Nestor Makhno

[Rational Radical]

Hello RevLeft i'm new her,i'm open to meet new people especially when it comes to talking about ideology and politics. Anyway,my question to all Marxists,Leninists and Libertarians is what you all honsetly think of Nestor Makhno ,The Ukrainian Free Territory and the Spanish Revoltuion? I honestly see every Marxist or Leninists speak of Nestor Makhno in a negative way such as calling im an anti-semite,warlord,rapist etc. But they never speak about how he proved Kropotkins theories in that short time of three years before being crushed by the Stalinists who committed atrocities that are well documented. I'm asking for valid criticisms of him and what we can learn what to do and what not to do by his actions.

[Caj]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Makhno and the Makhnovshchina weren't even remotely as "libertarian" as their anarchist fans maintain they were. For example, they resorted to the use of torture and summary executions, laws were instituted in the regions they controlled, Makhno personally appointed top military officials and retained veto power over all elections, etc., etc. The Makhnovshchina basically resorted to the same "authoritarian" methods for which they denounced the Bolsheviks as counter-revolutionaries.

If there's something to learn from the historical experience of the Makhnovshchina it is that, far from them representing a "libertarian alternative" to the "authoritarianism" of the Bolsheviks, "authoritarianism" was an inevitability and a necessity given the situations in which both the Bolsheviks and the Maknovshchina found themselves.

[Rational Radical]

I agree that his killings and torture were uncalled for but for the most part he established free soviets which was worker's control without a state as opposed to nationalizing all industries and strengthening the state that led up to a degenerated workers state managed by bureaucrats,if one uses violence it should be to give the people freedom immediately rather than it to be eventually given to them down the road(or if it is given to them at all) Also the military was highly demcoratized by general assemblies and soldier committees.

[Caj]

I agree that his killings and torture were uncalled for

I'm not sure to whom you are addressing this, as I never said that the killings and use of torture under the Makhnovshchina were "uncalled for[.]" That would be a useless display of moralism.

I'm historically opposed to the Makhnovshchina, not because of their use of executions, torture, and other forms of "authoritarianism," but because of the fact that it wasn't a revolutionary force. It was an expression of reactionary peasant discontent with the Bolsheviks, primarily over the issue of the forced agricultural requisitions of War Communism.

I historically support the use of "authoritarianism" by the Bolsheviks, on the other hand, because the Bolsheviks were a legitimately revolutionary force and utilized "authoritarianism" in the interests of the working class as a whole.


but for the most part he established free soviets which was worker's control without a state

Firstly, the Free Territory was only nominally stateless. If the system the Makhnovshchina presided over doesn't constitute a state, then I don't know what does.

Secondly, it's hard to believe workers' control could be implemented in a region with virtually no working class (c. 1920 South-Eastern Ukraine).

Thirdly, "free soviets" lead to anything but workers' control. "Free soviets" are soviets in which participation by parties is prohibited. Now, soviets are not inherently revolutionary bodies. In fact, soviets can easily be subordinated to (petit) bourgeois influences and become organs of reaction and counter-revolution. This is why the unofficial slogan of the counter-revolution in revolutionary Russia was "Soviets without Bolsheviks!" Soviets are only ensured to be revolutionary when subordinated to the class party of the proletariat: the Communist Party. To advocate "free soviets" is to detach the class party from the proletarian class and consequently declass the proletariat, i.e., deprive the class of any means to act as a social force in history (see the quote in my signature).


as opposed to nationalizing all industries and strengthening the state that led up to a degenerated workers state managed by bureaucrats

This is a simplistic presentation of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. It wasn't simply "strengthening of the state" that caused the degeneration, which reeks of the dogmatic, anarchist myth of "corruption by power." In fact, the strengthening and bureaucratization of the state after the Civil War was not a cause of the Revolution's degeneration but an effect of it, an effect of the decimation of the Russian working class during the Civil War, which left a proletarian dictatorship without a proletariat. The degeneration began, and eventual counter-revolution became an impending inevitability, at that point.


if one uses violence it should be to give the people freedom immediately rather than it to be eventually given to them down the road(or if it is given to them at all)

Firstly, I don't know who "the people" is. "The people" does not exist as a real social entity. It's a bourgeois abstraction derived from the rhetoric of the 18th century revolutions. As communists, we shouldn't act in the interests of "the people" (which is an impossibility) but in the interests of exclusively the proletariat.

Secondly, I don't subscribe to some Blanquist or Bakuninist conception of revolution in which one "gives" freedom (another muddled word) to the proletariat. Instead, I believe that the proletariat should emancipate itself by means of its class party and class dictatorship.


