Anarchism and communism [Archive]

View Full Version : Anarchism and communism

Eugenijus

2nd August 2009, 18:36

Hello.

I noticed the symbolism of anarchism on this website. Does that mean that anarchists are communist's friends? Who thinks so that is wrong.

Anarchism theory is based on destroying a state. It is a point of communists too (communism is stateless). But if you look deaper you see that anarchists are tend to be petit bourgeoisie democrats. Also, they negate policy at all.

Even we can remember Engels' and Marx's polemic with anarchists. When Marx laughed at anarchists. When proletatiat changes the dictatorship of bourgeoisie to dictatorship of proletariat they do a big crime because they want to break a resistance bourgeoisie gratify their slight needs of the day instead of putting their guns down and erasing the state. (not direct quota)

In marxism theory a state is need for suppresion the class of opressors! The state is necessary! When there will be no classes then state will wither itself (state - special suppressing force).

Anarchists negates the dictatorship of proletariat. How it is possible to destroy a state?...

Anarchists always betray communists. They serve for burgeoisie!!!

Communits with anarchists can only fight against fascism or globalisation or something like but not for building communism.

Misanthrope

2nd August 2009, 19:02

In marxism theory a state is need for suppresion the class of opressors! The state is necessary! When there will be no classes then state will wither itself (state - special suppressing force).

Anarchists negates the dictatorship of proletariat. How it is possible to destroy a state?...

Anarchists always betray communists. They serve for burgeoisie!!!

Communits with anarchists can only fight against fascism or globalisation or something like but not for building communism.

The state is compiled of oppressors. The state easily corrupts time and time again throughout history. The state as an institution was formed to protect the capitalists from the workers, the property owners from the workers. The state fundamentally serves the upper class, they have common interests, a revolutionary period is still a class society.

The state is an instrument of class rule that obtains power through force and/or fraud.

where have anarchists "betrayed" communists?

fuck off.

bricolage

2nd August 2009, 19:29

Marxists always betray anarchists.

Fixed.

Eugenijus

2nd August 2009, 19:33

In the 5th congress of I Internacionale. Karl Marx kicked them out from Internacionale due to tacticts and policy. Mikhail Bakunin criticized marxists. When means of production will be nationalized the freedom of people will be limited because the a state will become stronger and stronger. That means that private property still remains.
How anarchists are going to destroy a state at all? Please explain.

Old Man Diogenes

2nd August 2009, 20:13

I noticed the symbolism of anarchism on this website. Does that mean that anarchists are communist's friends? Who thinks so that is wrong.

Cough. Anarchist communism. Cough
Theres other ways not involving a State. Why do Marxists think the

Anarchists negates the dictatorship of proletariat. How it is possible to destroy a state?...

Proleteriat State will slip away, States don't slip away automatically, and to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) no socialist State ever has

Anarchists always betray communists. They serve for burgeoisie!!!

Erm, Spanish Civil War? Marxists betrayed the Anarchists aswell as other Marxists in the POUM, see Marxists even betray OTHER Marxists.

2nd August 2009, 20:17

What a boring thread full of stupidity...

Hello.

I noticed the symbolism of anarchism on this website. Does that mean that anarchists are communist's friends? Who thinks so that is wrong.

People are wrong.Oh hail our great leader, thank you for coming here and explaining us with undoubted bullshit how Anarkkkism is bad, and all Anarkkkists not only shouldnt be friends, but should be executed, and in worse case scenario sent to the gulags.Yeah thats the way.Anarkkkism= evil conspiracy of capitalism.Thank you for opening this forum eyes.We shall remove the (A) symbol now, and shall rule the world.:rolleyes:

Anarchism theory is based on destroying a state. It is a point of communists too (communism is stateless). But if you look deaper you see that anarchists are tend to be petit bourgeoisie democrats. Also, they negate policy at all.

