Celebrating Russian Revoution

[Stain]

Our socialist group is thinking about organizing an event to celebrate the anniversary of The Russian revolution. Any ideas on what we should do?

[Ostrinski]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/150567977_da2e7877ec.jpg

[Let's Get Free]

Throw a party.

http://jmstevens.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/communist-party.gif

[LordAcheron]

kill all non-bolsheviks despite the fact that many of them set up functioning communism while russia was busy with fascism?

[l'Enfermé]

You mean kill all the Bolsheviks, right? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/old-bolsheviks-many-t175309/index.html?t=175309) What non-Bolsheviks that were setting up "functioning communism" were killed by the Bolsheviks? SRs and Mensheviks and non-factional Social-Democrats took part in the Soviet government and rose to high leadership in the Bolshevik party 1917 and onwards. The Cheka was made up of many SRs and was lead by Dzerzhinsky who didn't join the Bolsheviks until 1917. The Red Army during the Civil War was lead by the non-factional Trotsky who didn't join the Bolsheviks until 1917 also. Etc, etc. Who are these non-Bolsheviks that were setting up "functioning communism"? Do you mean Makhno and his military dictatorship in the Ukraine? Makhno's personal fiefdom=functioning communism? That's a very odd opinion.

And anyway I did not realize that Makhno was killed by the Bolsheviks. I thought he escaped to Romania and eventually settled in Paris where he died of tuberculosis in 1934 or 1936.

[Tim Cornelis]

Do you mean Makhno and his military dictatorship in the Ukraine?

I've read some of your recent comments and they are becoming increasingly more ridiculous.

1) Makhno headed a military dictatorship
2) The USSR didn't have a centrally planned economy, Western countries did
3) The proletariat is only 35% of the world population
4) Fascist leaders know what they did was wrong, they did not act they way they did because they thought it was in the interest of their nation, on the contrary they were class conscious.
5) The ruling class exercises absolute and unconditional control over the state

You lack any nuance, reinvent the meaning of words, and pretend



And anyway I did not realize that Makhno was killed by the Bolsheviks.

Makhno did not wage war by himself.


All governments are authoritarian. Granted, the ones listed were highly authoritarian but it isn't an aspect that's unique to "fascism"

No they aren't. No Western government, except the Belorussian, is authoritarian.


True for Stalin. Any other Soviet leader, including Lenin, could hardly be described as a dictator.

How was Breznhev not a dictator? None of the political leaders of the Soviet Union were elected, and by extension dictators.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No they aren't. No Western government, except the Belorussian, is authoritarian.
This is simply untrue. One merely needs to look at America's current 'national defence policies' and repeated arrests of political dissenters over the years to know that such is not the case.

[LordAcheron]

I've read some of your recent comments and they are becoming increasingly more ridiculous.

1) Makhno headed a military dictatorship
2) The USSR didn't have a centrally planned economy, Western countries did
3) The proletariat is only 35% of the world population
4) Fascist leaders know what they did was wrong, they did not act they way they did because they thought it was in the interest of their nation, on the contrary they were class conscious.
5) The ruling class exercises absolute and unconditional control over the state

You lack any nuance, reinvent the meaning of words, and pretend



Makhno did not wage war by himself.



No they aren't. No Western government, except the Belorussian, is authoritarian.



How was Breznhev not a dictator? None of the political leaders of the Soviet Union were elected, and by extension dictators.

It's pretty cool to see the other side of the propaganda machine, huh? You have idiot tea bagging Americans on one hand, and people who fall for USSR propaganda on the other. I'm not sure which is more pathetic, but it would probably be the Lenin fanboys. We can see from the outside the effects authoritarian marxism has had on the planet. Tea bagging americans only have fox news.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's pretty cool to see the other side of the propaganda machine, huh? You have idiot tea bagging Americans on one hand, and people who fall for USSR propaganda on the other. I'm not sure which is more pathetic, but it would probably be the Lenin fanboys. We can see from the outside the effects authoritarian marxism has had on the planet. Tea bagging americans only have fox news.

Well to be fair your comment wasn't exactly nuanced either. The Russian revolution was far more complex than you make it out to be, and the Bolsheviks certainly weren't fascist.