Also the military was highly demcoratized by general assemblies and soldier committees.

It was no more "democratized" than the Red Army. In fact, I'm even tempted to say it was less so. Both the Red and Black Armies initially operated on the basis of elections, but this was quickly revoked because of the impracticality of such a policy in a situation of civil war. The Bolsheviks, however, never resorted to the appointment of top military officials by one man as the Makhnovshchina did (not that I would have been morally opposed to such a policy had it been implemented by the Bolsheviks).

The "authoritarian" nature of the Black Army isn't something only asserted by Leninists and those of a pro-Bolshevik leaning, by the way. Even the anarchist historian Paul Avrich admitted that the Black Army wasn't as "libertarian" as it claimed:


[T]he Insurgent Army of the Ukraine, as the Makhnovist forces were called, was in theory subject to the supervision of the Regional Congresses. In practice, however, the reins of authority rested with Makhno and his staff. Despite his efforts to avoid anything that smacked of regimentation, Makhno appointed his key officers (the rest were elected by the men themselves) and subjected his troops to the stern military discipline traditional among the Cossack legions of the nearby Zaporozhian region.(Source) (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/av-makhno-manmyth.htm)

[Comrade Jandar]

It's such a shame that so many anarchists on here seem to have drifted towards Orthodox Marxism or the more, dare I say, "Leninist" influenced tendencies of left communism. Mahkno's concept of platformism was a much needed addition to anarchist theory. The Black Army and it's battles were also one of the first examples of leftist guerilla warfare.

[hatzel]

It's such a shame that so many anarchists on here seem to have drifted towards Orthodox Marxism or the more, dare I say, "Leninist" influenced tendencies of left communism.

...followed swiftly by...


Mahkno's concept of platformism was a much needed addition to anarchist theory.

I mean c'mon now I'm not just here to hate on platformism (though I must admit I do quite enjoy hating on platformism every now and then :o) but seriously I could think of plenty of currents of anarchism far further from 'Orthodox Marxism' or '"Leninist" influenced tendencies of left communism' than platformism...

[l'Enfermé]

I'm not sure to whom you are addressing this, as I never said that the killings and use of torture under the Makhnovshchina were "uncalled for[.]" That would be a useless display of moralism.

I'm historically opposed to the Makhnovshchina, not because of their use of executions, torture, and other forms of "authoritarianism," but because of the fact that it wasn't a revolutionary force. It was an expression of reactionary peasant discontent with the Bolsheviks, primarily over the issue of the forced agricultural requisitions of War Communism.

I historically support the use of "authoritarianism" by the Bolsheviks, on the other hand, because the Bolsheviks were a legitimately revolutionary force and utilized "authoritarianism" in the interests of the working class as a whole.



Firstly, the Free Territory was only nominally stateless. If the system the Makhnovshchina presided over doesn't constitute a state, then I don't know what does.

Secondly, it's hard to believe workers' control could be implemented in a region with virtually no working class (c. 1920 South-Eastern Ukraine).

Thirdly, "free soviets" lead to anything but workers' control. "Free soviets" are soviets in which participation by parties is prohibited. Now, soviets are not inherently revolutionary bodies. In fact, soviets can easily be subordinated to (petit) bourgeois influences and become organs of reaction and counter-revolution. This is why the unofficial slogan of the counter-revolution in revolutionary Russia was "Soviets without Bolsheviks!" Soviets are only ensured to be revolutionary when subordinated to the class party of the proletariat: the Communist Party. To advocate "free soviets" is to detach the class party from the proletarian class and consequently declass the proletariat, i.e., deprive the class of any means to act as a social force in history (see the quote in my signature).



This is a simplistic presentation of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. It wasn't simply "strengthening of the state" that caused the degeneration, which reeks of the dogmatic, anarchist myth of "corruption by power." In fact, the strengthening and bureaucratization of the state after the Civil War was not a cause of the Revolution's degeneration but an effect of it, an effect of the decimation of the Russian working class during the Civil War, which left a proletarian dictatorship without a proletariat. The degeneration began, and eventual counter-revolution became an impending inevitability, at that point.



Firstly, I don't know who "the people" is. "The people" does not exist as a real social entity. It's a bourgeois abstraction derived from the rhetoric of the 18th century revolutions. As communists, we shouldn't act in the interests of "the people" (which is an impossibility) but in the interests of exclusively the proletariat.

Secondly, I don't subscribe to some Blanquist or Bakuninist conception of revolution in which one "gives" freedom (another muddled word) to the proletariat. Instead, I believe that the proletariat should emancipate itself by means of its class party and class dictatorship.