:laugh::laugh:
So you agree that communism is anarchist, but anarchists are "petit bourgeoisie democrats" :laugh: Wtf are you talking about?I can imagine the time you were typing this in your proletarian pc, with the passion of a million red army soldiers..Did you think before type this?Or they just get typed like that?
Have you ever met real Anarchists? Or your party says its illegal to have any relationship with damn Anarkkists?:rolleyes:

Even we can remember Engels' and Marx's polemic with anarchists. When Marx laughed at anarchists. When proletatiat changes the dictatorship of bourgeoisie to dictatorship of proletariat they do a big crime because they want to break a resistance bourgeoisie gratify their slight needs of the day instead of putting their guns down and erasing the state. (not direct quota)

Marx said it, thats it.Anarkkkism is bad.Religion some?:rolleyes:
We hold our guns up, and keep fighting for our ideas, we dont put them down and restore the dictaroship with a different one, which is condemned to fail miserably on its nature, as any dictaroship..The big crime is you do it, and did it, by killing innoscent people, silence peoples ideas, and change the leading class order, by just replacing the current leadership with another..Which basically makes what capitalism used to be..:rolleyes:Thats the big crime, you retain the things capitalism used to have, you retain classes, states, everything.. You system differs very little with capitalism, thats why we are not acceptable to take more oppression.We want communism, and we willa achive it without need some assholes to get the power to sattisfy their power dreams to rule.We wont retain the opressive measures. Yeah thats our "big crime" we want communism asap, if you call that crime, then you are an idiot.

In marxism theory a state is need for suppresion the class of opressors! The state is necessary! When there will be no classes then state will wither itself (state - special suppressing force).

Which means never..There will always be classes, as the state retains them, and by keep opressing the opressors it makes them a different class.So by your own definition, you are nt after communism, you just want to see now opressors to be opressed by you.You are all just power seekers..
Communism isnt about opression, even of those used to opress you..Communism is for freedom and equality..All you are saying and supporting under "communism" its just hypocrisy to cover your will to get in power.You differ very little from now rulers, and you arent communists..

Anarchists negates the dictatorship of proletariat. How it is possible to destroy a state?...

*yawn* The way to destroy a state is retain it?:confused::lol:What a stupid "argument"..It makes absolutely no sense..

Anarchists always betray communists. They serve for burgeoisie!!!

Anarchists are communists, get it straight, or stfu...
They serve for bourgeoise?Thank you for proving yourself more of an idiot, and you have no idea what you are talking about..Give us a break, and quit the false propaganda, some idiots learned to you, and the only thing you manage to do, is to replay what others said to you without criticize it a bit..
History is there, and is quit obvious who betrayed who...Those stupid shit you are talking about here, those lier you are trying to pass, are just bullshit, that history denys..

Communits with anarchists can only fight against fascism or globalisation or something like but not for building communism.

I can fight fight against anything with myself...believe me..
As if we want to work with you?With people like you?Hell no!

Fuserg9:star:

nuisance

2nd August 2009, 20:34

In the 5th congress of I Internacionale. Karl Marx kicked them out from Internacionale due to tacticts and policy. Mikhail Bakunin criticized marxists.
So what does this prove, other than that anarchists and authoritarian Marxists disagree? Anyway, anarchism has come along quite abit since the times of Bakunin with many anarchists finding their politics closer to those of Marx than Bakunins- hence quite why critiques Marxists make of anarchism seem to be based around the feud in the First Internation is strange and redundant.

When means of production will be nationalized the freedom of people will be limited because the a state will become stronger and stronger. That means that private property still remains.
Yes, that's quite a big problem with nationalisation. Point?

How anarchists are going to destroy a state at all? Please explain.
Anarchists aren't going to destory the State singlehandly, the working class will, through expropriation and militias (the people armed). Examples can be seen in Spain and the Ukraine- both where authoratrian Marxists historically betrayed anarchists and workers involved in setting about creating a society based upon libertarian sensibilities.

thejambo1

3rd August 2009, 05:55

anarchists are communists but not all "communists" are anarchists. you seem to have a corrupted view of communism. it does not all equate to stalin etc. there are plenty of sites on the web where you can get a good reading list to explain.

