What do you think?
Rate this book
The Guillotine at Work: The Leninist Counter-revolution
Originally published in 1940 in two volumes, this is the (partly eyewitness) account of the Leninist terror inflicted upon Russia. Maximoff, a life-long anarchist, fought in the Russian Revolution, organized with the metal-workers, and was imprisoned by Lenin’s secret police in 1920 when he refused to join the Red Army (he was happy to fight the Whites, but not put down workers’ and peasants’ uprisings). Exiled, he wrote this incredible volume, in English. Over the course of nearly 400 pages, he recounts not only the Leninist terror and reaction against the popular revolution, but shows how the actions of Stalin followed deliberately in h is master, and mentor’s footsteps. Volume 2, unfortunately never reprinted, was a collection of supporting documents/primary evidence. Regardless, this volume stands alone as a stunning, and sadly relevant indictment of the Bolshevik terror. This is the original American edition of the Cienfuegos Press edition, published here in America in 1979.
360 pages, Paperback
Published May 1, 1979
3 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
Grigori Petrovitch Maximoff
7 books2 followersNoted Russian anarcho-syndicalist who survived a Cheka round up of anarchists in 1921 by staging a hunger strike which brought adverse attention to the regime.
Subsequently deported from the country and took up residence in the US.
He is best remembered for his work: The Guillotine at Work, about the repression in Russia after the Bolshevik seized power.
Subsequently deported from the country and took up residence in the US.
He is best remembered for his work: The Guillotine at Work, about the repression in Russia after the Bolshevik seized power.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 19, 2021
This, along with Voline’s ‘The Unknown Revolution’, represent the two most important anarchist histories of the Russian Revolution written by contemporaries, sharing overlapping similarities and key differences.
Their fundamental thesis is the same - only the anarchists had the right ideas, and only their ideas could have led to the social liberation of workers, peasants, and all the downtrodden and oppressed across the Tsarist Empire.
Leading to the ultimate emancipation of all humanity and the emergence of a stateless and classless society - first in the Tsarist Empire, then the world.
But there are important differences. Voline takes what you might call the traditional anarchist view of viewing all the political parties as the same. While the Left-SRs may have had admirable people in its ranks (even among its leaders) in the end, they were a party and ‘statists’ just like the Bolsheviks in Voline’s opinion. They could offer no solution.
Whereas Maximoff takes a completely opposite tack; there are clear differences between and within the political parties, including the Bolsheviks.
Despite viewing Marxism as a fundamentally totalitarian ideology at its roots, he somewhat contradictorily shows clear admiration for various Mensheviks (themselves Marxists) and others like SRs who are harassed and/or are imprisoned by the Bolsheviks. Given his view that Marxism is totalitarian at its root, Bolshevik repression gives them a halo it is hard to imagine Maximoff giving them in any other context.
He seems to accept that both the Mensheviks and SRs were genuine democratic socialists whatever their limitations, whereas the Bolsheviks are the opposite - though his sympathy for these parties (or at least individual members) seems to conflict with the general anarchist attitude to Social Democracy and political parties, and the notion that there would be little difference if another political party or parties came to power in Russia.
For example, he details the experiences of a former SR member of the Constituent Assembly (a M.D. Shishkin) imprisoned by the government, who was then sentenced to be executed by a tribunal - but was ‘kidnapped’ by jailed Social-Democratic prisoners into their cell. This 1922 judgement was taken up for review by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee - he was then exiled to Volgoda, and later deported along with 200 others.
While the context is radically different, it seems hard to believe Maximoff would have much sympathy for American politicians in a similar predicament (his later adopted home) if an equivalent American institution like the House of Representatives had been shut down in the course of a radical, and not a right-wing revolt in the United States, in the name of installing a higher democracy with fundamentally more democratic and representative institutions - as Soviet democracy arguably was at the time.
