BIXX
16th September 2013, 01:02
Hey, I thought it might be cool to have a thread where people post their essays for critiquing or whatever, or just to kinda show their thoughts,etc...
This is an essay I wrote a while back about the Makhnovshchina (for a class), I don't really glorify them the way I did when I wrote it but whatever.
Post yours as well!
The Fall of the Makhnovshchina
Outline
The Makhnovshchina were compromised only after continued deceit and military actions initiated by the Bolsheviks.[/FONT]
I. Theoretical differences between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovshchina.
a. Statism.
b. Anti-statism.
c. Initial conflict.
1. The Makhno-Lenin meeting.
II. The Bolsheviks lied about the Makhnovshchina to the public.
a. Leon Trotsky said that anarchists held all the power in Gulyai-Polye.
b. Trotsky said that the Makhnovshchina condoned pogroms.
III. Bolshevik’s assault on the Makhnovshchina.
a. The military deceit.
b. The imprisonment.
c. The defeat.
In revolutionary Russia, when the Communists were first taking power and the White armies were being overthrown, there were other, lesser-known armies, yet one of them stands out in front of the others: the Black Army, otherwise known as the Makhnovshchina. This was an anarchist army in the Ukraine, who took the name of Nestor Makhno, as he was the one who had initially organized the peasants there. The Bolsheviks worked extensively to destroy the Black Army (which was officially called the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine), due to the alternative to Bolshevik dictatorship that the Makhnovshchina presented with the Free Territory. Despite the attempts to destroy the Makhnovists, the Makhnovshchina were only compromised after continued deceit and military actions initiated by the Bolsheviks.
The first thing you must understand when regarding the conflict between the Makhnovshchina and the Bolsheviks is that the Bolsheviks favoured a state, while the Makhnovshchina did not, because they were anarchists. The Bolsheviks were Marxists, and followed what Marx said, believing that a state was required to secure the proletarian revolution to end all inequality. They often refer to this time as the “socialist” period or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, meaning that rather than living under the bourgeoisie, the proletariat would be living above them. They ended up considering themselves the vanguard party of the proletariat, and that their rule was the rule of the proletariat. They believed that then the state would wither away, due to the functions slowly being taken over by the communities at large.
The Makhnovists, on the other hand, were anarchists. They believed that the dictatorships of any group over another would cause a reverse of the illegitimate hierarchical structures, not their abolishment. They believed in complete autonomy for individuals and communes, with the communes only being linked by a loose federation, so they could associate or disassociate with one another at will.
This led to a direct conflict between the anarchist Makhnovshchina and the statist Bolsheviks. Seeing as the Makhnovists rejected centralized authority, they rejected the rule of the Bolsheviks, and they set up a Free Territory, which had been liberated from the Austro-Germans, the pomeshchiks(landowning gentry) and the kulaks (rich peasants who acted somewhat like feudal lords) by the peasants in the area. Nestor Makhno, who had been a political prisoner for nine years, started rounding up the pomeshchiks and the kulaks and making them turn over their land. It was then distributed equally between all the peasants and the former owners of the masses of land (Arshinov np). Makhno was charged with organizing insurgent militias to combat the Austro-German, pomeshchik, and kulak threats. Seeing as these three forces were allied, he was forced to retreat and go into hiding. This prompted him to go to Moscow to meet with several anarchists, seeking advice on organization (FAQ np). Soon afterwards, the Bolsheviks requested that Makhno do “secret revolutionary work” for them in the Ukraine. He refused, for he felt he had nothing in common with the Bolsheviks (Arshinov np).
The reason that he felt they had nothing in common was because Makhno had met Lenin on his trip to Moscow. Lenin asked him what the peasants in the Ukraine thought of the slogan “All power to the Soviets (workers’ councils) in the villages!” When Makhno replied that the peasants saw the soviets simply as a tool for organizing against the bourgeoisie, Lenin replied, “Well, then, the peasants of your region are infected with anarchism!” (FAQ np). This is one of the earliest signs of major disagreements between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovshchina.