SubcomandanteJames

3rd August 2009, 06:11

Left-Anarchists and communists are both advocating revolution of the working class, and the eventual hope in both instances is the abolition of state. No matter what, the authoritarian statists are the eventual victims of the people's revolution.

EvigLidelse

6th August 2009, 17:21

Anarchism and communism doesn't contradict, and communism isn't necessarily stateless. Communism is a form of social organization of the means of production (or the support of this), and can thus be combined with statism (you can probably even find some state-commies here on the board). Anarchism on the other hand is the very opposition of the statism, and thus cannot be combined with a state. Anarchism in it's struggle against hierarchies tends to involve socialism as well, since usury also can lead to hierarchical relationships.

I.e, both communism and anarchism are striving for the goals of socialism.

StalinFanboy

10th August 2009, 08:07

EvigLidelse

11th August 2009, 11:36

Communism is the end of goal of various revolutionary socialist ideologies.

I suppose our terminology differs. Communism is the end goal according to for example Marx, a stage which follows after the "imperfect" socialistic stage. I define these terms a bit different though. Socialism, traditionally, was a workers movement fighting for the fruits of ones labour, equality, the end of usury etc (i.e, these are "the goals of socialism"). I also define communism as a system of social organization in which we have societal common ownership of the means of production, thus I don't see it as a goal in itself - but a way to perhaps reaching it (which I don't agree with, but that's another topic).

OneNamedNameLess

11th August 2009, 12:01

Die Rote Fahne

15th August 2009, 06:51

The majority of Anarchists invoke/support some form of socialism/collectivism

Mälli

15th August 2009, 10:55

I personally feel that we can co-operate with each other and we should do that.

Jimmie Higgins

15th August 2009, 11:24

Can we have a moratorium on political differences being treated as cross-town sports rivalries?

Political difference and debate are important, but a bunch of statements painting all anarchists as secret-liberals or all socialists as secret-stalinists is worthless.

ZeroNowhere

15th August 2009, 12:56

Communits with anarchists can only fight against fascism or globalisation or something like but not for building communism.Wait, you can fight against globalization while not fighting for communism without looking like an idiot?

Anyways, firstly explain why anarchists are roughly equivalent to the petit-bourgeois democrats of yore. Note that quoting Marx on the petit-bourgeois democrats to attempt to prove your point would make it obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about (his critique of their ideas of decentralization and such proposed by the PBD were to do with the development of capitalism, they were never socialists, unlike, say, anarchists. While some 'decentralization' ideas held by some anarchists are silly, silliness does not make somebody a petit-bourgeois democrat). Good luck with that, equating anti-capitalists with petit-bourgeois democrats will probably be a hard task.

Other than that, the political dictatorship of the proletariat is merely the enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators, something most anarchists are not against. It's just that most non-Marxist anarchists wouldn't call it a 'state'. This makes it a simple difference in terminology. Of course, some people don't get this. For example, I recall from somewhere (was it the Anarchist FAQ? Plausibly) that Marx's definition of the state was metaphysical, whereas Kropotkin's definition of the state was created based on his analysis of the state. However that works.

As for anarchists serving the bourgeoisie (you probably should have added 'since 1914' there, then you could get some people to agree with you), please explain this. Do the bourgeoisie go up to people with black flags and bribe them to betray communists? But in that case you would expect the bourgeoisie to have learned by now, seeing as the anarchists haven't given them any value for their money. Or do they do it in a more subtle manner, serving the bourgeoisie by... Attacking capitalism? Or perhaps they have spoiled the revolutionary movement, except that that's not possible because the opportunity to do so passed far too quickly.

Also, contrary to your assertion in the third and fourth sentences, one of my best friends is an anarchist.

Il Medico

15th August 2009, 13:16

BobKKKindle$

15th August 2009, 13:25

Hmmm....What happened to my post? TAT's seems to have been deleted as well. But they aren' in the trash. I would like to know where it went, the N/A next to the thanks (in user CP) I got on that is annoying me.

