Anarchists, is this an acceptable retort?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Whenever someone says anarcho-communism is idealistic or will never work etc. I tell them about the free territory of ukraine and anarchist spain and how they collapsed because of external influences not because of a failed system
Is this an acceptable retort? I feel like its a cop out

[PhoenixAsh]

Why do you feel it is a cop out?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

All socialism's failed because of external influences, it is never because of the actual system. :)

[Aspiring Humanist]

Why do you feel it is a cop out?

Because I don't really describe in detail the actual mechanics and workings of the anarchist society besides the general structure.

[Rafiq]

Don't try to make it seem like you are just proposing a new society with blueprints and everything (Being Utopian).

Use a material(not moral) criticism of capitalism, and apply the Worker's movement to it.

[Susurrus]

Don't forget the Paris Commune.

[Rafiq]

Because I don't really describe in detail the actual mechanics and workings of the anarchist society besides the general structure.

Because I hate to burst your bubble, friend, but the society(Tactics to achieve) you propose probably couldn't work.

Use Anarchism as more of a tactic for the proletariat, rather than a far off system you want to establish.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Because I hate to burst your bubble, friend, but the society(Tactics to achieve) you propose probably couldn't work.

Use Anarchism as more of a tactic for the proletariat, rather than a far off system you want to establish.

And why is that

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because I don't really describe in detail the actual mechanics and workings of the anarchist society besides the general structure. But then it is no more a cop out than what they have said.

[Iron Felix]

All socialism's failed because of external influences, it is never because of the actual system. :)
This is true but I'm gonna have to guess that societies you considered to have been socialist, I don't consider to have been socialist. I think you mean to say societies like the Soviet Union, the Easter Bloc countries, Yugoslavia, were socialist socieities and they collapsed because of external influences. But they weren't socialist and they collapsed because of internal problems, economical problems.

But then of course you might be talking about societies like the Paris Commune which were crushed by external forces.

[Rafiq]

And why is that



Because society would have to estabilish itself in a way that is basically just too much to handle.

[Luc]

Just consider this: It probably won't want you to give them a long ass story about Spain and the Ukraine.

However if they do want you to do that you could then go into detail. :thumbup1:

It's not a cop-out if they aren't searching for much, only if they want more and you refuse to tell 'em more than just "it worked in spain". :)

[Magón]

Because I don't really describe in detail the actual mechanics and workings of the anarchist society besides the general structure.

Then it's on you to do so. If you feel that describing to them in some detail, the mechanics, ideas, etc. of Anarcho-Communism, isn't a copout, but you don't give them some details on the mechanics, ideas, etc. then it's on you to do so.

[Magón]

Because society would have to estabilish itself in a way that is basically just too much to handle.

Society would have to establish itself in a way, much different than it is now, for Communism anyway. Whether it's through Anarchist or Marxist theory of thinking. I don't think it's too much to handle for Anarcho-Communists, just like I don't think it's too much to handle for Marxists.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This is true but I'm gonna have to guess that societies you considered to have been socialist, I don't consider to have been socialist. I think you mean to say societies like the Soviet Union, the Easter Bloc countries, Yugoslavia, were socialist socieities and they collapsed because of external influences. But they weren't socialist and they collapsed because of internal problems, economical problems.

But then of course you might be talking about societies like the Paris Commune which were crushed by external forces.

All of the ones you mentioned are the societies I was talking about....but I am not about to argue whether or not they were socialist.lol

[Rafiq]

Society would have to establish itself in a way, much different than it is now, for Communism anyway. Whether it's through Anarchist or Marxist theory of thinking. I don't think it's too much to handle for Anarcho-Communists, just like I don't think it's too much to handle for Marxists.

No one is doubting it would be much different, however, the society that is proposed by Anarchists is undoubtly Utopian.

Some Anarchists, and all Marxists, on the other hand, refrain from proposing any blue prints from society and focus on bringing the working class to power.

[Luc]

No one is doubting it would be much different, however, the society that is proposed by Anarchists is undoubtly Utopian.

Rafiq don't start a tendency war. :ohmy:

[Magón]

No one is doubting it would be much different, however, the society that is proposed by Anarchists is undoubtly Utopian.

The society proposed by Anarchists, is Communism, just like Marxists. How is that Utopian?