It was no more "democratized" than the Red Army. In fact, I'm even tempted to say it was less so. Both the Red and Black Armies initially operated on the basis of elections, but this was quickly revoked because of the impracticality of such a policy in a situation of civil war. The Bolsheviks, however, never resorted to the appointment of top military officials by one man as the Makhnovshchina did (not that I would have been morally opposed to such a policy had it been implemented by the Bolsheviks).

The "authoritarian" nature of the Black Army isn't something only asserted by Leninists and those of a pro-Bolshevik leaning, by the way. Even the anarchist historian Paul Avrich admitted that the Black Army wasn't as "libertarian" as it claimed:

(Source) (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/av-makhno-manmyth.htm)
An excellent post, and actually the article from your first post is what changed my view on Makhno when I read it months ago. It's really interesting how Anarchists have been inventing this Makhno myth, especially Arshinov, Voline and Skirda, practically unopposed because the bourgeois scholars are pretty satisfied with this myth that Bolshevism was bound to mutate into Stalinism.

[Rational Radical]

You say it's dogmatic for anarchists to point out that power corrupts,then say it's up to the party to emancipate and work in the interest the working class, is that not dogmatic itself? Everytime a party has seized state power it resulted in a Totalitarian State Capitalist nation that has very little interest of letting the proletarian take care of themselves. I dont get why some of us think we need "professional revolutionaries" to "care" for us that will you know,eventually liberate us. I want to make it clear i'm not a platformist, i just want to know what methods us anarchists can use from him or if we can use any methods from him at all.

[Caj]

You say it's dogmatic for anarchists to point out that power corrupts

Anarchists don't "point out" that power corrupts. To point something out implies that that something actually exists.

Power doesn't "corrupt." Power is simply utilized on behalf of particular classes. State power is just the means by which the ruling class maintains its own supremacy as such.

If power corrupts, I'd ask you to tell me why the officials of the modern state have not been "corrupted" by power. Why does the state continue to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie as a whole does not directly exercise control over the state apparatus?


then say it's up to the party to emancipate and work in the interest the working class

The Party doesn't emancipate the working class; the working class emancipates itself by means of its class party.

Also, just pointing out that I'm not the one who talked about "giving" freedom to the working class.


is that not dogmatic itself?

What I mean by dogmatic is that many anarchists simply assert that power corrupts without any evidence or examples of such a phenomenon and ignore any objections made to such a claim. It's often regarded as simply self-evident. The reason for this is that the "power corrupts" thesis is essentially the central tenet of anarchism, without which the entire ideology would fall apart.


Everytime a party has seized state power it resulted in a Totalitarian State Capitalist nation that has very little interest of letting the proletarian take care of themselves.

I'm sick of this shitty argument.

Firstly, by this same logic we can renounce the entire movement for proletarian emancipation, as every attempt at accomplishing proletarian emancipation hitherto has ultimately failed.

Secondly, you merely show an association between two variables (seizure of state power by the Party and revolutionary degeneration) and fail to demonstrate any causative relationship between the two variables. We might as well attribute the degeneration of all proletarian revolutions hitherto to facial hair, as a lot of prominent communist revolutionaries seem to have possessed facial hair.


I dont get why some of us think we need "professional revolutionaries" to "care" for us that will you know,eventually liberate us.

Nice strawman.


i just want to know what methods us anarchists can use from him or if we can use any methods from him at all.

Well, one thing anarchists can learn from him is that the use of "authoritarianism" is an inevitability in a revolution.

[#FF0000]

Anarchists don't "point out" that power corrupts. To point something out implies that that something actually exists.

these are some baller posts you've been making, but one thing I have to ask you is what you make, then, of things like the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the many instances of "regular" people being given power over another and then perpetrating incredible acts of brutality, e.g. Japanese soldiers in China, or those german citizens who weren't even members of the Wehrmacht or SS, but were given the choice to go to Poland and committed horrendous atrocities?

I mean, of course police and soldiers commit brutality in the service of the ruling class, but what is it that makes these "normal" people commit such tremendous brutality if not for being told they have authority over another, and believing it?

[Rational Radical]

The Party doesn't emancipate the working class; the working class emancipates itself by means of its class party.

I'm asking you to give me an example of where this has worked? WHERE HAS IT WORKED? Please dont give me a dogmatic response that's praising or in defense of the USSR ,China or any Marxist-Leninist country that hasnt liberated the working class but re-enslaved them under the guise of "the dictatorship of the proletarian"


Also, just pointing out that I'm not the one who talked about "giving" freedom to the working class.

Yeah you're the one talking about seizing state power and leaving the vanguard to make all the decisions. I also am wondering what anarchists think as opposed to some one who believes in hierarchical parties.