But for members of the Constituent Assembly (which, to be fair, generally unlike the US House of Representatives did contain a fair few members who had played sometimes significant roles in radical politics over the years i.e. the SR Victor Chernov, though somewhat compromised by his role as the Minister of Agriculture in the Provisional Government; and later even more compromised when a Constituent Assembly was re-established by an anti-Bolshevik government in Samara under the protection of Czechoslovak and White bayonets - dissolved by them a few months later after it had outlived its limited usefulness in providing a ‘democratic’ facade) he can find a place in his heart.
The Constituent Assembly was disbanded with the help of an anarchist sailor, after all, and Russian anarchists as a whole had never really had any illusions in such an institution; in fact, calling for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly had been a key SR and social-democratic demand.
Indeed, among the three key demands that characterised the Bolsheviks up to the October Revolution - coming to be known as the ‘three whales of Bolshevism’ (named after the popular Russian folktale that the world is balanced on the backs of three whales) were (1) an eight-hour workday for workers, (2) land redistribution for the peasants, and (3) a constituent assembly to establish a democratic republic.
There are echoes of later Cold War demonology in the language, though filtered through his particular anarchist lens - i.e. Lenin was a totalitarian because he was a consistent Marxist who behaved entirely as expected for someone who supported the ideas found in the Communist Manifesto. As simple as that, presto! we have Lenin the totalitarian right out of the bag, from the 1890s until his death in 1924.
Though he can express admiration for the likes of the Bolshevik worker Miasnikov (though presumably, as a Marxist, even one who disagreed with Lenin on important questions, calling for freedom of the press ‘from anarchists to monarchists’ in the 1920s, was also a totalitarian) he has nothing but disgust for all the leading figures - viewing them basically as bosses arguing among themselves.
Both have no problem saying the Soviet regime soon became worse than the Tsarist regime; a very debatable assertion when looking at the early promising period of coalition government with the Left-SRs and the broader legacy of the 1920s as a whole, especially once there had been a serious recovery from the shattering effects of WW1, wars of intervention, famine and civil war, returning the country to pre-WW1 levels of production by the mid-late 1920s.
Not to speak of the cultural and artistic flourishing in the relatively liberal 1920s, despite the political tightening up of the regime post-1921.
Voline refers to the ‘real social revolution’ (as opposed to the, presumably, mostly fake Bolshevik one) being smothered primarily by the Bolsheviks, and partially by the Whites.
They are rightly skeptical of the fantastical claims of the Stalinist regime in the 1930s, the growth statistics etc, but seem to underplay how much change was really happening, how much the country was genuinely being transformed through forcible, breakneck bureaucratic modernisation at an incredible pace.
While both see commonalities from the earlier stage to the later consolidation of Stalinism, they do acknowledge there was progression - Maximoff argues that the Great Terror did not merely behead the Communist Party - ‘its corpse was trampled in mud,’ and that Stalin carried out a coup d’état ‘in the state as well as in the Party.’
He puts it rather well:
‘The destruction of the Party was a complete physical and ideological annihilation. It was a genuine break with Bolshevism, with the revolution and with their tasks and goals: a stateless, classless society based upon economic equality, organised upon an international scale.’
These books are key resources full of relevant information and primary documents, and thus essential for anyone seriously and critically looking at this history however one assesses their political views, judgments and assessments.
Looking through the lens of a particular perspective is often able to give a fuller picture of these earth shaking events that really did change the world.
Their fundamental thesis is the same - only the anarchists had the right ideas, and only their ideas could have led to the social liberation of workers, peasants, and all the downtrodden and oppressed across the Tsarist Empire.
Leading to the ultimate emancipation of all humanity and the emergence of a stateless and classless society - first in the Tsarist Empire, then the world.
But there are important differences. Voline takes what you might call the traditional anarchist view of viewing all the political parties as the same. While the Left-SRs may have had admirable people in its ranks (even among its leaders) in the end, they were a party and ‘statists’ just like the Bolsheviks in Voline’s opinion. They could offer no solution.