[LordAcheron]

I don't by any means think or claim that it was simple, but what happened happened. The bolsheviks also were not fascist, and I didn't claim they were, but what they ended up creating was closer to fascism than socialism even though they wanted to eventually create communism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

kill all non-bolsheviks despite the fact that many of them set up functioning communism while russia was busy with fascism?


The bolsheviks also were not fascist, and I didn't claim they were


Either troll or extremely stupid. Also, exactly how did they set up functioning communism? Communism cannot exist in one country, etc. but must exist internationally. If anything, that is exactly what the Russian Revolution taught us, unless of course you agree with the Stalinist line of "Socialism in One Country" and as an Anarcho-Communist I doubt you do (unless, of course, you're 14, just got into radical politics, and think you know everything).

[l'Enfermé]

I've read some of your recent comments and they are becoming increasingly more ridiculous.

1) Makhno headed a military dictatorship
Makhno was not the undisputed leader and commander of the Makhnovist army?


2) The USSR didn't have a centrally planned economy, Western countries did
I didn't say that.


3) The proletariat is only 35% of the world population
Maybe less.



4) Fascist leaders know what they did was wrong, they did not act they way they did because they thought it was in the interest of their nation, on the contrary they were class conscious.
If you wanna play an apologist for fascists be my guest, I just would assume you'd hide your fascist sympathies on RevLeft.



5) The ruling class exercises absolute and unconditional control over the state

The State is an organ of class rule.


You lack any nuance, reinvent the meaning of words, and pretend
No




Makhno did not wage war by himself.
I didn't say he did.



No they aren't. No Western government, except the Belorussian, is authoritarian.
Belarus is not a Western country.



How was Breznhev not a dictator? None of the political leaders of the Soviet Union were elected, and by extension dictators.
Because Brezhnev was only one member of a collective that ruled the Soviet Union. Do you even know what a dictator is? The Soviet Union was definetely a "dictatorship"(in the sense that bourgeois intellectuals and ideologists use the word), but there was no "dictator" in the sense that Hitler, Salazar, Franco, Mao, Hoxha, Somoza, Noriega, Ceaușescu, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc, etc, were "dictators" in the Soviet Union after 1953.

[fractal-vortex]

hi, to those of us living in the former USSR - please, how will you guys celebrate the Nov.7th, i.e. the anniversary of the 1917 revolution? Can we all join in doing that? Can we do something together internationally?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/150567977_da2e7877ec.jpg

Lol, just great

[Q]

Any ideas on what we should do?

Finally build Tatlin's Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatlin's_Tower).

[LordAcheron]

Either troll or extremely stupid. Also, exactly how did they set up functioning communism? Communism cannot exist in one country, etc. but must exist internationally. If anything, that is exactly what the Russian Revolution taught us, unless of course you agree with the Stalinist line of "Socialism in One Country" and as an Anarcho-Communist I doubt you do (unless, of course, you're 14, just got into radical politics, and think you know everything).
they had federated communes and abolished private property and money, as well as class and the state. That is the definition of communism. Just because it was destroyed by the reds before it could expand to the rest of the globe doesn't change what it was.

The lesson of the USSR was that centralized tactics are bullshit, which many people saw way before it even happened. The entire idea is as ridiculous as anarcho-capitalism.

[LordAcheron]

Makhno was not the undisputed leader and commander of the Makhnovist army?

it was named after him, but it was decentralized and tons of people did things in the name of the black army that he had absolutely no control over. Calling it a military dictatorship just shows your complete ignorance on the subject and the history surrounding it.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

they had federated communes and abolished private property and money, as well as class and the state.

Firstly, you do not know anything about the nature of the Russian Revolution.

Secondly, you do not know anything about class systems, class relations, the state or communism.

[LordAcheron]

Firstly, you do not know anything about the nature of the Russian Revolution.

Secondly, you do not know anything about class systems, class relations, the state or communism.

I was referring to the free territory, not the USSR.

thanks for the broad accusations based on the vast amount of time we've spent discussing such topics, though.

[fractal-vortex]

And so, it is the 7th November again, and again we're not organized...