[Rafiq]

these are some baller posts you've been making, but one thing I have to ask you is what you make, then, of things like the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the many instances of "regular" people being given power over another and then perpetrating incredible acts of brutality, e.g. Japanese soldiers in China, or those german citizens who weren't even members of the Wehrmacht or SS, but were given the choice to go to Poland and committed horrendous atrocities?


Well, this in itself utilizes the very notion and concept of power that we as Marxists have been so keen in denouncing. You did, of course, point out that these actions were done on behalf of each of their ruling classes respectively. But we must not analyze the existence of "power" in this case, we must analyze the ways in which power was supposed to be utilized in each respective condition. When Japanese soldiers landed on Chinese territory, they had already experienced brutal training and excessive brainwash on behalf of the Japanese military apparatus, i.e. to Dehumanize the Chinese. Your argument could have extended into several cases of rape, spontaneous murder, etc. But this all together misses the point. People do not make decisions based on whether they have "power" or not in the purest sense, but those decisions themselves reflect a broader, much more disturbing social dimension beyond merely being allowed to do so. Meaning, such actions are not a reflection of a persons free will, when their will is not only merely constrained by conditions, but the nature of such a will, is determined by such conditions. I don't buy this nonsense, that people, if given the choice, will commit the worst of atrocities, or the better. Atrocities must serve a purpose beyond mere self satisfaction, i.e. Self satisfaction is in itself not so much an illusion as it is subjective in accordance with different material conditions, i.e. We as humans must be signified to allow ourselves to know what Self satisfaction is, for us. Of course we have to take into account mental imparities.

Now, the dictatorship of the proletariat would exist to for fill the interests of the proletariat as a whole, just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie does. What does this mean? Why, when for example, Bourgeois states are in power, every single atrocity, every single manifestation of brutality, is only done in the interest of a class? I've never before heard of a state which would commit, for example, genocide, just because they can. Because what I've been trying to get to is that a State, in regards to power, does not exist indepandantly like a police officer does, like the mind of a single individual. The state is in itself a weapon utilized by a ruling class to achieve it's own ends, and police officers are merely a component of this.


I mean, of course police and soldiers commit brutality in the service of the ruling class, but what is it that makes these "normal" people commit such tremendous brutality if not for being told they have authority over another, and believing it?

I would, despite every criticism of mechanism leveled against me, that Bourgeois ideological mystification is what not only allow, but necessitate the average person to commit tremendous brutality. In the case of the Stanford prison experiment, people were put in conditions that were, by default, brutal. The existence of throwing enemies of the bourgeois state in cages did not come about as a reflection of someone's sick perverse fantasies, but as a necessary exertion of the authority of the Bourgeois class in defending their interests and assuring the fulfillment of the process that is Capital accumulation (whether they were aware of such process or not).

[Tim Cornelis]

Oh here we go again with the reiteration of discredited myths, including that political parties were banned while in reality party members participated in soviet elections.

Atrocities committed by Makhno and his troops are well known, but overzealous critics intertwine it with repeating of lies and slander. Essentially, reiterating these myths is tantamount to saying Stalin killed 20-60 million people.

[Rational Radical]

Oh here we go again with the reiteration of discredited myths, including that political parties were banned while in reality party members participated in soviet elections.

Atrocities committed by Makhno and his troops are well known, but overzealous critics intertwine it with repeating of lies and slander. Essentially, reiterating these myths is tantamount to saying Stalin killed 20-60 million people.

Exactly my thoughts,i was talking about how he ushered in an anarcho-communist territory which emphasized worker's control through free soviets and libertarian communes that was successful up until 1921 and if it's possible to learn any strategies or methods from him but all i see are people posting invalid criticisms

[Welshy]

these are some baller posts you've been making, but one thing I have to ask you is what you make, then, of things like the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the many instances of "regular" people being given power over another and then perpetrating incredible acts of brutality, e.g. Japanese soldiers in China, or those german citizens who weren't even members of the Wehrmacht or SS, but were given the choice to go to Poland and committed horrendous atrocities?

I mean, of course police and soldiers commit brutality in the service of the ruling class, but what is it that makes these "normal" people commit such tremendous brutality if not for being told they have authority over another, and believing it?

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It really just shows how easily people give into things that go against their morals when the orders are coming from someone they see have as have authority over them.

[Caj]

Oh here we go again with the reiteration of discredited myths, including that political parties were banned while in reality party members participated in soviet elections.

The only "discredited myth" you've provided is itself a myth. Free soviets were soviets in which participation by parties was prohibited. That's what differentiates them from other soviets.


