it was the month of june and the time of our departure was approaching. petrograd seemed more beautiful than ever; the white nights had come—almost broad daylight without its glare, the mysterious soothing white nights of petrograd. there were rumours of counter-revolutionary danger and the city was guarded against attack. martial law prevailing, it was forbidden to be out on the streets after 1 a. m., even though it was almost daylight. occasionally special permits were obtained by friends and then we would walk through the deserted streets or along the banks of the dark neva, discussing in whispers the perplexing situation. i sought for some outstanding feature in the blurred picture—the russian revolution, a huge flame shooting across the world illuminating the black horizon of the disinherited and oppressed—the revolution, the new hope, the great spiritual awakening. and here i was in the midst of it, yet nowhere could i see the[pg 133] promise and fulfilment of the great event. had i misunderstood the meaning and nature of revolution? perhaps the wrong and the evil i have seen during those five months were inseparable from a revolution. or was it the political machine which the bolsheviki have created—is that the force which is crushing the revolution? if i had witnessed the birth of the latter i should now be better able to judge. but apparently i arrived at the end—the agonizing end of a people. it is all so complex, so impenetrable, a tupik, a blind alley, as the russians call it. only time and earnest study, aided by sympathetic understanding, will show me the way out. meanwhile, i must keep up my courage and—away from petrograd, out among the people.
presently the long-awaited moment arrived. on june 30, 1920, our car was coupled to a slow train called "maxim gorki," and we pulled out of the nikolayevski station, bound for moscow.
in moscow there were many formalities to go through with. we thought a few days would suffice, but we remained two weeks. however, our stay was interesting. the city was alive with delegates to the second congress of the third international; from all parts of the world the workers had sent their comrades to the [pg 134]promised land, revolutionary russia, the first republic of the workers. among the delegates there were also anarchists and syndicalists who believed as firmly as i did six months previously that the bolsheviki were the symbol of the revolution. they had responded to the moscow call with enthusiasm. some of them i had met in petrograd and now they were eager to hear of my experiences and learn my opinions. but what was i to tell them, and would they believe me if i did? would i have believed any adverse criticism before i came to russia? besides, i felt that my views regarding the bolsheviki were still too unformed, too vague, a conglomeration of mere impressions. my old values had been shattered and so far i have been unable to replace them. i could therefore not speak on the fundamental questions, but i did inform my friends that the moscow and petrograd prisons were crowded with anarchists and other revolutionists, and i advised them not to content themselves with the official explanations but to investigate for themselves. i warned them that they would be surrounded by guides and interpreters, most of them men of the tcheka, and that they would not be able to learn the facts unless they made a determined, independent effort.
[pg 135]
there was considerable excitement in moscow at the time. the printers' union had been suppressed and its entire managing board sent to prison. the union had called a public meeting to which members of the british labour mission were invited. there the famous socialist revolutionist tchernov had unexpectedly made his appearance. he severely criticised the bolshevik régime, received an ovation from the huge audience of workers, and then vanished as mysteriously as he had come. the menshevik dan was less successful. he also addressed the meeting, but he failed to make his escape: he landed in the tcheka. the next morning the moscow pravda and the izvestia denounced the action of the printers' union as counter-revolutionary, and raged about tchernov having been permitted to speak. the papers called for exemplary punishment of the printers who dared defy the soviet government.
the bakers' union, a very militant organization, had also been suppressed, and its management replaced by communists. several months before, in march, i had attended a convention of the bakers. the delegates impressed me as a courageous group who did not fear to criticise the bolshevik régime and present the demands[pg 136] of the workers. i wondered then that they were permitted to continue the conference, for they were outspoken in their opposition to the communists. "the bakers are 'shkurniki' [skinners]," i was told; "they always instigate strikes, and only counter-revolutionists can wish to strike in the workers' republic." but it seemed to me that the workers could not follow such reasoning. they did strike. they even committed a more heinous crime: they refused to vote for the communist candidate, electing instead a man of their own choice. this action of the bakers was followed by the arrest of several of their more active members. naturally the workers resented the arbitrary methods of the government.