... and again at the (7th November) demonstrations (in the former USSR) we can hear the empty rhetoric of the "communist party" leaders about "returning the country back to the people". These speeches are made with a tone no one believes, even the person making it. Phony. And again, the "leaders" of the "communist party" are bringing flowers to the monument of Lenin, thereby putting the real Bolshevik leader still deeper into the grave.
How much longer will that be?..
... and again, the leaders of the Nazi party, which is called "Freedom" in our country (formerly: "Socialist-Nationalist Party"), speak from the pages of major magazines, threatening and promising to deliver... Meanwhile, their ardent supporters try to convince us that all major mass media was, and is, closed to the message of the party. From the brow looks at us Oleh Tyahnibok and promises to struggle against the "Russian-Jewish mafia".
Let's organize better for the next revolutionary holiday! Let's do something creative, together, internationally!

[Tim Cornelis]

Makhno was not the undisputed leader and commander of the Makhnovist army?p[QUOTE]

Which makes him a... military commander, not a "military dictator."

[QUOTE=l'Enfermé;2529746]I didn't say that.



Maybe less.

Where do you even base that on? Following percentages are employment in service and industry:

India 50%
China 65%
Africa 35%
Europe 97%
North America 97%
South America 75-80%
Arab countries: 75%
Central Asia: 80%

Petite-bourgeoisie subtracts another 5%-10% points

India 40%
China 55%
Africa 25%
Europe 90%
North America 90%
South America 70%
Arab countries: 70%
Central Asia: 70%




If you wanna play an apologist for fascists be my guest, I just would assume you'd hide your fascist sympathies on RevLeft.

So thinking that fascists believe that what they do is justified is having fascist sympathies? You're pathetic.


I didn't say he did.

The person you replied to said the Bolsheviks slaughtered communists, you replied exlusively regarding Makhno as if no other anarchists/communists/Makhnovists had been executed by the Bolsheviks.




I didn't say that.

It comes close:

The Soviet Union's economy wasn't centrally planned though, it was complete and utter chaos and anarchy. Germany was as "centrally planned" as the UK and the Untied States during the war. All three were more "centrally planned" than the Soviet Union really.


Belarus is not a Western country.

It is. Any country based predominantly in, around, or upon culture that originated from Europe is part of the Western world.


BBecause Brezhnev was only one member of a collective that ruled the Soviet Union. Do you even know what a dictator is?

A dictatorship (in the conventional manner it is used) without dictators is an impossibility. A dictator is the head of state of a dictatorship. Every dictatorship has a de facto (e.g. Gadaffi) or de jure (e.g. Hu Jintao) head of state. Brezhnev was the head of state of a dictatorship: the Soviet Union, and by extension a dictator.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

they had federated communes and abolished private property and money, as well as class and the state. That is the definition of communism. Just because it was destroyed by the reds before it could expand to the rest of the globe doesn't change what it was.

The lesson of the USSR was that centralized tactics are bullshit, which many people saw way before it even happened. The entire idea is as ridiculous as anarcho-capitalism.

No, if you're talking about Makhno and the "free territory" then you are wrong. The state was not abolished. Anarchists tend to describe the state as "organized violence" (which really isn't a bad definition) and if that is the case, a state did exist in the free territory. There were summary executions and torture, Makhno appointed top military officials, and they even had a secret police organization comparable to the Cheka of the Bolsheviks. It wasn't as "libertarian" as you seem to believe. I will point here to a wonderful thread on the topic in which the user Caj successfully showed this point.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nestor-makhno-t173816/index.html?p=2486282#post2486282

This isn't an indictment of Makhno, actually, but a recognition that the material conditions that existed in Russia (invasion by 14 countries, counter-revolutionary sabotage and civil war, etc.) made such actions basically inevitable.

It wasn't the fault of the "reds" that caused the failure of the revolution, but it's isolation. The revolution failed to spread to places like Germany and other European countries. Rosa Luxemburg put it nicely by saying something like Russia posed the question and the world had to answer. The success of the counter-revolution started before the rise of Stalin, but found it's final establishment in Stalinism.