Atrocities committed by Makhno and his troops are well known, but overzealous critics intertwine it with repeating of lies and slander.

So can you give at least one example of "lies and slander" against the Makhnovshchina that has been said so far?


Essentially, reiterating these myths is tantamount to saying Stalin killed 20-60 million people.

Eh, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Nobody is saying Makhno slaughtered millions or anything. I'm just saying that he wasn't as "libertarian" as he is often portrayed to have been.


Exactly my thoughts,i was talking about how he ushered in an anarcho-communist territory which emphasized worker's control through free soviets and libertarian communes that was successful up until 1921

Well, to call it an "anarcho-communist territory" is a bit far-fetched, if you ask me. The Free Territory was composed of around 7 million inhabitants. At most, only several thousand, less than a tenth of a per cent of the population, participated in libertarian communes and free soviets.


all i see are people posting invalid criticisms

Care to explain how any of the criticisms presented thus far are "invalid"?

[Rational Radical]

[QUOTE=Caj;2486131]



Well, to call it an "anarcho-communist territory" is a bit far-fetched, if you ask me. The Free Territory was composed of around 7 million inhabitants. At most, only several thousand, less than a tenth of a per cent of the population, participated in libertarian communes and free soviets.



QUOTE]
This was because he was still fighting off property owners,if the blosheviks hadnt crushed him who knows what would happen but ofcourse if it doesnt have a party,it must be counter-revolutionary!!!:sleep:

[Tim Cornelis]

The only "discredited myth" you've provided is itself a myth. Free soviets were soviets in which participation by parties was prohibited. That's what differentiates them from other soviets.

Participation by parties as parties was not allowed because the free soviets operated on the basis of delegative democracy. Therefore, parties were not elected, individuals or delegates were—and these individuals could very well be elected to higher committees with their proposed party programme, but only if the workers of the free soviets gave a mandate to implement that party programme.

Members of various political parties were elected as delegates, including Menskeviks and members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. Your argument, which reiterates the article you linked to, lacks any nuance and implies as if the Bolsheviks were excluded from participation in the free soviets for being members of political parties, which is false.


Rees claims that "Makhno held elections, but no parties were allowed to participate in them." [Op. Cit., p. 60] This is probably derived from Palij's comment that the free soviets would "carry out the will and orders of their constituents" and "[o]nly working people, not representatives of political parties, might join the soviets." [Op. Cit., p. 151] This, in turn, derives from a Makhnovist proclamation from January 1920 which stated:

"Only labourers who are contributing work necessary to the social economy should participate in the soviets. Representatives of political organisations have no place in worker-peasant soviets, since their participation in a workers' soviet will transform the latter into deputies of the party and can lead to the downfall of the soviet system." [contained in Peter Arshinov's History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 266]

Rees' comments indicate that he is not familiar with the make-up of the Russian Soviets of 1917. Unlike the soviets from the 1905 revolution, those in 1917 allowed "various parties and other organisations to acquire voting representation in the soviet executive committees." Indeed, this was "often how high party leaders became voting delegates to" such bodies. It should "be underlined that these party delegates were selected by the leadership of each political organisation, and not by the soviet assembly itself. In other words, these executive committee members were not directly elected by the representatives of the producers" (never mind by the producers themselves). [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p. 31]

In addition, Russian Anarchists had often attacked the use of "party lists" in soviet elections, which turned the soviets from working-class organs into talking-shops. [Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p. 190] This use of party lists meant that soviet delegates could be anyone. For example, the leading left-wing Menshevik Martov recounts that in early 1920 a chemical factory "put up Lenin against me as a candidate [to the Moscow soviet]. I received seventy-six votes he-eight (in an open vote)."
How would either of these two intellectuals actually know and reflect the concerns and interests of the workers they would be "delegates" of? If the soviets were meant to be the delegates of working people, then why should non-working class members of political parties be elected to a soviet?

Given that the people elected to the free soviets would be delegates and not representatives, this would mean that they would reflect the wishes of their workmates rather than the decisions of the party's central committee. As such, if a worker who was a member of a political party could convince their workmates of their ideas, the delegate would reflect the decisions of the mass assembly. As such, the input of political parties would not be undermined in any way (although their domination would be!).

As such, the Makhnovist ideas on soviets did not, in fact, mean that workers and peasants could not elect or send delegates who were members of political parties. They had no problems as such with delegates who happened to be working- class party members. They did have problems with delegates representing only political parties, delegates who were not workers and soviets being mere ciphers covering party rule.