Whereas Maximoff takes a completely opposite tack; there are clear differences between and within the political parties, including the Bolsheviks.
Despite viewing Marxism as a fundamentally totalitarian ideology at its roots, he somewhat contradictorily shows clear admiration for various Mensheviks (themselves Marxists) and others like SRs who are harassed and/or are imprisoned by the Bolsheviks. Given his view that Marxism is totalitarian at its root, Bolshevik repression gives them a halo it is hard to imagine Maximoff giving them in any other context.
He seems to accept that both the Mensheviks and SRs were genuine democratic socialists whatever their limitations, whereas the Bolsheviks are the opposite - though his sympathy for these parties (or at least individual members) seems to conflict with the general anarchist attitude to Social Democracy and political parties, and the notion that there would be little difference if another political party or parties came to power in Russia.
For example, he details the experiences of a former SR member of the Constituent Assembly (a M.D. Shishkin) imprisoned by the government, who was then sentenced to be executed by a tribunal - but was ‘kidnapped’ by jailed Social-Democratic prisoners into their cell. This 1922 judgement was taken up for review by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee - he was then exiled to Volgoda, and later deported along with 200 others.
While the context is radically different, it seems hard to believe Maximoff would have much sympathy for American politicians in a similar predicament (his later adopted home) if an equivalent American institution like the House of Representatives had been shut down in the course of a radical, and not a right-wing revolt in the United States, in the name of installing a higher democracy with fundamentally more democratic and representative institutions - as Soviet democracy arguably was at the time.
But for members of the Constituent Assembly (which, to be fair, generally unlike the US House of Representatives did contain a fair few members who had played sometimes significant roles in radical politics over the years i.e. the SR Victor Chernov, though somewhat compromised by his role as the Minister of Agriculture in the Provisional Government; and later even more compromised when a Constituent Assembly was re-established by an anti-Bolshevik government in Samara under the protection of Czechoslovak and White bayonets - dissolved by them a few months later after it had outlived its limited usefulness in providing a ‘democratic’ facade) he can find a place in his heart.
The Constituent Assembly was disbanded with the help of an anarchist sailor, after all, and Russian anarchists as a whole had never really had any illusions in such an institution; in fact, calling for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly had been a key SR and social-democratic demand.
Indeed, among the three key demands that characterised the Bolsheviks up to the October Revolution - coming to be known as the ‘three whales of Bolshevism’ (named after the popular Russian folktale that the world is balanced on the backs of three whales) were (1) an eight-hour workday for workers, (2) land redistribution for the peasants, and (3) a constituent assembly to establish a democratic republic.
There are echoes of later Cold War demonology in the language, though filtered through his particular anarchist lens - i.e. Lenin was a totalitarian because he was a consistent Marxist who behaved entirely as expected for someone who supported the ideas found in the Communist Manifesto. As simple as that, presto! we have Lenin the totalitarian right out of the bag, from the 1890s until his death in 1924.
Though he can express admiration for the likes of the Bolshevik worker Miasnikov (though presumably, as a Marxist, even one who disagreed with Lenin on important questions, calling for freedom of the press ‘from anarchists to monarchists’ in the 1920s, was also a totalitarian) he has nothing but disgust for all the leading figures - viewing them basically as bosses arguing among themselves.
Both have no problem saying the Soviet regime soon became worse than the Tsarist regime; a very debatable assertion when looking at the early promising period of coalition government with the Left-SRs and the broader legacy of the 1920s as a whole, especially once there had been a serious recovery from the shattering effects of WW1, wars of intervention, famine and civil war, returning the country to pre-WW1 levels of production by the mid-late 1920s.
Not to speak of the cultural and artistic flourishing in the relatively liberal 1920s, despite the political tightening up of the regime post-1921.
Voline refers to the ‘real social revolution’ (as opposed to the, presumably, mostly fake Bolshevik one) being smothered primarily by the Bolsheviks, and partially by the Whites.