Some Anarchists, and all Marxists, on the other hand, refrain from proposing any blue prints from society and focus on bringing the working class to power.

What Anarchists are you referring to, who propose blue prints to the new society? There are a lot of Anarchist ways of thinking, just naming "some", doesn't suffice to specify which.

[Ele'ill]

It's alright to say, "I don't have the answers to every question about the new world we want to see built or established- however- I can answer a lot of them- I'm actually really interested in and have spent a lot of time reading/talking/hands oning aspect X" etc...

[Rafiq]

The society proposed by Anarchists, is Communism, just like Marxists. How is that



No, we don't propose any new society, actually.

Our purpose is to understand the dynamics of this one, and understand its inherit contradictions.

Communism and Anarchism are merely movements representing the class interests of the proletariat. I, a non proletarian (student) support that specific class and defend their interests because as a Marxist I understand that the only progressive way humans will advance and organize themselves into is in the hands of that (progressive) class.

So it is neither from a moral standpoint or a financial one, merely it is a logical position.

[Magón]

No, we don't propose any new society, actually.

Our purpose is to understand the dynamics of this one, and understand its inherit contradictions.

What the hell are you talking about? If you're for Communism, you're for an entirely new society. Communism can't just be a mimicry of this society, minus the contradictions, it has to be something completely new from what we live in now.


Communism and Anarchism are merely movements representing the class interests of the proletariat. I, a non proletarian (student) support that specific class and defend their interests because as a Marxist I understand that the only progressive way humans will advance and organize themselves into is in the hands of that (progressive) class.

So it is neither from a moral standpoint or a financial one, merely it is a logical position.

This doesn't in anyway, explain to me, your reasoning why you think Anarchism is "utopian", at all. And itself, sounds a bit contradictory to what you said above.

[Rafiq]

What the hell are you talking about? If you're for Communism, you're for an entirely new society. Communism can't just be a mimicry of this society, minus the contradictions, it has to be something completely new from what we live in now.

Communism is the process that will abolish the present state of things. Society will organize itself in the most efficient manner, that of which I have no Idea as to how it will look.



[/QUOTE]
This doesn't in anyway, explain to me, your reasoning why you think Anarchism is "utopian", at all. And itself, sounds a bit contradictory to what you said above.[/QUOTE]

Anarchism as a society to achieve is Utopian, no doubt. I have been down that road. It can never work.

[Magón]

Communism is the process that will abolish the present state of things. Society will organize itself in the most efficient manner, that of which I have no Idea as to how it will look.

And nobody has said they do. They've theorized and imagined what could be, but nobody has said that one way is the absolute way of how society will end up. You're still ignoring my question on what Anarchists have said such a thing?



Anarchism as a society to achieve is Utopian, no doubt. I have been down that road. It can never work.

How have you been down "that road"? You still live in a Capitalist Society, with no Anarchist/Communist Revolution whatsoever, in the near future, happening. You're just spouting off gibberish and going around in mindless circles to my posts. How can you said you've been "down that road", when you don't even know what the road looks like, or apparently able to answer my questions on what Anarchist groups or people, have stated a blue print to society, or explained how Anarchist thought to achieve Communism, is Utopian.

[Rafiq]

How have you been down "that road"? You still live in a Capitalist Society, with no Anarchist/Communist Revolution whatsoever, in the near future, happening. You're just spouting off gibberish and going around in mindless circles to my posts. How can you said you've been "down that road", when you don't even know what the road looks like, or apparently able to answer my questions on what Anarchist groups or people, have stated a blue print to society, or explained how Anarchist thought to achieve Communism, is Utopian.

:rolleyes:

It's the same as arguing with Free Marketters, you can't, it's impossible to argue with Utopians.

Plus, Anarchism is on the basis of a Moral: (Anti Authority, Heirarchy) so it wouldn't be about organizing society in the most efficient manner, it would be about organizing society on that basis.

When the truth of the matter is that Humans will never try to organize themselves and build a society based on Idealogy. In fact, things like Authority will always exist.

[Magón]

:rolleyes:

It's the same as arguing with Free Marketters, you can't, it's impossible to argue with Utopians.

Plus, Anarchism is on the basis of a Moral: (Anti Authority, Heirarchy) so it wouldn't be about organizing society in the most efficient manner, it would be about organizing society on that basis.