There were many lies spread by the Bolsheviks regarding the Makhnovists, but it is easiest to focus on the things that were stated by Leon Trotsky, who was a well known anti-anarchist advocate. In Trotsky’s military writings, he says that while the Makhnovists claim to respect the power of the local workers soviets, they reject the power of the central soviets. However, according to Trotsky, seeing as the local soviets respect the central soviets, it follows that the Makhnovists don’t support local soviets (Trotsky np). However, the claim that this rests upon, that the local soviets in the Ukraine submitted to the central soviets, was not true, especially in Gulyai-Polye, where the Makhnovshchina’s base was. In Gulyai-Polye, the peasants had already naturally organized themselves under anarchist principles, and were not submitting to state power (Makhno np). Trotsky also made the claim that the Makhnovists were pogromists, as one known pogromist named Grigor’ev had asked Makhno to help him (Trotsky np). However, we can clearly see that the Makhnovshchina were anti-pogrom, because when they rejected the alliance with Grigor’ev, they stated that one of their reasons was because he was a pogromist. Later, when Makhno requested that Grigor’ev answer for his crimes in front of a congress of insurgents, Grigor’ev drew weapons, but before he could fire, Makhno and one of his comrades killed him (Arshinov np). The USSR had decided to destroy the Makhnovshchina once and for all in 1920. They had been spreading lies about the Black Army entering into an alliance with Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel, who was a counter-revolutionary general. The Makhnovists however had been fighting Wrangel, only to be attacked from behind by the Red Army (Arshinov np). However, soon after the Reds had spread those lies, the Makhnovshchina came to them to ally against Wrangel and defeat him. They entered into a military-political agreement. There was a fourth clause which the Bolsheviks said they needed to discuss with their supervisors before they accepted it, but they accepted the rest (Voline np). The Makhnovist representatives asked that the Reds publish the agreement. The Reds published the halves out of order, but published them nonetheless. After the defeat of Wrangel, on the 23rd of November, 1920, the Makhnovshchina found nine Red spies who were part of the 42 Sharpshooters’ Division. They then claimed that they’d been sent to figure out where the housing of the primary member of the Revolutionary Council of Insurgents, so when the Reds came they could simply point out the houses. When the Makhnovshchina confronted the Reds, they claimed it was all a misunderstanding, and that the Revolutionary Council of Insurgents send two delegates to Kharkov to discuss that matter (Arshinov np). Voline, who was one of the people sent by the Makhnovists, ended up meeting with Rakovsky, who was an old comrade of Trotsky. Rakovsky told Voline that everything would be handled in a satisfactory manner. Later that night, however, Voline, and every other anarchist in the area, were captured by the Bolsheviks and jailed (Voline np). The Reds sent an order to the Blacks that they must assimilate. This was in violation of the first article of the military agreement, which stated that the Makhnovshchina would stay independent of the Reds. However, the Blacks never received this order, and were subsequently attacked by the Bolshevik army. This came at the same time as massive arrests of anarchists in Kharkov. One troop of 250 men came back from Crimea, with their leader saying, “I have the honor of announcing to you — the return of the Crimean army.” He soon followed up by saying, “Now we know what the Communists are.” (Arshinov np). The Bolshevik armies began chasing Makhno and his troops. He wrote a letter to a friend of his, detailing the final days of the Makhnovshchina. At first they won battle after battle with the Reds, but they soon realized that they were surrounded. Every day they were losing more men whom Makhno always referred to as “our best comrades”. They would have a flash of hope every now and then, but then they would be crushed in some new way. Until, in the final part of his letter, Makhno said, “On August 22, they had to take care of me again; a bullet struck me in the neck and came out of the right cheek. Once again I was lying in the bottom of a cart. On the 26th we were obliged to fight a new battle with the Reds. We lost our best comrades and fighters: Petrenko-Platonov and Ivanyuk. I was forced to change our route for the last time, and on August 28, 1921, I crossed the Dniester. I am now abroad... “ (Arshino np).
Voline states that it was easy for the Reds to wipe out what remained of the Makhnovshchina, as well as ending the resistance of other groups, such as the Petlurist troops that remained (np).
One Bolshevik, when he was told that the anarchists felt that it was treacherous, said, “Ah, you call it treacherous? That only demonstrates your ineradicable naivete. As for us Bolsheviks, we see it as proof that we have learned much since the beginning of the Revolution and have now become really skillful statesmen. This time we did not let ourselves be victimised. When we needed Makhno, we took advantage of him, and when we had no further need of his services, and he began to be something of a nuisance, we got rid of him completely.” (Voline np).
Works Cited
1. Arshinov, Peter. History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918–1921). n/a: n/a, 1923. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921#toc13>.
2. The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective, .An Anarchist FAQ. Version 13.1 . 15/17. n/a: The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective, 2009. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-15-17#toc79>.
3. Trotsky, Leon. The Makhno Movement. 2. n/a: n/a, 1918. np. Web. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch49.htm>.[/FONT]
4. Makhno, Nestor. The Manifesto of The Makhnovists. n/a: n/a, 1919. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nestor-makhno-the-manifesto-of-the-makhnovists>.
5. Voline, .The Unknown Revolution, 1917–1921. Book Three. Struggle for the Real Social Revolution. n/a: n/a, 1947. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-the-unknown-revolution-1917-1921-book-three-struggle-for-the-real-social-revolution#toc14>.