I deleted your posts as spam. If you have nothing good to say, just be quiet. A joke picture is not an acceptable contribution no matter how much you may disagree with the OP.

revolution inaction

15th August 2009, 14:26

I deleted your posts as spam. If you have nothing good to say, just be quiet. A joke picture is not an acceptable contribution no matter how much you may disagree with the OP.

the op is basical trolling and is no diffrent from people who say "commys hat freedom and want to put everyone in the gulags"

Black Sheep

15th August 2009, 20:59

the op is basical trolling and is no diffrent from people who say "commys hat freedom and want to put everyone in the gulags" OP is a new member and a passionate anti-revisionist - anti-anarchist, an understandable combination.
He/she came to the learning forum to state his/her opinion and to ask questions.So calm the fuck down.

When the new anarchist member had joined and posted in the learning forum a few weeks (or months?) ago, being all 'communists are evil, communism = red terror' etc, you ALL (and most importantly, ALL the non-anarchists) sat down patiently and explained to him/her what communism is (stateless+classless society) despite the language used and attitude upheld. You didnt mock or neg-repped him/her.

Which is what you should do with this new member here.
So stfu, be calm and mature and if possible educate the new members with whose opinion you dissagree.

The Feral Underclass

15th August 2009, 21:16

Actually it was in the theory forum, I moved it to learning.

15th August 2009, 21:55

bs: What TAT said , this thread was in Theory, and thats because the OP, didnt came here to ask questions, thats why and all this "attack" and from mine part too.The OP has a clear anti-anarchist view, which passes over lots of things we saw even from the most passionate stalinists around, with lots of lies, and falses, but the way s/he writes, s/he isnt a "noob".S/He seem to be an "experienced" stalinkiddo who heart those lies so many times, adopted them as facts.
I cant remember the fact with the Anarchist, but as i said it has difference, the OP posted in theory, and in a way you know its not a new guy in politics. Not all new members need "education", lots of experienced people from RL come in here.
Anw the OP seemed to get in here, shooted the the post, and gone away.It has been some time now, s/he didnt respond so my thinking is that this is better to be closed, and end the situation here.

red cat

15th August 2009, 22:19

where have anarchists "betrayed" communists?

fuck off.

Makhno betrayed the Bolsheviks.

revolution inaction

15th August 2009, 22:25

Makhno betrayed the Bolsheviks.

You have that the wrong way round, it was the Bolsheviks that betrayed the Makhnovists

Искра

15th August 2009, 22:25

Makhno betrayed the Bolsheviks.
Bolsheviks betrayed Makhno.
He fought with them and after he defeated the Whites Trotsky attacked him from behind. Just like he send Red Army on Kronstandt.

The Feral Underclass

15th August 2009, 23:10

Makhno betrayed the Bolsheviks.

In what instance? Can you name the specific situation where this occurred? I want dates, places and events.

Jimmie Higgins

16th August 2009, 03:21

In what instance? Can you name the specific situation where this occurred? I want dates, places and events.
May 1919 Makhno was in alliance with the Red Army, he was forced back and then retreated and called for an independent insurrectionist army. That sounds like the definition of betrayal: have an agreement, break it and then unilaterally begin your own arrangement.

Some anarchists probably don't care but here's what Trotsky had to say about why the Makhnovists. Keep in mind this is during a civil war.

since the Makhnovists are sitting on the railway branch-line from Mariupol, they are refusing to allow the coal and grain to leave except in exchange for other supplies. It has come about that, while rejecting the “state power” created by the workers and peasants of the whole country, the Makhnovists leadership has organized its own little semi-piratical power, which dares to bar the way for the Soviet power of the Ukraine and all of Russia. Instead of the country’s economy being properly organized according to a general plan and conception, and instead of a co-operative, socialist and uniform distribution of all the necessary products, the Makhnovists are trying to establish domination by gangs and bands: whoever has grabbed something is its rightful owner, and can then exchange it for whatever he hasn’t got. This is not products-exchange but commodity-stealing.So think what you will of how the bolsheviks delt with him - it's not like the bols started attacking them out of the blue or because the red army was bored and full of killers or afraid of a "true example of liberation".