When the truth of the matter is that Humans will never try to organize themselves and build a society based on Idealogy. In fact, things like Authority will always exist.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

So your response once again, is to just completely ignore my questions asked, and go around in circles again, talking like you're actually answering my questions by calling me "Utopian" with no evidence or reasoning, and go off on Anarchism being about the basis of "morals" somehow being the anti-authority and anti-hierarchy stances Anarchists take. Very good Rafiq, I believe you would do well as a Tea Partier or Free Market Capitalist, because you have no idea how to answer someone's questions, and just talk out of your ass.

[No_Leaders]

Anarchism isn't utopian, claiming so is just silly. Just look in anarchist history and see how it has been applied in society.

[bricolage]

In terms of the way utopian was used by Marx etc, the idea that you could have an ideal of a future society and work backwards to impose it (mostly via propaganda and 'changing minds') various strands of anarchism and various strands of most r-evolutionary thought is to an extent utopian. Beyond that I'm not sure anyone would actually want to replicate the Paris Commune, the Ukranian free territory or the Spanish revolution to the letter and doing so displays a profound inability to imagine a genuine human community as well as a rather restricted view of how emancipatory communism would actually be. In its totality though I'm largely skeptical of any kind of any kind of 'blueprint' thought, despite how arrogant it usually comes across as I don't believe this is how society has ever moved, as if Venetian merchants sat about drawing plans of how capitalism would function and hey presto it occurred. To bring out that oft repeated quote; "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." ie. it's far more productive to identify the cracks with capitalism, the forms and moments of social revolt that arise against it and accept that if there is the slim chance that we might won day see some kind of communist society it will look nothing like the drawings we make now and will instead be determined by 'the real movement which abolishes the present state of things'.

[Rafiq]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

So your response once again, is to just completely ignore my questions asked, and go around in circles again, talking like you're actually answering my questions by calling me "Utopian" with no evidence or reasoning, and go off on Anarchism being about the basis of "morals" somehow being the anti-authority and anti-hierarchy stances Anarchists take. Very good Rafiq, I believe you would do well as a Tea Partier or Free Market Capitalist, because you have no idea how to answer someone's questions, and just talk out of your ass.

I've answered your questions...

See:


The society proposed by Anarchists, is Communism, just like Marxists. How is that Utopian?






No, we don't propose any new society, actually.

Our purpose is to understand the dynamics of this one, and understand its inherit contradictions.

Communism and Anarchism are merely movements representing the class interests of the proletariat.

The very act of "Proposing a new society" is Utopian/Idealist.


Now for your next:


What Anarchists are you referring to, who propose blue prints to the new society? There are a lot of Anarchist ways of thinking, just naming "some", doesn't suffice to specify which.

1. Peter Kropotkin

2. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

2.5. Noam Chomsky

3. Various other Utopian Socialists who call themselves Anarchists.

Also, segments of books such as these: http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA

And I've came across a lot of users here too, who do the same, and have came across other anarchist texts that do the same, too. And these were just things I could pull up really fast, I'm not going to waste my time digging for more shit.

And I didn't say all anarchist thought was Utopian, see:



Communism and Anarchism are merely movements representing the class interests of the proletariat.



Some Anarchists, and all Marxists, on the other hand, refrain from proposing any blue prints from society and focus on bringing the working class to power.

I like you, Nin, I don't want to be on your shit list.

However sometimes we misread things, and I would appreciate it if you can keep this conversation civil, and refrain from insulting me, as I haven't done such a thing to you.

[Belleraphone]

Whenever someone says anarcho-communism is idealistic or will never work etc. I tell them about the free territory of ukraine and anarchist spain and how they collapsed because of external influences not because of a failed system
Is this an acceptable retort? I feel like its a cop out

Spain was anarcho-syndicalist, not anarcho-communist. There were some communists in the anarchist movement but it was largley syndicalist with self-managed factories and private property for residences. The means of production were individually owned by each collective that worked there, not a big workers collective as a whole. And their houses and living quarters were still private property.

[Proukunin]

Anarchism can and has worked. Everytime it's been crushed from the outside by reactionaries and M-L's..

Stalinists shot anarchists and other communists during the spanish civil war when they were supposed to be 'aiding' them.

[Magón]

I've answered your questions...

The very act of "Proposing a new society" is Utopian/Idealist.