They are rightly skeptical of the fantastical claims of the Stalinist regime in the 1930s, the growth statistics etc, but seem to underplay how much change was really happening, how much the country was genuinely being transformed through forcible, breakneck bureaucratic modernisation at an incredible pace.
While both see commonalities from the earlier stage to the later consolidation of Stalinism, they do acknowledge there was progression - Maximoff argues that the Great Terror did not merely behead the Communist Party - ‘its corpse was trampled in mud,’ and that Stalin carried out a coup d’état ‘in the state as well as in the Party.’
He puts it rather well:
‘The destruction of the Party was a complete physical and ideological annihilation. It was a genuine break with Bolshevism, with the revolution and with their tasks and goals: a stateless, classless society based upon economic equality, organised upon an international scale.’
These books are key resources full of relevant information and primary documents, and thus essential for anyone seriously and critically looking at this history however one assesses their political views, judgments and assessments.
Looking through the lens of a particular perspective is often able to give a fuller picture of these earth shaking events that really did change the world.
December 2, 2011
This book consists of an epic overview of the practice of the Bolshevik state from its inception. It works as a good antidote to Trotskyist histories of the Russian Revolution (which has Maximoff states were only concerned with violence and oppression against their own militants) and the libertarian gloss that given to Lenin's methodology in The State and Revolution.
Maximoff having been a late survivor of the repressions, manages to give a detailed account to the repression against non-white political groups, the suppression of a free speech, systematic use of terror and capital punishment, the widespread strikes and insurrections which were met with brutal hostility (such as events like Kronstadt Rebellion), the campaigns of aggression by Lenin and Trotsky against Georgia and Ukraine, the routing of healthy internal opposition within the Bolshevik camps, the mismanagement heaped upon the rural poor leading to famine etc etc.
Maximoff having been a late survivor of the repressions, manages to give a detailed account to the repression against non-white political groups, the suppression of a free speech, systematic use of terror and capital punishment, the widespread strikes and insurrections which were met with brutal hostility (such as events like Kronstadt Rebellion), the campaigns of aggression by Lenin and Trotsky against Georgia and Ukraine, the routing of healthy internal opposition within the Bolshevik camps, the mismanagement heaped upon the rural poor leading to famine etc etc.
October 5, 2014
The scathing critique of Leninism here never falters. The amount of evidence gathered and source documents cited here is truely shocking. A must read.
Maximoff firstly demonstrates how the Bolshevik party under Lenin centralized and
intentionally began a program of terror against both the white armies but also againt other revolutionary socialists that helped create the revolution. Secondly the author explains how the logical result of such extreme cenralization and one party rule logically lead to the rise of Stalin and a new class of oppressors.
The Guillotime at Work is Great history for someone who wants to learn more about the Russian revolution that never fails to provide compelling evidence. Also a great read to get an understanding of an anarchist critique of marxism.
Maximoff firstly demonstrates how the Bolshevik party under Lenin centralized and
intentionally began a program of terror against both the white armies but also againt other revolutionary socialists that helped create the revolution. Secondly the author explains how the logical result of such extreme cenralization and one party rule logically lead to the rise of Stalin and a new class of oppressors.
The Guillotime at Work is Great history for someone who wants to learn more about the Russian revolution that never fails to provide compelling evidence. Also a great read to get an understanding of an anarchist critique of marxism.
February 4, 2016
The definitive account of Bolshevik/Leninist atrocities and autocracy after the October 1917 seizure of power. A must-read for all those concerned with history and the future, especially of critical and anti-authoritarian sensibilities!
January 7, 2018
It was probably an important book when it was written, back when many non-Russians thought things were going fine in Russia. Now this book is only interest for those doing historical research, although for those, this book is a very detailed account of the crimes of the Lenin and Stalin regimes.
December 26, 2021
Eye opening
Read
October 21, 2023Jesus. Disturbing and convincing.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews