Atrocities committed by Nestor Makhno's army

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Hi guys,

I've returned to Revleft after several months of inactivity, and I'm ready to start learning again! Right now, I'm fascinated by Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian Free Territory. It was one of the largest experiments in anarchy in modern history, but most of us know that it died early on. The Bolsheviks took over the territory, forcing Makhno into exile. Lenin and Trotsky claimed that Makhno was just a bandit with a small army of angry peasants. They also maintained that Makhno and his army carried out pogroms against the Jews and committed numerous atrocities.

I'm curious whether or not any of this is true. I'd love to see anyone present their opinion on this--especially if you have a good eyewitness account to back up your stance.

Let the discussion begin!:laugh:

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

From what I've read, Makhno himself never conducted any pogroms, and was quite open about his loathing of anti-semitism.

That being said, some of his units and their officers did go rogue and conducted pogroms on their own, without Makhno's knowledge. When Makhno found out, he did discipline said officers, but the damage was done.

Makhno did do some stupid things however, like tearing up railroads because he considered them 'bourgeois"

[Tim Cornelis]

That the "Makhnovists" were a band of bandits is obviously false propaganda, however they did, as far as I know, commit atrocities by killing up to a hundred (or hundreds?) of members of rich (perceived as) Christian communities, civilians that is.

[Skyhilist]

It's hard to tell what's accurate and what's not because so much shit has been made up about Makhnovians.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to finish reading it before I had to return it to a friend who was moving, but my impression of Anarchy's Cossack (http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/7wm3xz) is that it's generally understood to be the best biography of Makhno himself, and a relatively thorough account of the Ukraine Free Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory) and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) (though I'm sure, having said as much, a Trotskyist will come out of the woodwork at any minute to denounce it as petit bourgeois propaganda).

On a related note, if it's a subject of interest for you, you should track down a copy of Atamansha (http://www.blackcatpress.ca/atamansha.html), a short biography of Maria Nikiforova, who was basically anarchist Wonder Woman.

[Dagoth Ur]

Makhno's real crime was leading a movement so dependent on his personality that it fell apart as soon as he was removed from the scene. This is the context by which Lenin and Trotsky denounced Makhno's army as bandits (not to mention a huge portion of his army were in fact "former" bandits).

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Thanks for the great responses guys!

This article is huge and hard to digest, but it made some excellent points. It basically goes over Makhnovist attacks on Mennonite communities. While Makhno's army did occasionally lose control, consider the context. Many Mennonites in this area were wealthy landowners who abused the peasantry, time and time again. When the Makhnovists tried to redistribute the land, the Mennonites formed their own army and violently attacked the burgeoning movement.

Of course, this doesn't justify Makhno's army killing innocent Mennonite civilians, but it does make the brutality easier to understand. It was a violent, unproductive attack, but it was not a coordinated genocide. It was an act of blind rage.

http://libcom.org/history/makhnovists-mennonites-war-peace-ukrainian-civil-war

[Art Vandelay]

Makhno's black army is accused of a number of atrocities, but so are the Bolsheviks, so I don't really think that is a productive way to approach analyzing the value of either groups politics. Personally my biggest issue with the Makhnovists is the way they get placed on a pedestal by certain anarchists, usually going hand in hand with the Kronstdat argument, in an effort to critique the Bolsheviks from the left.

The claims of the black and white army having a formal alliance are indeed false, however that in no way changes the fact that the Makhnovists were a counter-revolutionary peasant based force. By fighting the red army, at the same time that it was engaged in war with the white army, it defacto gave aid to the whites. There was no third camp in the Russian civil war, either the young workers state would survive, or the gains of the revolution would be rolled back. This is not a 'Marxism vs anarchism' type of discussion either, since many anarchists critically supported and gave aid to the Bolsheviks throughout the civil war; Trotsky himself noted that the conflict between the red and black army, was not one of the ideals of anarchism versus Marxism, but was fundamentally about the defense of the workers state from the burgeoning peasant counter-revolution.