Proposing, is not saying anything absolute. Theorizing/proposing, on how society may be in the future, after a revolution, is not Utopian or Idealist, it's simply just putting out an idea that some may or may not choose to bring to light, and maybe they don't bring the whole idea to light.



1. Peter Kropotkin

2. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

2.5. Noam Chomsky

3. Various other Utopian Socialists who call themselves Anarchists.

Also, segments of books such as these: http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA

All those men, and what they've written, are just proposed theories on how a society would form. No absolutes, just their own ideas based on what Anarchists hold to be obviously apart of what Anarchism stands for. If proposing what society would be like, not should absolutely be like, is "Utopian", then even Marxists theorists are guilty of being "Utopian", Rafiq.



:rolleyes:

It's the same as arguing with Free Marketters, you can't, it's impossible to argue with Utopians.

As for insults, you compared debating with me, as being equal to a Free Marketer.

[Rafiq]

Proposing, is not saying anything absolute. Theorizing/proposing, on how society may be in the future, after a revolution, is not Utopian or Idealist, it's simply just putting out an idea that some may or may not choose to bring to light, and maybe they don't bring the whole idea to light.

But it is. It's also counter-productive. Capitalism was not something that was ever predicted or 'theorized'. The same will go for whatever society that will replace it.



All those men, and what they've written, are just proposed theories on how a society would form. No absolutes, just their own ideas based on what Anarchists hold to be obviously apart of what Anarchism stands for.

It doesn't matter if they aren't absolutes, it's still Utopian.


If proposing what society would be like, not should absolutely be like, is "Utopian", then even Marxists theorists are guilty of being "Utopian", Rafiq.

Yes, I've caught many 'Marxists' doing it. And little do they know what they are doing is completely contradictory to Materialist thought.



As for insults, you compared debating with me, as being equal to a Free Marketer.

I didn't. I said arguing with a perfect society is not possible. Yes, I compared arguing against the society put forward by many Utopian Socialists is about the same as arguing against the society put forward by Free Marketters.

However I didn't go close to telling you that "You were talking out of your ass" and that "You failed to address my points accordingly, running in circles"(to be fair, you really didn't address, or at least analyse my points well).

[Magón]

But it is. It's also counter-productive. Capitalism was not something that was ever predicted or 'theorized'. The same will go for whatever society that will replace it.

How is it counter-productive to contemplate about a society someone would like to live in? It doesn't detract from someone's ability to fight against Capitalism any less than it would if they didn't think about it. It's not utopian to take from a movement, what that movement could turn society into, it's just thinking about what a future society would be like, without Capitalism. I don't see how that's Utopian.


It doesn't matter if they aren't absolutes, it's still Utopian.

How? Most Utopian people speak in absolutes, or vague absolutes (which they might not necessarily say outright are absolutes, but hint to it), where people like Kropotkin, etc. only theorized how a society could possibly form from the events of an Anarchist revolution, not how it absolutely would be. They weren't talking in absolutes, or even vaguely, they just pondered the ideas of what could possibly come about.

[Mnemosyne]

Rafiq... saying that anarchism is utopian because it doesn't allow for the fact that 'authority will always exist' tells me you don't understand the difference between leadership and governing. That is like saying that because a wolf pack does not have a government... there is no authority.

Anarchism does not imply a lack of organization, structure or even leadership.... just a lack of enforced political governing system.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I wouldn't call it a cop out, personally.

However, it's important to remember, even beyond practicality or workability, that Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, whatever left wing ideology it is that you personally believe in - is superior, morally, to capitalism, and that, I believe, is what draws one to become a leftist - belief in morality.

[tir1944]

What free territory of Ukraine?:laugh:
A lawless area where bandits rampaged the roads,villages and the countryside and where pogroms happened every now and then,not to mention that pretty much every economic activity came to a halt?
It was "destined" to fail,as so it did.

[thesadmafioso]

What free territory of Ukraine?:laugh:
A lawless area where bandits rampaged the roads,villages and the countryside and where pogroms happened every now and then,not to mention that pretty much every economic activity came to a halt?
It was "destined" to fail,as so it did.

A Stalinist speaking out against pogroms, well that's an odd sight indeed given Stalin's habit of deporting ethnic groups and his overt antisemitism.

[tir1944]

A Stalinist speaking out against pogroms, well that's an odd sight indeed given Stalin's habit of deporting ethnic groups and his overt antisemitism.
Stalin quite openly exposed his views of antisemitism in 1931...
"In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty".

Also,nice try at trolling.
The deportation of Chechens is in no way comparable to pogroms.It's absolutely idiotic to say that.
BTW ever heard of De-Cossackisation?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Stalin quite openly exposed his views of antisemitism in 1931...
"In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty".

Also,nice try at trolling.
The deportation of Chechens is in no way comparable to pogroms.It's absolutely idiotic to say that.
BTW ever heard of De-Cossackisation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism#After_World_War_II

[tir1944]

Your point is?
Have you even read that article?

[robbo203]

Proposing, is not saying anything absolute. Theorizing/proposing, on how society may be in the future, after a revolution, is not Utopian or Idealist, it's simply just putting out an idea that some may or may not choose to bring to light, and maybe they don't bring the whole idea to light.
.

I would agree with this. It is ludicrous to suggest that you can have a communist revolution without some widespread basic grasp of the kind of society that such a revolution is intended to deliver. This is precisely where a communist revolution differs from a capitalist revolution and why you cannot use the latter as a template for the former. As the Communist Manifesto put it:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority

Not only is there nothing wrong with speculating about a communist future - it is actually an essential part of the creative process of making such a future more credible and hence attainable . Communism is not going to mechanically materialise out of some kind social vacuium; it is a political goial that has to be thought about and argued over in advance of it becoming a reality. The more flesh that we can put on the bare bones of this goal, the better, and the more likely are we enthuse others with the prospect of achieving it

[thesadmafioso]

Stalin quite openly exposed his views of antisemitism in 1931...
"In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty".

Also,nice try at trolling.
The deportation of Chechens is in no way comparable to pogroms.It's absolutely idiotic to say that.
BTW ever heard of De-Cossackisation?

So, Stalin should of been given the death penalty then?

Interesting that you would bring that law into the matter.

[tir1944]

So, Stalin should of been given the death penalty then?
Stop trolling,or prove that Stalin was an antisemite.

[Искра]

What free territory of Ukraine?:laugh:
A lawless area where bandits rampaged the roads,villages and the countryside and where pogroms happened every now and then,not to mention that pretty much every economic activity came to a halt?
It was "destined" to fail,as so it did.

Do you even have some evidence or source for such idiotic claims, or you are just stupid?

Mahknovists didn't make pogroms. Period. Half of central-commite were Jews.

For example - Lev Zadov, the head of Kontrrazvedka - Makhnovist secret police/service.

Lev Zadov was born on April 11th 1893 in the small Jewish farming settlement of Veselaya in southern Ukraine. (Source: http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/biog-zadov.htm)Also, you can check Wikipedia on that matter:


Nestor Makhno was one of the main organizers of these partisan groups, who united into the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) (RPAU), also called the Black Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guards) (because they fought under the anarchist black flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag)) and "Makhnovists" or "Makhnovshchina". The RIAU also battled against the Whites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Russians_%28Russian_Civil_War%29) and anti-semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitic) pogromists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom). In areas where the RIAU drove out opposing armies, villagers (and workers) sought to abolish capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) and the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) through organizing themselves into village assemblies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_assembly), communes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_%28intentional_community%29) and councils. Land and factories were expropriated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropriate) and workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) implemented. The economy the Makhnovists in Ukraine implemented was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovism)and


