this work
  • APAAlexander Berkman. (n.d.). The Kronstadt Rebellion. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/alexander-berkman/the-kronstadt-rebellion
  • MLAAlexander Berkman. The Kronstadt Rebellion. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/alexander-berkman/the-kronstadt-rebellion.
  • ChicagoAlexander Berkman. The Kronstadt Rebellion. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/alexander-berkman/the-kronstadt-rebellion.

Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.

What it is about

The pamphlet Berkman published in 1922 on the rising of the Kronstadt sailors and its suppression.

Context and history

In March 1921 the garrison of the naval base that had been the vanguard of October rose demanding free elections to the soviets, freedom of the press for socialists and anarchists, and an end to requisitioning. The army took the fortress across the ice of the gulf, and the survivors were shot or deported. Berkman was in Petrograd and lived through it at close quarters; here he collects the proclamations and the dates in order to answer the official version, which held that this was a revolt of White guards paid from abroad. It is a partisan text, written at once and in haste, and it is also one of the first-hand documents that kept the argument over Kronstadt from ever being closed. The same author's diary, 'The Bolshevik Myth', gives the whole context.

Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.

How it begins
disappointment. The Communist State showed no intention of loosening the yoke. The same policies continued, with labor militarisation still further enslaving the people, embittering them with added oppression and tyranny, and in consequence paralising every possibility of industrial revival. The last hope of the proletariat was perishing: the con^ viction grew that the Communist Party was more interested in retaining political power than in saving the Revolution. The most revolutionary elements of Russia, the workers of Petrograd, were the first to speak out. They charged that, aside from other causes, Bolshevik centralisation, bureaucracy, and autocratic attitude toward the peasants and workers were directly responsible for much of the misery and suffering of the people. Many factories and mills of Petrograd had been closed, and the workers were literally starving. They called meetings to consider the situation. The meetings v^ere suppressed by the Government. The Petrograd proletariat, who had borne the brunt of the revolutionary struggles and whose great sacrifices and heroism alone had saved the city from Yudenitch, resented the action of the Government. Keeling against the methods employed by the Bolsheviki continued to grow, More meetings were called, with the same result. The Communists would make no concessions to the proletariat, while at the same time they were offering to compromise with the capi^ talists of Europe and America. The workers wxre indignant — they became aroused. To compel the Government to consider their demands, strikes were called in the Patronny munition works, the Trubotchny and Baltiyski mills, and in the Laferm factory. Instead of talking matters over with the dissatisfied workers, the** Workers' and Peasants' GoYern:= ment" created a v/ar=:time Komitet Oborony (Committee of Defense) with Zinoviev, the most hated man in Petrograd, as Chairman.…

Read the full work →

← Back to Alexander Berkman