Perhaps worst of all is that the actual nuts and bolts of how the black army functioned, was in no way consistent with the anarchist and anti-statist/non-hierarchical ideals they claimed to uphold. While it seems that most anarchists today claim the black army as their own, the majority of Russian and Ukrainian anarchists at the time did not. Even while a member of the red army, Makhno commandeered a supply truck, refused to collect grain for the soviet government, etc...all while engaging in an ideological campaign against the Bolsheviks. His secret police tortured and murdered communists, there were pogroms committed by his army (although unknown to him at the time), conscription, authority was concentrated in Makhno and his staff's hands, etc...yeah I seriously don't get the love some anarchists have for him.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

That's so vile as to warrant a line-by-line breakdown.


The claims of the black and white army having a formal alliance are indeed false [. . .]

I think it's telling that you admit that this is bullshit Bolshevik propaganda, then go on to repeat the rest of the ridiculous lies they propagated.


[. . .] however that in no way changes the fact that the Makhnovists were a counter-revolutionary peasant based force.

Mechanical, much? It seems ironic for a booster of the Bolsheviks to take this stance while upholding hereditary noble Lenin, and petit bourgeois Trotsky.


By fighting the red army, at the same time that it was engaged in war with the white army, it defacto gave aid to the whites. There was no third camp in the Russian civil war [. . .]

A telling pairing, to say the least. Thus, since you were either with the Bolsheviks or the Whites, being attacked by the Bolsheviks made you a white.


[. . .] either the young workers state would survive, or the gains of the revolution would be rolled back.

Obviously, as history shows, it wasn't an either/or situation, since the young Bolshevik state not only survived, but was actually the means by which those very gains were rolled back.


This is not a 'Marxism vs anarchism' type of discussion either [. . .]

Of course, I agree. I think at this point, any coherent Marxist would have come to terms with the grievous errors made by the Bolsheviks, and gotten over spewing their 90+ year old propaganda lines.


[. . .]Trotsky himself noted that the conflict between the red and black army, was not one of the ideals of anarchism versus Marxism, but was fundamentally about the defense of the workers state from the burgeoning peasant counter-revolution.

Well, this is sincerely LOL-worthy.
Trotsky insists it's not about anarchism and Marxism, but just about defending the state. I agree, wholeheartedly.


Perhaps worst of all is that the actual nuts and bolts of how the black army functioned, was in no way consistent with the anarchist and anti-statist/non-hierarchical ideals they claimed to uphold.

Ah, as opposed to the brilliant standard of democracy that characterized Trotsky's red army? I'm sure soldier's committees would have elected old Tsarist officers if they'd had the choice anyway, right?

I'm not going to hold the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine's model up as perfect, but certainly its experiments in soldiers' democracy were a step in the right direction. Given that it was probably the first explicitly anarchist army in history, and in comparison with the Bolsheviks (whose "expediency" you seem happy to excuse), I think we can pretty much throw this cheap-shot out.


While it seems that most anarchists today claim the black army as their own, the majority of Russian and Ukrainian anarchists at the time did not.

Oh? Well, the Makhnovshchina were about 15,000 strong. You know of anarchist organizations of a similar size that didn't claim them as "their own"? I certainly don't.


His secret police tortured and murdered communists[. . .]

You mean they had a parallel organization to defend anarchists from the Cheka? The horror!


[. . .] there were pogroms committed by his army (although unknown to him at the time), conscription, authority was concentrated in Makhno and his staff's hands, etc.

I want to concede that these are legitimate criticisms. I think it's unfortunate that they're essentially tacked on the end of a bunch of bullshit. I think these criticisms are worth exploring, since they are, in fact, dealing with reality instead of cringe-worthy Bolshevik apologia.


yeah I seriously don't get the love some anarchists have for him.

Well, on a personal level, it's because his story is one of heroism and revolt: we're talking about a guy who was at war with the bourgeoisie for his entire life: who was facing a death sentence for his revolutionary commitments when he was still a fucking teenager.