Allegations of antisemitism

Like the White army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_army), the Ukrainian National Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_National_Republic) and forces loyal to the Bolsheviks, Makhno's forces were accused of conducting pogroms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom) against Jews in Ukraine during the civil war, based on the Bolshevik accounts of the war.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-HU506-7-22) However, these claims have never been proven. Paul Avrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Avrich) writes, "Maknno's alleged anti-Semitism...Charges of Jew-baiting and of anti-Jewish pogroms have come from every quarter, left, right, and center. Without exception, however, they are based on hearsay, rumor, or intentional slander, and remain undocumented and unproved."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-AP112-6) Avrich notes that a considerable number of Jews took part in the Makhnovist anarchist movement. Some, like Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eikhenbaum, also known as "Voline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voline)"[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-Voline.2C_1947-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-Arshinov.2C_Peter_1923-24) were intellectuals who served on the Cultural-Educational Commission, wrote his manifestos, and edited his journals, but the great majority fought in the ranks of the Anarchist Black Army, either in special detachments of Jewish artillery and infantry, or else within the regular anarchist army brigades alongside peasants and workers of Ukrainian, Russian, and other ethnic origins. Together they formed a significant part of Makhno's anarchist army.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-Voline.2C_1947-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-Arshinov.2C_Peter_1923-24) Significantly, during the Russian civil war, the Merkaz or Central Committee of the Zionist Organization in Russia regularly reported on many armed groups committing pogroms against Jews in Russia, including the Whites, the Russian Ukrainian 'Green' nationalist Nikifor Grigoriev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikifor_Grigoriev) (later shot by Black Army troops on Makhno's orders) as well as Red Army forces, but did not accuse Makhno or the anarchist Black Army of directing pogroms or other attacks against Russian Jews.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-25) According to the Cambridge University Press, “He was a self-educated man, committed to the teachings of Bakunin and Kropotkin, and he could not fairly be described as an anti-Semite. Makhno had Jewish comrades and friends; and like Symon Petliura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symon_Petliura), he issued a proclamation forbidding pogroms.” The book goes on to explain that "the anarchist leader could not or did not impose discipline on his soldiers. In the name of ‘class struggle’ his troops with particular enthusiasm robbed Jews of whatever they had.”[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#cite_note-26)(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#Allegations_of_antisemitism)And as article above said main pogromist was Grigoriev who was on every side during the Civil War and who was shot by Makhno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikifor_Grigoriev


These soruces were just "Googleing", but I can also prove my points with book on Makhnovists by Alexandre Sikdra (Nestor Makhno: Anarchy Cossack) which is rare book on Free Ukraine based on documents (besides NKVD's documents which are not avaible to public) and not on ideological crap-writings.


So, you could start proving someting and debating instead of just spamming.

UPDATE (cause I'm not a lasy Stalinist spammer):

H.6.9 Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists? (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_9.htm)

It's kind of a quite big, but you could read something - don't you think?

[tir1944]

I didn't say that the Makhnovites did the pogroms,read my post again.
But the "Black army" was known for banditry,and the teritorry they "controlled" was also swarming with bandits...



Half of central-commite were Jews.
These guys weren't known for strict discipline or organization.
Troops on ground may have done pogroms despite their "chiefs" being Jews.
BTW the founder of the SS was a Jew,IIRC.

[Искра]

I didn't say that the Makhnovites did the pogroms,read my post again.
You put them in the context with pogroms.


But the "Black army" was known for banditry,and the teritorry they "controlled" was also swarming with bandits...
Interesting. Do you maybe have a source (based on documentation, of course) on that? Could you please share it with us, because I have quite oposite facts.


These guys weren't known for strict discipline or organization.Again - source, please. I don't know what does word organisatiom mean to you, but for me Kontrrzavedka was quite organised, especially when we realise that they had at least one man in every Makhnovist, Bolshevik and even Ukrainian nationalist unit in Ukraine.


Troops on ground may have done pogroms despite their "chiefs" being Jews. May? Source, please on everything :) There was a strict discipline in Black Army. All bad boys were shot.


BTW the founder of the SS was a Jew,IIRC.
And your point is?

One more text on this subject:
Nestor Makhno: The Makhnovshchina and anti-semitism. (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/amtisem.htm)

[Искра]

Oh, yeah on Stalin and anti-semitism:


The Doctors' plot (Russian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): дело врачей [doctors' affair], врачи-вредители [doctors-saboteurs] or врачи-убийцы [doctors-killers]) was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)'s regime, involving the "unmasking" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew), as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot#cite_note-0) This was accompanied by show trials and anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to the Gulag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag), or executed.
After the death of Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_and_aftermath) in March 1953, the new Soviet leadership declared that the case was fabricated. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot)



Click on source and read whole article.

Also instersting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_anti-Semitism

More: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/666jpuxd.asp

etc.

Use google.

[CleverTitle]

Trotsky/Stalin bullshit derails another thread.

You people are astounding.

[DeBon]

Jesus, I hate walking into conversations where people are arguing about a man who called him self a Communist, yet was the dictator of a state society with different classes.

Forget this trivial past BS and look toward the future.

On topic: It wouldn't hurt to mention communities like the Shady Oaks or something a long those lines. But no, that's not a cop out.