That this was the case can be seen from a few facts. Firstly, the February 1919 congress resolution "was written by the anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries, and the chairman." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 155] Similarly, the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet created at the Aleksandrovsk congress in late 1919 had three Communists elected to it. There were 18 delegates from workers at that congress, six were Mensheviks and the remaining 12 included Communists [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 111, p. 124] Clearly, members of political parties were elected to both the congresses and the Revolutionary Military Soviet. As such, the idea that free soviets excluded members of political parties is false -- they simply were not dominated by them (for example, having executives made up of members of a single party or delegating their power to a government as per the national soviet in Russia). This could, of course, change. In the words of the Makhnovist reply to Bolshevik attempts to ban one of their congresses:

From An Anarchist FAQ.

So yes, political parties were not allowed to implement their political programmes, unless the workers gave such a specific mandate to the delegates. This does not contradict either anarchism or what we may call "libertarianism."


So can you give at least one example of "lies and slander" against the Makhnovshchina that has been said so far?

See above. And also this:


It was no more "democratized" than the Red Army. In fact, I'm even tempted to say it was less so. Both the Red and Black Armies initially operated on the basis of elections, but this was quickly revoked because of the impracticality of such a policy in a situation of civil war. The Bolsheviks, however, never resorted to the appointment of top military officials by one man as the Makhnovshchina did (not that I would have been morally opposed to such a policy had it been implemented by the Bolsheviks).

The "authoritarian" nature of the Black Army isn't something only asserted by Leninists and those of a pro-Bolshevik leaning, by the way. Even the anarchist historian Paul Avrich admitted that the Black Army wasn't as "libertarian" as it claimed:

First of all, an authoritarian military style operation, in my opinion, does not contradict anarchism, as long as it's voluntary.

This, again, lacks any nuance. This quote in part sustains what Paul Avrich wrote:

[QUOTE][T]he Insurgent Army of the Ukraine, as the Makhnovist forces were called, was in theory subject to the supervision of the Regional Congresses. In practice, however, the reins of authority rested with Makhno and his staff. Despite his efforts to avoid anything that smacked of regimentation, Makhno appointed his key officers (the rest were elected by the men themselves) and subjected his troops to the stern military discipline traditional among the Cossack legions of the nearby Zaporozhian region.

Note that he says "the rest were elected by the men himself."


Voline paints a similar picture. He also notes that the electoral principle was sometimes violated and commanders appointed "in urgent situations by the commander himself," although such people had to be "accepted without reservation" by "the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army." [Op. Cit., p. 584]

From An Anarchist FAQ.


"As the Makhno army gradually grew, it assumed a more regular army organisation. Each tactical unit was composed of three subordinate units: a division consisted of three brigades; a brigade, of three regiments; a regiment, of three battalions. Theoretically commanders were elected; in practice, however, the top commanders were usually carefully selected by Makhno from among his close friends. As a rule, they were all equal and if several units fought together the top commanders commanded jointly. The army was nominally headed by a Revolutionary Military Council of about ten to twenty members . . . Like the commanders, the council members were elected, but some were appointed by Makhno ... . There also was an elected cultural section in the army. Its aim was to conduct political and ideological propaganda among the partisans and peasants."

Michael Palij, The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, pp. 108-9, cited in An Anarchist FAQ. And again, a lack of democracy in anarchist armies does not contradict, in my view, anarchism.

Thus, only part of the highest commanders were elected, while—to my knowledge—lower commanders were still elected by the insurrectionists.


Eh, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Nobody is saying Makhno slaughtered millions or anything. I'm just saying that he wasn't as "libertarian" as he is often portrayed to have been.

It's accurate in that they both consist of reiterating ideological propaganda.


Well, to call it an "anarcho-communist territory" is a bit far-fetched, if you ask me. The Free Territory was composed of around 7 million inhabitants. At most, only several thousand, less than a tenth of a per cent of the population, participated in libertarian communes and free soviets.

I for one question whether the region was inhabited by 7 million people. I was in fact the one who put it on wikipedia using Demanding the Impossible as source. You can see in the history log of the wikipedia page that I edited it on
13:06, 11 August 2011‎ Goti123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,371 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:04, 11 August 2011‎

(Goti was my previous name on this forum).

Later I googled and found today only 2 million people live in the same region, casting doubt on whether 7 million people really lived there at the time, but googling now I see that in reality circa 8 to 9 million people live in that region. So 7 million may be accurate.

Anyway, how do you know only about a thousand people participated in these soviets? It wouldn't surprise me that much though, in that case you'd be correct about that part.

[Caj]

Participation by parties as parties was not allowed because the free soviets operated on the basis of delegative democracy. Therefore, parties were not elected, individuals or delegates were—and these individuals could very well be elected to higher committees with their proposed party programme, but only if the workers of the free soviets gave a mandate to implement that party programme.