As to why anarchists admire the Black Army, I think there are two big factors, neither of which is the army itself:

1. What the army was defending - the Free Territory, and Free Soviets - are an inspiring example of communist practice, posing the possibility of workers' power against Leninist elitism.

2. The constant repetition of opportunistic distortions, like in your post, can't help but make one sympathize with Makhnovists.

[o well this is ok I guess]

By fighting the red army, at the same time that it was engaged in war with the white army, it defacto gave aid to the whites. There was no third camp in the Russian civil war, either the young workers state would survive, or the gains of the revolution would be rolled back.
"you're either with us or against us"
simplifying conflict so as to give it ideological consistency
in war, nothing is ever so clear as theory would want it


Even while a member of the red army, Makhno commandeered a supply truck, refused to collect grain for the soviet government, etc...all while engaging in an ideological campaign against the Bolsheviks. idk what the problem is here

[Dagoth Ur]

Then you shouldn't see a problem with the Bolsheviks running a train on them either. Marxists are much better at not forming moral contradictions it seems.

[BIXX]

Then you shouldn't see a problem with the Bolsheviks running a train on them either. Marxists are much better at not forming moral contradictions it seems.

First off, I don't have a problem with attacking the Bolsheviks For... Well, a bunch of reasons. The problems with them from my perspective are massive.

Second, I don't care for the black army but the Bolsheviks were acting against the interests of oppressed people, while (though, I'll concede they weren't 100% with the people) the black army was often able to be more counted upon to help you out.

Third, ad hominem. You are attacking character, not content.

Fourth, it's not a moral contradiction to say that it sucks that the Bolsheviks royally fucked the black army but like it when the black army strike against the Bolsheviks. If it was, then it would be a moral contradiction to have a problem when capitalists harm leftists but not when it's the other way around.

Fifth: no such thing as morals.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Then you shouldn't see a problem with the Bolsheviks running a train on them either. Marxists are much better at not forming moral contradictions it seems. Which moral contradiction?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Then you shouldn't see a problem with the Bolsheviks running a train on them either. Marxists are much better at not forming moral contradictions it seems.

The ends justifies the means so long as Trotsky justifies the ends?
In any case, as Trotsky said himself, according to 9mm, it wasn't about anarchism or Marxism, it was about defending the state. It's not often that my Marxism intersects with Trotsky's, but I certainly agree with him in this case.

Of course, all moral questions (and ideological assertions) aside, I maintain that most of the criticisms in 9mm's post are ridiculous propaganda - a point you fail to grapple with.

Honestly, I would be interested in discussing the Black Army's very real failings - skimmed over at the end of the aforementioned post. That discussion, however, is not about revisionist apologia for Bolshevik backstabbing.

[Dagoth Ur]

^ we're on the same boat.

@echoshock:
1. Not a problem. But I'm sure you bemoan Bolsheviks for killing off your bandit groups.
2. Which one was closer to defeating world capitalism?
3. I wasn't attacking anyone's character. I didn't call O Well a person who makes moral contradictions, I said anarchists do this.
4. I understand why capitalists do what they do, and I don't especially begrudge them for standing up for their own interests. That said they stand in our way and must be liquidated. Only ultraleftists and amatuer Marxists hate the bourgeoisie and call them evil and shit.
5. Exactly. Anarchists fail to realize this. As evidenced by their view of the enemy. And their idealism in general.

@o well: the contradiction of blaming one person for protecting their interests and then applauding another. I cast no blame.

[o well this is ok I guess]

@o well: the contradiction of blaming one person for protecting their interests and then applauding another. I cast no blame. Adolphe Thiers did as he ought to as the elected representative of the french third republic. The military failures of the commune are its own. Doesn't mean he ought not be demonized.

[BIXX]

^ we're on the same boat.

@echoshock:
1. Not a problem. But I'm sure you bemoan Bolsheviks for killing off your bandit groups.

I bemoan a lot about the bolsheviks. Them attacking a group that was arguably looked upon much more favorably by the oppressed is one of my reasons.


2. Which one was closer to defeating world capitalism?

Neither. They were both doomed to failure. The Bolsheviks, because of their elitist leninism and statism, the black army due to their lack of actual non-hierarchical form.


3. I wasn't attacking anyone's character. I didn't call O Well a person who makes moral contradictions, I said anarchists do this.

You attacked anarchist's character- assuming that all anarchists have a problem with moral contradictions, which make's the issues they have with the Bolsheviks attacking anarchists invalid. This is ad hominem because the character does not invalidate the argument.


4. I understand why capitalists do what they do, and I don't especially begrudge them for standing up for their own interests. That said they stand in our way and must be liquidated. Only ultraleftists and amatuer Marxists hate the bourgeoisie and call them evil and shit.

I wasn't talking about begrudging, I was simply upset about the Bolshevik's betrayal of the blacks as much as I'd be upset about capitalists attacking communists. If you don't have a personal problem with the capitalists harming communists then I question how much you actually care about this struggle. But I guess that makes sense for a Trot.

I know, I know, ad hominem, but I couldn't resist.


5. Exactly. Anarchists fail to realize this. As evidenced by their view of the enemy. And their idealism in general.

Ad hominem, and false claims at that. Oh well, I guess you can't be expected to be an accurate facts.


@o well: the contradiction of blaming one person for protecting their interests and then applauding another. I cast no blame.

Again, we are as upset as we would be if capitalists repressed communists- and like I said earlier, if you don't personally have a problem with that, then I doubt you give a shit about bringing about world communism.

I don't believe the Blavk army was perfect, or even good by any measure, but my opinion rests that they were better than the Bolsheviks.

[Art Vandelay]

That's so vile as to warrant a line-by-line breakdown.

I'm flattered.


I think it's telling that you admit that this is bullshit Bolshevik propaganda, then go on to repeat the rest of the ridiculous lies they propagated.

I think it is bullshit that they claimed the black army were a bunch of roaming bandits, absolutely. I have no problem criticizing the Bolsheviks where criticism is warranted.


Mechanical, much? It seems ironic for a booster of the Bolsheviks to take this stance while upholding hereditary noble Lenin, and petit bourgeois Trotsky.

What am I supposed to respond to here? This is just silly name calling essentially, I would certainly expect better from a poster of your caliber. But regardless since you decided to spew this nonsense, remind me again in what way Trotsky was a member of the petite-bourgeoisie? This should be rich.


A telling pairing, to say the least. Thus, since you were either with the Bolsheviks or the Whites, being attacked by the Bolsheviks made you a white.

I don't think its very hard to understand the concept to tell you the truth. The Bolesheviks were engaged in a civil war, if you are attacking them, than yes you are objectively aiding the enemy, regardless of whether or not subjective those were your intentions. I already stated that there was not an actual military alliance between the black and white armies, but its actually irrelevant from an objective standpoint; the motivations for the actions are meaningless, what matters is the ways in which it impacted the revolution.


Obviously, as history shows, it wasn't an either/or situation, since the young Bolshevik state not only survived, but was actually the means by which those very gains were rolled back.

Of course it was. The state was always going to be the institution through which the revolution progressed or degenerated, but prey tell what was this mythical third option? The one in which statelessness is created within the confines of a grouping of countries, surrounded by hostile states and invaded by over a dozen countries? Its nonsense on par with socialism in one country. The state cannot be willed away at any given point in time, it can only whither away when its historical role has been completed. Whether or not you wish to muddle the waters by treating statelessness as synonymous with non-hierarchical and federated organization, doesn't change the fact that the state is and will continue to be, a necessary evil.


Of course, I agree. I think at this point, any coherent Marxist

You misrepresenting my post does not make it any less coherent, if that is indeed what you are alluding to.


would have come to terms with the grievous errors made by the Bolsheviks, and gotten over spewing their 90+ year old propaganda lines.