Makhno aslo "betrayed his own ideals" although I think he was simply trying to keep his liberated villages and his army intact (hmm, just as the Bolsheviks were trying on a larger scale):
While talking about having a voluntary army, this is what Makhno's army posted in towns regarding conscription:

Some groups have understood voluntary mobilization as mobilization only for those who wish to enter the Insurrectionary Army, and that anyone who for any reason wishes to stay at home is not liable…. This is not correct…. The voluntary mobilization has been called because the peasants, workers and insurgents themselves decided to mobilize themselves without awaiting the arrival of instructions from the central authorities.

So I think radical comrades here should really focus on the political rather than making anarchism/bolshevism some kind of he-said she-said or team-sports competition. I think we should accept that for the most part, radicals who built the Russian Revolution were sincere in wanting real communism and liberation (both Bols and Makhno). One we can look at things like this, what's left to debate is the reasons the Revolution went awry.

I don't think Makhno was bloodthirsty or trying to trick the peasants into backing him but I think his story points out some of the problems of the whole Russian Revolution and points to (in my opinion) some of the failings of some anarchist politics. Likewise I know many anarchists who have reasoned and political reasons why they think that any socialist attempts leads away from real communism. That's fine and we can debate about that - but if marxists call all anarchists inherently liberal or counterrevolutionary or anarchists think any organized marxist secretly wants an autocratic dictatorship, then discussion shuts down.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2009, 07:38

May 1919 Makhno was in alliance with the Red Army, he was forced back and then retreated and called for an independent insurrectionist army. That sounds like the definition of betrayal: have an agreement, break it and then unilaterally begin your own arrangement.

This is factually inaccurate. An insurgent leader allied with the reds named Hyrhor'iv rebelled against the Bolsheviks and they had to withdraw troops from the southern front to quell his uprising. The Makhnovists were then attacked by Denikin and pushed back some considerable miles. The Bolsheviks then took that opportunity to arrest the Makhnovist leadership under a well documented and notorious order made by Trotsky called order 1824. This also banned the Makhnovists from having their fourth peasant conference, which was promised them. Makhno's response was actually to insist that this forces still continue to fight along side the red army, despite the fact Trotsky had orded the leaderships arrest, breaking their agreement.

There was yet another agreement made in November 1920, in which the Bolsheviks told the Makhnovist army that they could still maintain it's own independent detachments with full political and military control over it's soldiers and spheres of influences, namely the collectives. In return the Makhnovists would attach to the red army and fight the whites along side them.

This agreement was published in the Bolsheviks newspapers and is well documented as having taken place. However, when the Makhnovists had done their job, Trotsky ordered the leadership arrested and all those refusing to join the red army be executed. He then ordered the red army attack the Makhnovist lines, thus breaking yet another agreement.

Your history is grossly inadequate and I suggest you read Hitstory of the Makhnovist Movement. It is full of documentary evidence.

Howard509

16th August 2009, 09:20

Anarchists negates the dictatorship of proletariat. How it is possible to destroy a state?...

Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from capitalism?
http://infoshop.org/faq/secI2.html#seci22

Anarchists have long explained how the transition from a capitalist state to a stateless socialism is possible, and have attempted it several times throughout history, with revolutionary Spain perhaps the most important example. The Paris commune was closer to the ideals of anarchism than that of Leninism, this should be obvious.

Jimmie Higgins

16th August 2009, 11:05

Your history is grossly inadequate and I suggest you read Hitstory of the Makhnovist Movement. It is full of documentary evidence.

Way to miss the entire point of my post. But anyway, I'll take the bait.

One of the things that's nice about Makhno is that there is little objective evidence - "History of the Makhhnovist Movement" was a memoir by a comrade of Makhno, right? So sectarian anarchists get to say one thing and sectarian marxists can claim another because basically we have the word of Bolsheviks and the word of not so impartial anarchists. Yeah team-sports politics.