Well, I've read accounts of the free soviets that say otherwise. For example, in the Paul Avrich text cited above, Avrich defines "free Soviets" as "Soviets from which members of political parties were excluded."

But even accepting that you are correct, I never disputed that party members were allowed to participate in the free soviets. Rather, I claimed that parties themselves were barred from participation, a claim with which you agree.


Members of various political parties were elected as delegates, including Menskeviks and members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. Your argument, which reiterates the article you linked to, lacks any nuance and implies as if the Bolsheviks were excluded from participation in the free soviets for being members of political parties, which is false.

That wasn't my implication. If you are correct that Bolsheviks could conceivably have been elected by the free soviets, I wouldn't be surprised had they not been. The Free Territory was composed almost entirely of peasants, a class that was generally discontent with Bolshevik rule over the policies of War Communism.

My point about free soviets, which still stands regardless of whether or not you are correct about party members being allowed to participate, was that they are not ensured to be revolutionary organs of workers' power:


[S]oviets are not inherently revolutionary bodies. In fact, soviets can easily be subordinated to (petit) bourgeois influences and become organs of reaction and counter-revolution. This is why the unofficial slogan of the counter-revolution in revolutionary Russia was "Soviets without Bolsheviks!" Soviets are only ensured to be revolutionary when subordinated to the class party of the proletariat: the Communist Party. To advocate "free soviets" is to detach the class party from the proletarian class and consequently declass the proletariat, i.e., deprive the class of any means to act as a social force in history (see the quote in my signature).

Even in the delegative system of free soviets that you described, the soviets are not ensured revolutionary capacity, as they are not subordinated to the class party of the proletariat but face influences from a variety of parties (representing a variety of classes).


So yes, political parties were not allowed to implement their political programmes, unless the workers gave such a specific mandate to the delegates. This does not contradict either anarchism or what we may call "libertarianism."

I'm just clarifying that the bolded part is not what I was arguing.


See above.

Claiming that the free soviets prohibited parties from participating in them, a claim with which you yourself agreed, constitutes "lies and slander"?


And also this:


It was no more "democratized" than the Red Army. In fact, I'm even tempted to say it was less so. Both the Red and Black Armies initially operated on the basis of elections, but this was quickly revoked because of the impracticality of such a policy in a situation of civil war. The Bolsheviks, however, never resorted to the appointment of top military officials by one man as the Makhnovshchina did (not that I would have been morally opposed to such a policy had it been implemented by the Bolsheviks).




These claims aren't false, so it's hardly "lies and slander."


an authoritarian military style operation, in my opinion, does not contradict anarchism, as long as it's voluntary.

Service in the Black Army was voluntary for only the first five months or so of its existence. The Army was formed in September of 1918. According to Paul Avrich in the text cited above, conscription was adopted in February of 1919:


The Second Congress, meeting on February 12, 1919, voted in favour of "voluntary mobilization," which in reality meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve when called up.

From that point on, Black Army service was "voluntary" only in name. As a bulletin issued shortly after the Second Congress by the Makhnovshchina clarified:


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.
(Quoted from Malet's Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War, p. 105.)


Note that he says "the rest were elected by the men himself."

Yeah, I think you might be right about that for the most part. Lower level officers were generally elected. There was, however, a degeneration of the democratic processes that initially characterized the Black Army:


In his army, Makhno claimed that units had the right to elect their commanders. However, he retained veto power over any decisions.71 He increasingly relied on a close group of friends for his senior command.72 As Darch notes, “Although some of Makhno’s aides attempted to introduce more conventional structures into the army, [Makhno]’s control remained absolute, arbitrary and impulsive.”73 One regiment found it necessary to pass a resolution that “all orders must be obeyed provided that the commanding officer was sober at the time of giving it.”74 As the war went on, his forces moved from voting on their orders to carrying out executions ordered by Makhno to enforce discipline.75


And again, a lack of democracy in anarchist armies does not contradict, in my view, anarchism.

Okay, but the "authoritarianism" of the Makhnovshchina wasn't localized to exclusively the military. What about the laws instituted in the territories they controlled?


It's accurate in that they both consist of reiterating ideological propaganda.

I'm reiterating ideological propaganda? I don't think I've made any claims that aren't well documented. The ISR article cited above, although certainly biased, is very well cited. The source most extensively cited in the article is Colin Darch's scholarly doctoral dissertation on the Makhnovshchina. If anyone is guilty of spouting ideological propaganda, it is the anarchists who base all of their assertions regarding the Makhnovshchina on the historical accounts provided by Volin, Skirda, Arshinov, etc.