What propaganda? If you have something to contradict anything I've said, then say it, but so far I haven't seen any refutations.


Well, this is sincerely LOL-worthy.

Jesus Christ 'lol'? Really? What the hell was this supposed to even add to the discussion?


Trotsky insists it's not about anarchism and Marxism, but just about defending the state. I agree, wholeheartedly.

That is good were in agreement, regardless if we draw differing conclusions. We've discussed the state enough times in the past that I know what your views are on that matter.


Ah, as opposed to the brilliant standard of democracy that characterized Trotsky's red army? I'm sure soldier's committees would have elected old Tsarist officers if they'd had the choice anyway, right?

I'm not going to hold the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine's model up as perfect, but certainly its experiments in soldiers' democracy were a step in the right direction. Given that it was probably the first explicitly anarchist army in history, and in comparison with the Bolsheviks (whose "expediency" you seem happy to excuse), I think we can pretty much throw this cheap-shot out.


You completely miss the point. Trotsky didn't claim to be some anti-authoritarian commander; he was, rightfully so, an unapologetic authoritarian. Only one person, between Trotsky and Makhno, didn't practice what they preach in this regard. What is actually funny is that you characterize me criticizing the black army for not following the anarchist ideals they claimed to uphold, as some sort of 'cheap shot' as opposed to a principled political criticism, its quite eye opening actually.


Oh? Well, the Makhnovshchina were about 15,000 strong. You know of anarchist organizations of a similar size that didn't claim them as "their own"? I certainly don't.

What is this even supposed to mean? I've read it over a couple times and genuinely can't figure out what sort of commentary/argument you were attempting to add to this discourse.


You mean they had a parallel organization to defend anarchists from the Cheka? The horror!

I'm a Marxist, obviously I don't agree with murdering Marxists, but I think you're projecting some sort of moral indignation on my part, which is entirely non-existent. I don't have a problem with violence for political purposes, I have a problem with political violence when it is not used in congruence with proletarian class interests. I'll leave the useless moralism to you and the others here.


I want to concede that these are legitimate criticisms. I think it's unfortunate that they're essentially tacked on the end of a bunch of bullshit. I think these criticisms are worth exploring, since they are, in fact, dealing with reality instead of cringe-worthy Bolshevik apologia.

"I want to concede these are legitimate criticisms, but I'm not going to address them and will just continue to finish my post in which I've brought nothing but flippancy to the table."


Well, on a personal level, it's because his story is one of heroism and revolt: we're talking about a guy who was at war with the bourgeoisie for his entire life: who was facing a death sentence for his revolutionary commitments when he was still a fucking teenager.

Well this is stupid. There are other people throughout the history of leftism who those descriptions would also accurately fit, yet I don't see their parade. Regardless you can base your political support on romantic tales if you want, I'll continue to base mine off of actual politics.


As to why anarchists admire the Black Army, I think there are two big factors, neither of which is the army itself:

1. What the army was defending - the Free Territory, and Free Soviets - are an inspiring example of communist practice, posing the possibility of workers' power against Leninist elitism.

Which I consider to be nothing but terribly misguided and ignorant of the realities of the situation. But since I haven't been responded to in a principled manner, I don't really feel like spending the time to properly articulate why.


2. The constant repetition of opportunistic distortions, like in your post, can't help but make one sympathize with Makhnovists.

Once again, care to back this up?

[argeiphontes]

3. I wasn't attacking anyone's character. I didn't call O Well a person who makes moral contradictions, I said anarchists do this

This only makes sense if you equate the moral standing of Bolsheviks and anarchists, which anarchists do not. It's not an argument. Anarchists are perfectly within their rights to consider the Bolsheviks a threat to their existence, as actually happened in the situation you're discussing. If you'd like to make moral arguments, you'll have to do so from a shared perspective, which there isn't.


the motivations for the actions are meaningless, what matters is the ways in which it impacted the revolution.