The lesson of the Russian Revolution was not that centralization is "bullshit" but that the revolution HAS to spread for success.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

it was named after him, but it was decentralized and tons of people did things in the name of the black army that he had absolutely no control over. Calling it a military dictatorship just shows your complete ignorance on the subject and the history surrounding it.

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

[hetz]

Any country based predominantly in, around, or upon culture that originated from Europe is part of the Western world. If you look at how the term is usually used then Belarus isn't "Western", and it's the same with all other ex-Eastern Block countries.
I've never heard anyone calling Poland or Romania "Western".

[l'Enfermé]

[QUOTE=l'Enfermé;2529746]Makhno was not the undisputed leader and commander of the Makhnovist army?p[QUOTE]

Which makes him a... military commander, not a "military dictator."
Perhaps you should read up some genuine history on your precious Makhno instead of Arshinov's and Voline's and Skirda's farcical myths which have been debunked many times.

The "Free Territory" was governed through force by an army. The undisputed leader of this army, whose word was law was Makhno. Which makes him a military dictator. He was basically a red warlord.




Where do you even base that on? Following percentages are employment in service and industry:

India 50%
China 65%
Africa 35%
Europe 97%
North America 97%
South America 75-80%
Arab countries: 75%
Central Asia: 80%

Petite-bourgeoisie subtracts another 5%-10% points

India 40%
China 55%
Africa 25%
Europe 90%
North America 90%
South America 70%
Arab countries: 70%
Central Asia: 70%

Statistics are freely available on the internet if one wishes to find them. For example, I just googled this (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj96/harman.htm).




So thinking that fascists believe that what they do is justified is having fascist sympathies? You're pathetic.
Yes make personal attacks instead of a genuine argument. How very mature of you. If you think that Hitler was thinking "Hmm, we should go ahead and cause the deaths of tens of millions, cause that will greatly benefit the human race!" you're the one who is pathetic, jackass.

The backbone of the fascist movement was made up the propertied classes. Scumbags and lowlifes who had nothing in mind but their own self-interest.



The person you replied to said the Bolsheviks slaughtered communists, you replied exlusively regarding Makhno as if no other anarchists/communists/Makhnovists had been executed by the Bolsheviks.

Makhnovists weren't executed by the Bolsheviks. Armed Makhnovists were driven out of the Ukraine by Bolsheviks to further the cause of the proletarian revolution. The Makhnovists weren't a proletarian movement, not even in name, so I'm not inclined to be sympathetic towards them, and no one on RevLeft should be either.

As for other "socialists", all the other non-Bolshevik whose allegiance lay with the proletariat flooded the ranks of the Bolsheviks and were welcomed with open ranks. Other than those you have the Mensheviks, on whose Central Committee in 1917 were men like Tsereteli, the Minister of the Interior of the Provisional Government, Dan, another minister, etc, etc. And what about the Socialist-Revolutionaries? Kerensky, Prime Minister of the Provisional, Savinkov, another minister of the Provisional Government. Do you support these "socialists" who served as ministers in bourgeoisie governments over the Bolsheviks who raised the flag of proletarian revolution? These "socialists" who did their best to continue the war effort again Germany?

Please.


It comes close:

The Soviet Union's economy wasn't centrally planned though, it was complete and utter chaos and anarchy. Germany was as "centrally planned" as the UK and the Untied States during the war. All three were more "centrally planned" than the Soviet Union really.
Doesn't come close at all.



It is. Any country based predominantly in, around, or upon culture that originated from Europe is part of the Western world.
Since fucking when? Eastern Slav and Orthodox Christian countries have never, ever, been considered a part of the "Western World". Maybe Albania and Bosnia are Western countries too?



A dictatorship (in the conventional manner it is used) without dictators is an impossibility. A dictator is the head of state of a dictatorship. Every dictatorship has a de facto (e.g. Gadaffi) or de jure (e.g. Hu Jintao) head of state. Brezhnev was the head of state of a dictatorship: the Soviet Union, and by extension a dictator.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. So Kalinin, Voroshilov, Shvernik, Mikoyan and Kuznetsov were, at one point or another, dictators of the Soviet Union(Chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet)? Brezhnev was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party. Leadership in the Soviet Union was exercised collectively after, and before, Stalin.