I for one question whether the region was inhabited by 7 million people. I was in fact the one who put it on wikipedia using Demanding the Impossible as source.

I got the 7 million figure from Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but if you want the specific page number I can get it to you sometime next week.


Anyway, how do you know only about a thousand people participated in these soviets? It wouldn't surprise me that much though, in that case you'd be correct about that part.

I got that figure from the ISR article cited above:


Arshinov acknowledges that there were few communes (he describes four), “and included only a minority of the population—especially those who did not have well-established farmlands.”
With the massive land reform of the revolution, most peasants now had access to their own land. There was almost no interest in joining anarchist-led communes. The peasantry had little in their lived experience that drove them to seek such radical change.49 In fact, at most, a few thousand in a population of several million were involved in the communes—or less than 0.1 percent of those in the area over which the Makhnovists claimed influence.

EDIT: ^Of course, the above quote is referring to the communes not the soviets. I don't know what the figure for the soviets would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar.

[A Marxist Historian]

Well, I've read accounts of the free soviets that say otherwise. For example, in the Paul Avrich text cited above, Avrich defines "free Soviets" as "Soviets from which members of political parties were excluded."

But even accepting that you are correct, I never disputed that party members were allowed to participate in the free soviets. Rather, I claimed that parties themselves were barred from participation, a claim with which you agree.

That wasn't my implication. If you are correct that Bolsheviks could conceivably have been elected by the free soviets, I wouldn't be surprised had they not been. The Free Territory was composed almost entirely of peasants, a class that was generally discontent with Bolshevik rule over the policies of War Communism.

My point about free soviets, which still stands regardless of whether or not you are correct about party members being allowed to participate, was that they are not ensured to be revolutionary organs of workers' power:

Even in the delegative system of free soviets that you described, the soviets are not ensured revolutionary capacity, as they are not subordinated to the class party of the proletariat but face influences from a variety of parties (representing a variety of classes).

I'm just clarifying that the bolded part is not what I was arguing.

Claiming that the free soviets prohibited parties from participating in them, a claim with which you yourself agreed, constitutes "lies and slander"?

These claims aren't false, so it's hardly "lies and slander."

Service in the Black Army was voluntary for only the first five months or so of its existence. The Army was formed in September of 1918. According to Paul Avrich in the text cited above, conscription was adopted in February of 1919:

From that point on, Black Army service was "voluntary" only in name. As a bulletin issued shortly after the Second Congress by the Makhnovshchina clarified:

(Quoted from Malet's Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War, p. 105.)

Yeah, I think you might be right about that for the most part. Lower level officers were generally elected. There was, however, a degeneration of the democratic processes that initially characterized the Black Army:

Okay, but the "authoritarianism" of the Makhnovshchina wasn't localized to exclusively the military. What about the laws instituted in the territories they controlled?

I'm reiterating ideological propaganda? I don't think I've made any claims that aren't well documented. The ISR article cited above, although certainly biased, is very well cited. The source most extensively cited in the article is Colin Darch's scholarly doctoral dissertation on the Makhnovshchina. If anyone is guilty of spouting ideological propaganda, it is the anarchists who base all of their assertions regarding the Makhnovshchina on the historical accounts provided by Volin, Skirda, Arshinov, etc.

I got the 7 million figure from Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but if you want the specific page number I can get it to you sometime next week.

I got that figure from the ISR article cited above:

EDIT: ^Of course, the above quote is referring to the communes not the soviets. I don't know what the figure for the soviets would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar.

Just happened on to what used to be one of the most perennial of all Revleft threads, the Makhno question. Haven't had any for a while, and what strikes me is just how much better and higher level of a discussion we've had on this one than in the past. So much for claims from some parts that Revleft has gone down hill...

It's good to see people talking about the actual facts of the Makhnovshchina rather than the usual anarchist fantasies. There has appeared some good work on Makhno published which people are paying attention to it seems, such as that ISR article, which I'm definitely going to have a look at.

And then there's the piece on the Makhnovites and Jewish pogroms which I uploaded here to Revleft last summer, which I'd like to think had something to do with the improved level of discussion.

For those who haven't seen it, it's at

http://www.revleft.com/vb/makhno-file-t158083/index.html?t=158083

Only one point I feel the need to add:

It's a funny conception of "free soviets" when, except during the occasional alliance periods between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovites, anybody fool enough to run as or even vote for a Bolshevik was likely to be tortured and killed. The Bolsheviks were after all the party of the majority of the working class, or at any rate of an awful big part of it.

Reminds me of the old joke about how you had freedom of speech under Pinochet.

And also freedom to moan, whimper, yell and scream in pain.

-M.H.-