Yes, it's a pretty bad essay. Tear me a new one, but while you do so, post your own essays!
This is an essay I wrote a while back about the Makhnovshchina (for a class), I don't really glorify them the way I did when I wrote it but whatever.
Post yours as well!
The Fall of the Makhnovshchina
Outline
The Makhnovshchina were compromised only after continued deceit and military actions initiated by the Bolsheviks.[/FONT]
I. Theoretical differences between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovshchina.
a. Statism.
b. Anti-statism.
c. Initial conflict.
1. The Makhno-Lenin meeting.
II. The Bolsheviks lied about the Makhnovshchina to the public.
a. Leon Trotsky said that anarchists held all the power in Gulyai-Polye.
b. Trotsky said that the Makhnovshchina condoned pogroms.
III. Bolshevik’s assault on the Makhnovshchina.
a. The military deceit.
b. The imprisonment.
c. The defeat.
In revolutionary Russia, when the Communists were first taking power and the White armies were being overthrown, there were other, lesser-known armies, yet one of them stands out in front of the others: the Black Army, otherwise known as the Makhnovshchina. This was an anarchist army in the Ukraine, who took the name of Nestor Makhno, as he was the one who had initially organized the peasants there. The Bolsheviks worked extensively to destroy the Black Army (which was officially called the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine), due to the alternative to Bolshevik dictatorship that the Makhnovshchina presented with the Free Territory. Despite the attempts to destroy the Makhnovists, the Makhnovshchina were only compromised after continued deceit and military actions initiated by the Bolsheviks.
The first thing you must understand when regarding the conflict between the Makhnovshchina and the Bolsheviks is that the Bolsheviks favoured a state, while the Makhnovshchina did not, because they were anarchists. The Bolsheviks were Marxists, and followed what Marx said, believing that a state was required to secure the proletarian revolution to end all inequality. They often refer to this time as the “socialist” period or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, meaning that rather than living under the bourgeoisie, the proletariat would be living above them. They ended up considering themselves the vanguard party of the proletariat, and that their rule was the rule of the proletariat. They believed that then the state would wither away, due to the functions slowly being taken over by the communities at large.
The Makhnovists, on the other hand, were anarchists. They believed that the dictatorships of any group over another would cause a reverse of the illegitimate hierarchical structures, not their abolishment. They believed in complete autonomy for individuals and communes, with the communes only being linked by a loose federation, so they could associate or disassociate with one another at will.
This led to a direct conflict between the anarchist Makhnovshchina and the statist Bolsheviks. Seeing as the Makhnovists rejected centralized authority, they rejected the rule of the Bolsheviks, and they set up a Free Territory, which had been liberated from the Austro-Germans, the pomeshchiks(landowning gentry) and the kulaks (rich peasants who acted somewhat like feudal lords) by the peasants in the area. Nestor Makhno, who had been a political prisoner for nine years, started rounding up the pomeshchiks and the kulaks and making them turn over their land. It was then distributed equally between all the peasants and the former owners of the masses of land (Arshinov np). Makhno was charged with organizing insurgent militias to combat the Austro-German, pomeshchik, and kulak threats. Seeing as these three forces were allied, he was forced to retreat and go into hiding. This prompted him to go to Moscow to meet with several anarchists, seeking advice on organization (FAQ np). Soon afterwards, the Bolsheviks requested that Makhno do “secret revolutionary work” for them in the Ukraine. He refused, for he felt he had nothing in common with the Bolsheviks (Arshinov np).
The reason that he felt they had nothing in common was because Makhno had met Lenin on his trip to Moscow. Lenin asked him what the peasants in the Ukraine thought of the slogan “All power to the Soviets (workers’ councils) in the villages!” When Makhno replied that the peasants saw the soviets simply as a tool for organizing against the bourgeoisie, Lenin replied, “Well, then, the peasants of your region are infected with anarchism!” (FAQ np). This is one of the earliest signs of major disagreements between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovshchina.