[Let's Get Free]

Makhnovists weren't executed by the Bolsheviks. Armed Makhnovists were driven out of the Ukraine by Bolsheviks to further the cause of the proletarian revolution. The Makhnovists weren't a proletarian movement, not even in name, so I'm not inclined to be sympathetic towards them, and no one on RevLeft should be either.

The suppression of the Free Territory and Makhno's movement was just part of the wider suppression of left wing revolts against the Bolsheviks, like the strikes, attempts to preserve workplace autonomy (in contrast to Bolshevik attempts at one man management, the militarization of labor, etc) and of course the Kronstadt revolt.


here were summary executions and torture, Makhno appointed top military officials, and they even had a secret police organization comparable to the Cheka of the Bolsheviks. It wasn't as "libertarian" as you seem to believe.

I'd say it was "libertarian enough" considering the position they were in. The military officers were popularly selected from the ranks of the revolutionaries. It was a voluntary army, the shortage was always in weapons rather than people willing to fight. They relied on solidarity from the peasants, who provided them with food and directed them to the local Kulaks who could stand to lose "two or three sheep to make a soup for the insurgents".


And more importantly the Revolutionary Insurrectionary army was not run by a central government but was answerable to the local peasants and workers soviets. As a result, it could never be a tool for repression in the way the Red Army was.

[l'Enfermé]

The suppression of the Free Territory and Makhno's movement was just part of the wider suppression of left wing revolts against the Bolsheviks, like the strikes, attempts to preserve workplace autonomy (in contrast to Bolshevik attempts at one man management, the militarization of labor, etc) and of course the Kronstadt revolt.
You say "left-wing" as if that means anything. This division between "left" and "right" is a relic of the bourgeois French Revolution and it's ridiculous you Anarchist pretend it's meaningful. These "left"-wing revolts against the Bolsheviks were peasant in nature(SRs), or petty-bourgeoisie in nature(the non-Makhnovist Anarchists - the backbone of the Makhnovist movement was the kulak and the urban proletariat was very hostile towards the Makhnovists). The cause of this is fairly obvious, the interests of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie are antagonistic towards the interests of the proletariat. If anything Anarchist and SR uprisings against the Bolsheviks only prove to me that the Bolsheviks were champions of the class-interests of the proletariat.



I'd say it was "libertarian enough" considering the position they were in. The military officers were popularly selected from the ranks of the revolutionaries. It was a voluntary army, the shortage was always in weapons rather than people willing to fight. They relied on solidarity from the peasants, who provided them with food and directed them to the local Kulaks who could stand to lose "two or three sheep to make a soup for the insurgents".




And more importantly the Revolutionary Insurrectionary army was not run by a central government but was answerable to the local peasants and workers soviets. As a result, it could never be a tool for repression in the way the Red Army was. That's a stupid fucking myth, comparable to the whole "the Defendants of the Moscow show trials were guilty!" idiocy the Stalinists whine about around here.

"Voluntary army", eh? Initially, maybe. All units supposedly had the right to elect their commanders, but Makhno had veto power over these decisions and staffed the senior command with his close friends. The army was "voluntary", but it was actually conscripted; by "voluntary" it was meant that the Makhnovist leaders, as representatives of "the people", "voluntarily" elected to mobilize "the people". A Makhnovist bulletin clarified what was meant by "voluntary":

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….Aye, stupid "groups", ignorant of the fact that "voluntary" doesn't actually mean voluntary!

Yes, praise your precious Makhno who declared public drunkenness of his "voluntarily" mobilized soldiers a capital offense yet hardly spent a moment sober himself, as the Makhnovist Volin says. Makhno who randomly ordered executions of his "voluntarily" mobilized soldiers to enforce discipline. Makhno who, with his commanders, raped women in orgies. Makhno who was such a scumbag, his wife stabbed him in the face.

Bah! Bugger Makhno and bugger non-Proletarian movements.