From what I've read, when the Makhnovists were pushed back and they thought that the Bols were keeping weapon shipments from them, they drew back and announced that they were forming an independent army at which point the Reds called for his arrest - which never happened anyway since they formed another shoddy alliance later.

But as I said, it's hard to say since most of the histories of the subject are either Bolshevik documents or personal accounts.

And now, as for my suggested reading list:
*http://www.ditext.com/arshinov/1.html
(http://www.ditext.com/arshinov/1.html)Here's a link to the introduction to "History of the Makhhnovist Movement" - check it out and see what an impartial unbiased view it presents... apparently all socialism is a trick by the international intelligentsia:rolleyes:

Let's get past such sectarian Bullshit please because it makes radical sound like the townhall nutjobs who call Obama a socialist.

Lenin is not only the leader of a party; he is, more importantly, the leader of a certain psychological type of people. In Lenin this human type finds its most perfect and most powerful personification. It is on this model that the selection and grouping of the combative and offensive forces of the democracy are made throughout the whole world. The basic psychological trait of Bolshevism is the realization of its will by means of the violent elimination of all other wills, the absolute destruction of all individuality, to the point where it becomes an inanimate object. It is not difficult to recognize in these traits an ancient breed of masters.

Yes, this is where I would go to get my historical facts.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2009, 12:12

Way to miss the entire point of my post.

What is your point beyond trying to claim that the Makhnovists betrayed the Bolsheviks?

One of the things that's nice about Makhno is that there is little objective evidence - "History of the Makhhnovist Movement" was a memoir by a comrade of Makhno, right?

You can choose not to read it, that's up to you, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is and remains to be documentary evidence that goes beyond your views on anarchism or Peter Arshinov.

So sectarian anarchists get to say one thing and sectarian marxists can claim another because basically we have the word of Bolsheviks and the word of not so impartial anarchists. Yeah team-sports politics.

Again, the actual evidence is undeniable.

From what I've read, when the Makhnovists were pushed back and they thought that the Bols were keeping weapon shipments from them, they drew back and announced that they were forming an independent army at which point the Reds called for his arrest - which never happened anyway since they formed another shoddy alliance later.

That claim is slightly undermined by the fact that there already existed an independent army.

Let's get past such sectarian Bullshit please because it makes radical sound like the townhall nutjobs who call Obama a socialist.

No, I'm sorry I will not. If you want to blatantly revise history then you should be prepared to be criticised. Anyone reading this debate can make their own minds up and I certainly don't think it's "nujob" to correct peoples lies and ignorance.

Yes, this is where I would go to get my historical facts.

I suggest reading it for the provision of evidence within the book. I am not suggesting you read it for your political education.

ZeroNowhere

16th August 2009, 12:46

Pogue

16th August 2009, 14:21

Jimmie Higgins

16th August 2009, 20:43

What is your point beyond trying to claim that the Makhnovists betrayed the Bolsheviks? I'm not trying to prove that. You're the one demanding examples and dates and so I provided what most supporters of the Bolsheviks would consider to be the counter-argument.

I went onto explain that this is a he-said she-said situation...

I don't think Makhno was bloodthirsty or trying to trick the peasants into backing him but I think his story points out some of the problems of the whole Russian Revolution and points to (in my opinion) some of the failings of some anarchist politics. Likewise I know many anarchists who have reasoned and political reasons why they think that any socialist attempts leads away from real communism. That's fine and we can debate about that - but if marxists call all anarchists inherently liberal or counterrevolutionary or anarchists think any organized marxist secretly wants an autocratic dictatorship, then discussion shuts down.

They you go on to tell me I'm misrepresenting and revising history... way to proove my point about anarchists and Marxists who automatically believe that other other side of the debate is a liar.

You can choose not to read it, that's up to you, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is and remains to be documentary evidence that goes beyond your views on anarchism or Peter Arshinov.How can Arshinov's first hand account be evidence beyond what one thinks of Arshinov?!!!

Documentary evidence in this case is like beliving Karl Rove's assesment of the Bush Administration.