There were many lies spread by the Bolsheviks regarding the Makhnovists, but it is easiest to focus on the things that were stated by Leon Trotsky, who was a well known anti-anarchist advocate. In Trotsky’s military writings, he says that while the Makhnovists claim to respect the power of the local workers soviets, they reject the power of the central soviets. However, according to Trotsky, seeing as the local soviets respect the central soviets, it follows that the Makhnovists don’t support local soviets (Trotsky np). However, the claim that this rests upon, that the local soviets in the Ukraine submitted to the central soviets, was not true, especially in Gulyai-Polye, where the Makhnovshchina’s base was. In Gulyai-Polye, the peasants had already naturally organized themselves under anarchist principles, and were not submitting to state power (Makhno np). Trotsky also made the claim that the Makhnovists were pogromists, as one known pogromist named Grigor’ev had asked Makhno to help him (Trotsky np). However, we can clearly see that the Makhnovshchina were anti-pogrom, because when they rejected the alliance with Grigor’ev, they stated that one of their reasons was because he was a pogromist. Later, when Makhno requested that Grigor’ev answer for his crimes in front of a congress of insurgents, Grigor’ev drew weapons, but before he could fire, Makhno and one of his comrades killed him (Arshinov np). The USSR had decided to destroy the Makhnovshchina once and for all in 1920. They had been spreading lies about the Black Army entering into an alliance with Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel, who was a counter-revolutionary general. The Makhnovists however had been fighting Wrangel, only to be attacked from behind by the Red Army (Arshinov np). However, soon after the Reds had spread those lies, the Makhnovshchina came to them to ally against Wrangel and defeat him. They entered into a military-political agreement. There was a fourth clause which the Bolsheviks said they needed to discuss with their supervisors before they accepted it, but they accepted the rest (Voline np). The Makhnovist representatives asked that the Reds publish the agreement. The Reds published the halves out of order, but published them nonetheless. After the defeat of Wrangel, on the 23rd of November, 1920, the Makhnovshchina found nine Red spies who were part of the 42 Sharpshooters’ Division. They then claimed that they’d been sent to figure out where the housing of the primary member of the Revolutionary Council of Insurgents, so when the Reds came they could simply point out the houses. When the Makhnovshchina confronted the Reds, they claimed it was all a misunderstanding, and that the Revolutionary Council of Insurgents send two delegates to Kharkov to discuss that matter (Arshinov np). Voline, who was one of the people sent by the Makhnovists, ended up meeting with Rakovsky, who was an old comrade of Trotsky. Rakovsky told Voline that everything would be handled in a satisfactory manner. Later that night, however, Voline, and every other anarchist in the area, were captured by the Bolsheviks and jailed (Voline np). The Reds sent an order to the Blacks that they must assimilate. This was in violation of the first article of the military agreement, which stated that the Makhnovshchina would stay independent of the Reds. However, the Blacks never received this order, and were subsequently attacked by the Bolshevik army. This came at the same time as massive arrests of anarchists in Kharkov. One troop of 250 men came back from Crimea, with their leader saying, “I have the honor of announcing to you — the return of the Crimean army.” He soon followed up by saying, “Now we know what the Communists are.” (Arshinov np). The Bolshevik armies began chasing Makhno and his troops. He wrote a letter to a friend of his, detailing the final days of the Makhnovshchina. At first they won battle after battle with the Reds, but they soon realized that they were surrounded. Every day they were losing more men whom Makhno always referred to as “our best comrades”. They would have a flash of hope every now and then, but then they would be crushed in some new way. Until, in the final part of his letter, Makhno said, “On August 22, they had to take care of me again; a bullet struck me in the neck and came out of the right cheek. Once again I was lying in the bottom of a cart. On the 26th we were obliged to fight a new battle with the Reds. We lost our best comrades and fighters: Petrenko-Platonov and Ivanyuk. I was forced to change our route for the last time, and on August 28, 1921, I crossed the Dniester. I am now abroad... “ (Arshino np).
Voline states that it was easy for the Reds to wipe out what remained of the Makhnovshchina, as well as ending the resistance of other groups, such as the Petlurist troops that remained (np).
One Bolshevik, when he was told that the anarchists felt that it was treacherous, said, “Ah, you call it treacherous? That only demonstrates your ineradicable naivete. As for us Bolsheviks, we see it as proof that we have learned much since the beginning of the Revolution and have now become really skillful statesmen. This time we did not let ourselves be victimised. When we needed Makhno, we took advantage of him, and when we had no further need of his services, and he began to be something of a nuisance, we got rid of him completely.” (Voline np).
Works Cited
1. Arshinov, Peter. History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918–1921). n/a: n/a, 1923. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921#toc13>.
2. The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective, .An Anarchist FAQ. Version 13.1 . 15/17. n/a: The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective, 2009. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-15-17#toc79>.
3. Trotsky, Leon. The Makhno Movement. 2. n/a: n/a, 1918. np. Web. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch49.htm>.[/FONT]
4. Makhno, Nestor. The Manifesto of The Makhnovists. n/a: n/a, 1919. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nestor-makhno-the-manifesto-of-the-makhnovists>.
5. Voline, .The Unknown Revolution, 1917–1921. Book Three. Struggle for the Real Social Revolution. n/a: n/a, 1947. np. Web. <http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-the-unknown-revolution-1917-1921-book-three-struggle-for-the-real-social-revolution#toc14>.
Yes, it's a pretty bad essay. Tear me a new one, but while you do so, post your own essays!