[Ghazkull]

On Nov 7th my friend asked me to celebrate his birthday.
The day was hard and I had to work till 11 PM.
But then I took a present (domestic rat :) ) and went celebrating.
Red banners and Revolutionary songs were included :thumbup1:

[Let's Get Free]

Anarchist and SR uprisings against the Bolsheviks only prove to me that the Bolsheviks were champions of the class-interests of the proletariat.

The Bolsheviks did not represent the "class interests of the proletariat." By 1921; the people really representing the class interests of the proletariat were attempting to re-invirgorate soviets in Moscow, Petrograd, and other industrial centers, including the Kronstadt soviet which, as I mentioned, was infamously repressed. Furthermore, there's only one possible reason to use force to cancel elections to workers' soviets: you cannot maintain the political support of the working class. How then, could such a party possibly continue to represent working class interests? I say once you start shooting striking workers, you stop representing anything proletarian.



"Voluntary army", eh? Initially, maybe. All units supposedly had the right to elect their commanders, but Makhno had veto power over these decisions and staffed the senior command with his close friends. The army was "voluntary", but it was actually conscripted; by "voluntary" it was meant that the Makhnovist leaders, as representatives of "the people", "voluntarily" elected to mobilize "the people". A Makhnovist bulletin clarified what was meant by "voluntary":

The Insurrectionary army was not by any means a perfect model of anarchist military organization. It can be argued that there can be no perfect model as all military organization requires some sort of compromise with anarchist principles. However there are many things that can be said about the Black Guards that can't be said about the Red Army. For one, the Makhnovista army was proletarian in nature at all levels whereas the Red Army was commanded by members of the middle and ruling class. Second, the commanders were essentially chosen by their units. According to Voline "all army unit commanders, including the staff..were either elected or accepted without reservation."
Whereas the Red Army seized food from the Peasants and alienated them the Makhnovista worked in co-operation with the local Peasants. The Red Armies actions meant they acted as a recruitment agent for the whites The Makhnovista had to rely on the peasants for support and indeed when the peasants became exhausted in 1921, this was part of the reason they were then forced into exile.


Yes, praise your precious Makhno who declared public drunkenness of his "voluntarily" mobilized soldiers a capital offense yet hardly spent a moment sober himself, as the Makhnovist Volin says. Makhno who randomly ordered executions of his "voluntarily" mobilized soldiers to enforce discipline. Makhno who, with his commanders, raped women in orgies. Makhno who was such a scumbag, his wife stabbed him in the face.
I can make baseless accusations too, but I can't think of any right now.

[LordAcheron]

the arguments made by state "communists" in this thread are some of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. The "logic" boils down to nothing but contradiction: The free territory wasn't free because it had a defending militia (smeared as a military dictatorship by those too wrapped up in their own cognitive dissonance to learn some basic history) but other militias are fine and can exist under communism (theoretical of course, because there is no way to reach communism through the state) as long as they go through proper marxist-leninist channels and follow the dogma religiously.

Seriously, there is no point discussing this stuff if all you people are going to do is regurgitate bullshit propaganda you read in your precious pamphlets. Do your damn history homework and learn to think for yourselves.

[l'Enfermé]

The Bolsheviks did not represent the "class interests of the proletariat." By 1921; the people really representing the class interests of the proletariat were attempting to re-invirgorate soviets in Moscow, Petrograd, and other industrial centers, including the Kronstadt soviet which, as I mentioned, was infamously repressed. Furthermore, there's only one possible reason to use force to cancel elections to workers' soviets: you cannot maintain the political support of the working class. How then, could such a party possibly continue to represent working class interests? I say once you start shooting striking workers, you stop representing anything proletarian.
The people representing the class interests of the proletariat? Like those at Kronstadt whose chief demands were things like:
- The release of all counter-revolutionaries, so they can resume agitation and insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat
- The expulsion of all communists from Soviets
- The re-introduction of capitalist "free trade"
- Freedom of speech and press for all, including counter-revolutionaries and pro-peasant, anti-proletariat parties

Fuck your Kronstadt uprising.