later i met some of the bakers and found them much embittered against the communist party and the government. i inquired about the condition of their union, telling them that i had been informed that the russian unions were very powerful and had practical control of the industrial life of the country. the bakers laughed. "the trade unions are the lackeys of the government," they said; "they have no independent function, and the workers have no say in them. the trade unions are doing mere[pg 137] police duty for the government." that sounded quite different from the story told by melnichansky, the chairman of the moscow trade union soviet, whom i had met on my first visit to moscow.
on that occasion he had shown me about the trade union headquarters known as the dom soyusov, and explained how the organization worked. seven million workers were in the trade unions, he said; all trades and professions belonged to it. the workers themselves managed the industries and owned them. "the building you are in now is also owned by the unions," he remarked with pride; "formerly it was the house of the nobility." the room we were in had been used for festive assemblies and the great nobles sat in crested chairs around the table in the centre. melnichansky showed me the secret underground passage hidden by a little turntable, through which the nobles could escape in case of danger. they never dreamed that the workers would some day gather around the same table and sit in the beautiful hall of marble columns. the educational and cultural work done by the trade unions, the chairman further explained, was of the greatest scope. "we have our workers' colleges and other [pg 138]cultural institutions giving courses and lectures on various subjects. they are all managed by the workers. the unions own their own means of recreation, and we have access to all the theatres." it was apparent from his explanation that the trade unions of russia had reached a point far beyond anything known by labour organizations in europe and america.
a similar account i had heard from tsiperovitch, the chairman of the petrograd trade unions, with whom i had made my first trip to moscow. he had also shown me about the petrograd labour temple, a beautiful and spacious building where the petrograd unions had their offices. his recital also made it clear that the workers of russia had at last come into their own.
but gradually i began to see the other side of the medal. i found that like most things in russia the trade union picture had a double facet: one paraded before foreign visitors and "investigators," the other known by the masses. the bakers and the printers had recently been shown the other side. it was a lesson of the benefits that accrued to the trade unions in the socialist republic.
in march i had attended an election meeting[pg 139] arranged by the workers of one of the large moscow factories. it was the most exciting gathering i had witnessed in russia—the dimly lit hall in the factory club rooms, the faces of the men and women worn with privation and suffering, the intense feeling over the wrong done them, all impressed me very strongly. their chosen representative, an anarchist, had been refused his mandate by the soviet authorities. it was the third time the workers gathered to re-elect their delegate to the moscow soviet, and every time they elected the same man. the communist candidate opposing him was semashko, the commissar of the department of health. i had expected to find an educated and cultured man. but the behaviour and language of the commissar at that election meeting would have put a hod-carrier to shame. he raved against the workers for choosing a non-communist, called anathema upon their heads, and threatened them with the tcheka and the curtailment of their rations. but he had no effect upon the audience except to emphasize their opposition to him, and to arouse antagonism against the party he represented. the final victory, however, was with semashko. the workers' choice was repudiated by the authorities and later even[pg 140] arrested and imprisoned. that was in march. in may, during the visit of the british labour mission, the factory candidate together with other political prisoners declared a hunger strike, which resulted in their liberation.
the story told me by the bakers of their election experiences had the quality of our own wild west during its pioneer days. tchekists with loaded guns were in the habit of attending gatherings of the unions and they made it clear what would happen if the workers should fail to elect a communist. but the bakers, a strong and militant organization, would not be intimidated. they declared that no bread would be baked in moscow unless they were permitted to elect their own candidate. that had the desired effect. after the meeting the tchekists tried to arrest the candidate-elect, but the bakers surrounded him and saw him safely home. the next day they sent their ultimatum to the authorities, demanding recognition of their choice and threatening to strike in case of refusal. thus the bakers triumphed and gained an advantage over their less courageous brothers in the other labour organizations of minor importance. in starving russia the work of the bakers was as vital as life itself.