You wouldn't belive doumentary evidenceof the same naturefrom the bolsheviks point of view, so this goes to my point that it becomes a he-said, she-said situation because there is little to believe objectivly when Arshinov gives one timeline and the bolshevik supporters give another.

No, I'm sorry I will not. If you want to blatantly revise history then you should be prepared to be criticised. Anyone reading this debate can make their own minds up and I certainly don't think it's "nujob" to correct peoples lies and ignorance.No, it's nutjob to take one person's account of events as historical gospel. It's worth a read to see what his thinking and logic was, but not as a historical account just as things written by Trotsky or Victor Serge are good for understanding their politics and perspective on things.

I suggest reading it for the provision of evidence within the book. I am not suggesting you read it for your political education.Evidence in the book is based on the first-hand account of a partisan who thinks that the bolshevik movement was a trick by the international intelligencia! It's value is in seeing the political thought behind this movement, not an objective telling of historical events. There are no quotes or 3rd party douments in the reading, it's a memoir and just as I wouldn't take bolshevik memoirs as historical gospel, you should be smart enough not to do the same.

Howard509

16th August 2009, 20:45

Notes on Anarchism
Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970----.htm

In Notes on Anarchism, Chomsky explains how anarchism and libertarian Marxism intersect. I frankly don't see a reason for the two positions to argue with each other.

Jimmie Higgins

16th August 2009, 21:04

The supression of Makhno's movement was part of the wider supression of left wing revolts against Bolshevism, including strikes, attempts to preserve workplace autonomy (in place of Bolshevik attempts at one man management, the militarisation of labour, etc) and of course the Kronstadt revolt.
So why did the bols call for an arrest of the Makhnoists and then they didn't and then they formed an alliance again and then that fell apart and then they tried to suppress the movement again if this was all some plan to crush dissent for the sake of crushing dissent. Thoes bols are so devious in being so inconsistant when implementing their master plan!

The perspective of the Bols was that small autonomous rebellions would not be able to hold a revolution together. You can think that was correct or not, that's what the real debate is, but saying that they were on some quest to stop dissent for the sake of it is pretty a-historical unpolitical and straight-up weak.

Jimmie Higgins

16th August 2009, 21:19

Wait, since when did the fact that every history of the Makhnovists is shit mean that one could just go and state that they betrayed the bolshies, when that claim is just as well backed up as the opposite?I think both the Bols and the Makhnos felt betrayed from their perspective - and from their perspective it would be correct. But why should we care - the real questions are political: could Makhno have created a sustainable autonomous area?

My problem with Arshinov's book is the idea that it is somehow a historical document which would be like saying a book by Lenin is the definative historical account of the Menshevik movement. Obviously a book by Lenin or Arshinov is valuable in finding out what their arguments and political thinking was, but I wouldn't use their books to set my watch to.

I think if we can get beyond this he-said she-said BS and talk about the real political issues involved then a lot of unnecissary hostility between anrachists and marxists can be avoided - we might still shout and argue, but at least it would be a more productive and political shouting. Again, if you see the differences as political, then you can debate, if you think all anarchists are counterrevolutionary in all circumstances or that all marxists want to get rid of all dissenting views, then nothing can be accomplished.

RebelDog

17th August 2009, 00:32

But why should we care - the real questions are political: could Makhno have created a sustainable autonomous area? The point is that it was this possibility that drove the Bolshevik repression of libertarian Ukraine. Free-soviets and 'autonomous areas' were, by definition, not controlled by the Bolsheviks and thus were to be crushed, ruthlessly, after they had done the dirty work and defeated the whites for them. The Bolsheviks had no interest whatsoever in democratic worker/peasant contol of production, that is clear. The slogans, the propoganda and the downright lies which the Bolsheviks used against the Makhnovists were their attempt to justify crushing a grassroots, popular, libertarian-communist movement they could never control. If the 'real question' is whether the makhnovists could have sustained a functioning libertarian society then it was a question Lenin and Trotsky never gave any importance to. For them it was a movement and an idea outside their vision for the workers and peasants of the Ukraine and the wider USSR. The repression and massacre of libertarian Ukraine was crime perpetrated by those who saw the peasants and the workers as being a class of producers to fit in to the bottom of an economic hierarchy so the idea of economic equality and the democratic control of free-soviets was to the Bolsheviks an anathema and shamefully labelled 'counter-revolutionary'. For me anyone who attempts to support of give any credence to the Bolshevik destruction of libertarian Ukraine is keeping their lies and crimes against the peasants and workers alive to the present day. It was a massacre of peasants and workers who were fighting for free-communism and the right to control their lives and that was always going to put them in opposition to any tyranny that came to enforce their rule over the producers, be it the Germans, Whites or Bolsheviks.