The Insurrectionary army was not by any means a perfect model of anarchist military organization. It can be argued that there can be no perfect model as all military organization requires some sort of compromise with anarchist principles. However there are many things that can be said about the Black Guards that can't be said about the Red Army. For one, the Makhnovista army was proletarian in nature at all levels whereas the Red Army was commanded by members of the middle and ruling class.
The Makhnov army was definitely not proletarian in nature, that's silly gibberish. It its peak, it was a conscripted peasant army, during its inception, it was a small group of petty-bourgeoisie and peasant volunteers.

As for the Red Army, yes, indeed, it was commanded by members of the ruling class; the proletariat.


Second, the commanders were essentially chosen by their units. According to Voline "all army unit commanders, including the staff..were either elected or accepted without reservation."
Whereas the Red Army seized food from the Peasants and alienated them the Makhnovista worked in co-operation with the local Peasants. The Red Armies actions meant they acted as a recruitment agent for the whites The Makhnovista had to rely on the peasants for support and indeed when the peasants became exhausted in 1921, this was part of the reason they were then forced into exile.
Initially, they were. As were the Red Army's, at the beginning. But eventually, no, commanders weren't chosen by their units, in the "Free Territory" they came to be appointed by Makhno personally. And yes, the Makhnovists requisitioned grain from peasnats also, they just didn't call it that, kind of like how they called conscription "voluntary mobilization". As for co-operation with local peasants, I don't see how. Are you talking about these fabled communes they set up? In which less than 1 percent of the Free Territory's population participated? Less than half a percent, even.

They were forced into exile because the Bolsheviks got tired of them and expelled them; not because the the peasantry became exhausted, the peasantry of the territories held by the Bosheviks were far more "exhausted" yet the Bolsheviks didn't go into exile anywhere(as if they could go into exile, if the Bolsheviks lost they, and at least a third of what remained of Russia's working class, would have been put down, like the Parisian Communards and the Finns during their civil war).


I can make baseless accusations too, but I can't think of any right now.
His wive stabbing him in the face is commonly known, there are even photos of the results freely available all over the internet (http://hrono.ru/img/portrety/mahno_star.jpg), his chronic alcoholism and his orgy-ing with coerced women is documented by his comrade and Makhnovist leader Volin(though other Makhnovists say that Makhno was fond of saying how popular he was with the ladies, so we may assume that Makhno was under the impression that he was doing those women a favor, so it really wasn't rape), the executions to enforce discipline and public drunkenness being a capital offense are not disputed by anyone.

[l'Enfermé]

the arguments made by state "communists" in this thread are some of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. The "logic" boils down to nothing but contradiction: The free territory wasn't free because it had a defending militia (smeared as a military dictatorship by those too wrapped up in their own cognitive dissonance to learn some basic history) but other militias are fine and can exist under communism (theoretical of course, because there is no way to reach communism through the state) as long as they go through proper marxist-leninist channels and follow the dogma religiously.

Seriously, there is no point discussing this stuff if all you people are going to do is regurgitate bullshit propaganda you read in your precious pamphlets. Do your damn history homework and learn to think for yourselves.
Yeah yeah, bullshit. You talk of a "militia", but the Makhnovist army was a conscripted one, not a militia. Moreover, the Makhnovist "set monetary policy.62 They regulated the press.63 They redistributed land according to specific laws they passed. They organized regional legislative conferences. 64 They controlled armed detachments to enforce their policies.65 To combat epidemics, they promulgated mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health.66 Except for the Makhnovists, parties were banned from organizing for election to regional bodies. They banned authority with which they disagreed to “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves.”67 They delegated broad authority to a “Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.” The Makhnovists used their military authority to suppress rival political ideas and organizations.68 The anarchist historian Paul Avrich notes, “the Military-Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Guliai-Pole.”69 (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)".

So fuck off with your farcical bullshit.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

the arguments made by state "communists" in this thread are some of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. The "logic" boils down to nothing but contradiction: The free territory wasn't free because it had a defending militia (smeared as a military dictatorship by those too wrapped up in their own cognitive dissonance to learn some basic history) but other militias are fine and can exist under communism (theoretical of course, because there is no way to reach communism through the state) as long as they go through proper marxist-leninist channels and follow the dogma religiously.

Seriously, there is no point discussing this stuff if all you people are going to do is regurgitate bullshit propaganda you read in your precious pamphlets. Do your damn history homework and learn to think for yourselves.