Whose revolution? Yours or Makhno's? There was no reason to destroy the Makhnovists from some objective standpoint of "The" Revolution. Makhno's had a character that was unacceptable to the Bolsheviks when they quit being opportunists. You and the other pro-Bolshevik posters are merely pro-Bolshevik.

There is no way to argue this except to take sides between the anarchists and Bolsheviks, so you should do so openly on its own terms instead of trying to paint the anarchists as a threat to "the" revolution.

[Glitchcraft]

It's always Makhno and Kronstadt are the reasons anarchists reject support for the Bolsheviks and defense of the USSR and communists in general.
I've never seen common ground here. It always ends up with both sides sounding like religious fanatics, everyones got different facts.
It would seem to me that most anarchists see these issues as unavoidable outcomes of vanguardism and dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the actions or circumstances of the Bolsheviks specifically.
Communism and Anarchy seem to me irreconcilable movements in the fight against capitalism. The only agreement between them is that capitalism should be abolished.

[bcbm]

i skimmed most of the thread. who cares? honestly. the dead are dead.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What am I supposed to respond to here? This is just silly name calling essentially, I would certainly expect better from a poster of your caliber. But regardless since you decided to spew this nonsense, remind me again in what way Trotsky was a member of the petite-bourgeoisie? This should be rich.
I agree that it's silly name calling: revolutionary consciousness doesn't arise mechanically out of an individual's (or group of individuals') class, but out of the broader dynamics of the class struggle generally. Consequently, dismissing the Black Army on the basis that it was numerically dominated by peasants (as was the Ukraine generally!) is a refusal to grapple with the real organization of the Free Territory and the Black Army.

As for Trotsky, he was the son of well-off landowning farmers, whose revolutionary activity began after he dropped out of his bourgie-ass school. I don't think this is a solid basis for dismissing his political ideas or activity, but his petit bourgeois background is pretty indisputable.


I don't think its very hard to understand the concept to tell you the truth. The Bolesheviks were engaged in a civil war, if you are attacking them, than yes you are objectively aiding the enemy, regardless of whether or not subjective those were your intentions. I already stated that there was not an actual military alliance between the black and white armies, but its actually irrelevant from an objective standpoint; the motivations for the actions are meaningless, what matters is the ways in which it impacted the revolution.
Wrangel was defeated when the Bolsheviks turned on and attempted to exterminate the anarchists (and sympathizers).
That this could be construed as a Makhnovist attempt to undermine the revolution (which, in your mind, is evidently synonymous with the Bolsheviks, and not the soviets) is some wacky revisionism. It's a straight up question of historical sequence.


Of course it was. The state was always going to be the institution through which the revolution progressed or degenerated, but prey tell what was this mythical third option? The one in which statelessness is created within the confines of a grouping of countries, surrounded by hostile states and invaded by over a dozen countries? Its nonsense on par with socialism in one country. The state cannot be willed away at any given point in time, it can only whither away when its historical role has been completed. Whether or not you wish to muddle the waters by treating statelessness as synonymous with non-hierarchical and federated organization, doesn't change the fact that the state is and will continue to be, a necessary evil.

Of course, given that the Free Soviets and Free Territory actually existed, that democratic soviets had existed across Russia before the Cheka crackdowns, etc., I think it's clear that calling the third option "mythical" is dishonest. You could argue that it wasn't viable, and that this was proven by the success of the Bolsheviks (ah, the self-justifying beauty of founding crimes!), but that's a different matter than "doesn't exist".
Given that the Zapatistas have persisted in Chiapas for just a month short of twenty years, despite the presence of hostile armed forces, and, in fact, outgunned to a far greater degree than Russian workers and peasants, your thinking on this matter falls somewhat flat.
Partially, I think this seems to come out of a reading that sees "War is the extension of politics by other means," without seeing that the inverse is every bit as true, and that the distinction isn't particularly sharp. So, while it may be fair to say that the state is necessary to win a purely military victory against another state, cases such as the Zapatistas demonstrate that it's not in fact necessary to win a military victory in order to not be militarily defeated.