Pogue

17th August 2009, 00:33

I think both the Bols and the Makhnos felt betrayed from their perspective - and from their perspective it would be correct. But why should we care - the real questions are political: could Makhno have created a sustainable autonomous area?

My problem with Arshinov's book is the idea that it is somehow a historical document which would be like saying a book by Lenin is the definative historical account of the Menshevik movement. Obviously a book by Lenin or Arshinov is valuable in finding out what their arguments and political thinking was, but I wouldn't use their books to set my watch to.

I think if we can get beyond this he-said she-said BS and talk about the real political issues involved then a lot of unnecissary hostility between anrachists and marxists can be avoided - we might still shout and argue, but at least it would be a more productive and political shouting. Again, if you see the differences as political, then you can debate, if you think all anarchists are counterrevolutionary in all circumstances or that all marxists want to get rid of all dissenting views, then nothing can be accomplished.

I don't see how the Bolsheviks could feel betrayed by the Makhnovists. Its historically documented how the Bolsheviks had a coherent plan to supress the Makhnovists which they put into action. Its not really an area that is debated much, except by desperate Trotskyists.

Jimmie Higgins

17th August 2009, 05:43

I don't see how the Bolsheviks could feel betrayed by the Makhnovists. Its historically documented how the Bolsheviks had a coherent plan to supress the Makhnovists which they put into action. Its not really an area that is debated much, except by desperate Trotskyists.And the Makhnovists are only discussed by Trotskyists and Anarchists, so you are basically dismissing 1/2 of the debate.

Look I'm not saying that Makhno set-out to be counter-revolutionary like some do, I'm not even really invested in this history - I have only read a few things and from what I've read neither argument is based on hard facts, just reports by Makhno supporters or from Bolshevik supporters. Therefore if you tend to believe that all anarchists are counter-revolutionary, you see that in the stories and if you believe the bolsheviks were liars, then you see that.

I hate everything that Stalin represents, but do I think he was secretly sharpening knives waiting for the first chance he could to murder dissenters? No, I believe he was a comitted revolutionary but the combination of the historical circumstances the revolution fell into along with his bad politics lead him and a section of people in Russia who he represented on a path away from socialism and communism and towards needed to build industrial power - which he could only do on the backs of the working class and in order to do that he needed to get rid of dissent - including most of the old bolsheviks.

Leaving aside the betrayal issue, personally I think anarchists read the story of Makhno backwards. They aregue that the bolsheviks always wanted to crush dissent and then look back at this history to find evidence. Had the revolution not fallen appart and had Stalinism never come about, I'm sure most people would look at Makhno and say: "What the fuck, why was he trying to stop grain while cities were in famine and there was a civil war". Since the revolution was fucked and Stalinsim derailed the working class movement for most of the century, people tend to look back and say - here, look, they were always secret stalinist bastards! I'm sure the opposite is true for many marxists or whoever, the point is that our movements can't progress if we look at history backwards and rely on he-said she-said history.

In fact, many Trotskyists read history backwards and say if only Trotsky had not been gotten rid of, things would have been different. This too doesn't work.

I think anarchists and "bottom-up" revolutionary socialists can work together in struggle and in coalitions and eventually, when the revolutionary movement is really moving, make our respective cases of worker-democracy through councils vs. autonomus areas or whatever we think is the best stratgey for the working class. But none of us will get anywhere as long as we keep poisoning the well rather than making serious political arguments.