You literally made no arguments in defense of your position. You made a claim that has so far been disproven and you have not responded to, talked shit to everyone that doesn't agree with your line, and then proceeded to say that everyone that doesn't agree with you is "regurgitating bullshit propaganda". You brought up no evidence to defend your line, just a lot of rhetoric. You didn't respond to anyone's arguments, and made yourself look immature. Congratulations, you may become one of the few posters I don't bother with.

[Os Cangaceiros]

*sigh* this thread...

Anyway, OP, I think that marching around with the Stalin banner is the best idea. ;)

[LordAcheron]

You literally made no arguments in defense of your position. You made a claim that has so far been disproven and you have not responded to, talked shit to everyone that doesn't agree with your line, and then proceeded to say that everyone that doesn't agree with you is "regurgitating bullshit propaganda". You brought up no evidence to defend your line, just a lot of rhetoric. You didn't respond to anyone's arguments, and made yourself look immature. Congratulations, you may become one of the few posters I don't bother with.
mostly because I really don't have time to waste with persons involved in this thread who have obviously given up on logic and the pursuit of objective truth in history.

Any amount of historical data I bring up will be refuted with some extremely and obviously biased article in opposition. In all my experience, arguing with state communists is about the same as arguing with someone who only watches Fox news, so I'm not going to be wasting my time with a pointless discussion.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

mostly because I really don't have time to waste with persons involved in this thread who have obviously given up on logic and the pursuit of objective truth in history.
Says the man who has been refuted twice in this thread and has dismissed all evidence as propaganda. Now I can understand what some comrades meant when they used the word 'ultra-left' as an insult: I haven't seen such narrow dogmatism since that argument I had with a third-worldist nutbag.


Any amount of historical data I bring up will be refuted with some extremely and obviously biased article in opposition.

'Obviously biased'!? They have a hundred fuckin' cites, mate! A fourth of which are actual photos, mind you. Flailing at anything that runs contrary to your idealistic perspective of history makes you lose all credibility as both an opposition and a source of information.

I honestly just think you're setting a bit of a double standard out of confusion, so I feel obliged to ask the following question:


In all my experience, arguing with state communists is about the same as arguing with someone who only watches Fox news, so I'm not going to be wasting my time with a pointless discussion.
Define a state.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

mostly because I really don't have time to waste with persons involved in this thread who have obviously given up on logic and the pursuit of objective truth in history.

Any amount of historical data I bring up will be refuted with some extremely and obviously biased article in opposition. In all my experience, arguing with state communists is about the same as arguing with someone who only watches Fox news, so I'm not going to be wasting my time with a pointless discussion.

1. You did not respond to anyone's arguments
2. You just assumed things and called names again
3. You seem to be the only one who has "given up on logic and the pursuit of objective truth in history" and had "refuted" historical data presented.

So you're right, why waste this time on an obviously pointless discussion.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/150567977_da2e7877ec.jpg
And what organisation is this?

[Ocean Seal]

they had federated communes and abolished private property and money, as well as class and the state. That is the definition of communism. Just because it was destroyed by the reds before it could expand to the rest of the globe doesn't change what it was.

The lesson of the USSR was that centralized tactics are bullshit, which many people saw way before it even happened. The entire idea is as ridiculous as anarcho-capitalism.
One thing that must be despised of the anarchists, is how little blame they take for their own failures. If you consider authoritarian socialists as hostile elements, quite like capitalists and fascists, you should probably do your best to ensure that they don't trample over your communes, no? And if they do, then it is your failure to preserve and expand socialism. That is a failure which, if you are not some starry eyed idealist, you should take quite seriously. Nestor Makhno was a dictator, "communes" existed in Maoist China, and your failure to defend your paradise was most likely a result of your poor organization (characteristic of most anarchist experiments). And I'm going to go even further to say that anarchism in one country is probably quite a ways worse than Stalinism just in terms of the human toll.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

And what organisation is this?

The glorious Stalinist comrades of the amazing CPGB-ML.

Y'know, the ones that held a vigil for Kim Jong-Il. So yeah...