What propaganda? If you have something to contradict anything I've said, then say it, but so far I haven't seen any refutations.

The two primary historically untrue points are the insinuation that the Black Army attacked the Red Army, rather than vice versa, and that the Black Army were de facto in the White camp (despite the fact that the whites were defeated in the Ukraine prior to Trotsky's unilaterally ending the treaty between the Red and Black armies). The broader propagandistic character of your post is in its framing - of a conflict between two forces (the Bolsheviks and Whites) with only two possible outcomes.


You completely miss the point. Trotsky didn't claim to be some anti-authoritarian commander; he was, rightfully so, an unapologetic authoritarian. Only one person, between Trotsky and Makhno, didn't practice what they preach in this regard. What is actually funny is that you characterize me criticizing the black army for not following the anarchist ideals they claimed to uphold, as some sort of 'cheap shot' as opposed to a principled political criticism, its quite eye opening actually.

Of course, like you, I'm less concerned with anarchist ideals than with actual concrete questions concerning the "real movement which abolishes capitalism". While Makhno and Co. may have failed to perfectly hold up the anarchist ideals they professed, they did a much better job of initiating communist transformation than the Red Army did: free soviets, free exchange along communist lines; within the army, the election of recallable officers by troops, and self-discipline. Was it perfect? Of course not! But why would we hold it to such a standard?


What is this even supposed to mean? I've read it over a couple times and genuinely can't figure out what sort of commentary/argument you were attempting to add to this discourse.

My point is that, if you insist that the Makhnovshchina didn't enjoy the support of Russian anarchists, I'd like to know which anarchists. Do you mean individuals? Or do you mean there was a real anarchist body which didn't support them?


I'm a Marxist, obviously I don't agree with murdering Marxists, but I think you're projecting some sort of moral indignation on my part, which is entirely non-existent. I don't have a problem with violence for political purposes, I have a problem with political violence when it is not used in congruence with proletarian class interests. I'll leave the useless moralism to you and the others here.

And, as a Marxist, I'm against murdering communists. Similarly, I have no issue with violence for the political purposes. Of course, something must justify the ends: state capitalism is, in my opinion, poor justification. Of course, I'm not moralizing - I don't "blame" the Bolsheviks. I don't think they were "the bad guys" as compared to the "noble" anarchists: it's just that the history of the Soviet Union aptly demonstrates the real consequence of Leninist substitutionism (and now I'm borrowing from Trotsky! ha!).


"I want to concede these are legitimate criticisms, but I'm not going to address them and will just continue to finish my post in which I've brought nothing but flippancy to the table."

Well, you brought them up, and I would assume having done so that you have some basis for them. So, go at 'er. Post some history and analysis of the anti-semetism, authoritarianism, and use of conscription in the Black Army. I think that would be a far better basis for discussion than this other crap.


Well this is stupid. There are other people throughout the history of leftism who those descriptions would also accurately fit, yet I don't see their parade. Regardless you can base your political support on romantic tales if you want, I'll continue to base mine off of actual politics.

You "don't see their parade[s]"? Look harder! (http://www.justseeds.org/artists/celebrate_peoples_history/) This thread is about Makhno, but if you wanna rap about Bill Haywood, or Harriet Tubman, or whoever, let's do it! But, I mean, you asked why anarchists find Makhno subjectively attractive.

But, yeah, if we want to talk about actual politics, we're talking about anarchist army that, despite betrayal by the Bolsheviks, did the lions share of smashing the Armed Forces of South Russia, and defended a territory organized by Free Soviets and the principle of free exchange.

That you can only see this as in conflict with workers' power, and not a particular expression of it, echos the mistakes of the Bolsheviks in eery ways.


Once again, care to back this up?

Once again, look at the actual sequence of historical events. Hell, unless you think Wikipedia is anarchist anti-Bolshevik propaganda, go hit up the Wikipedia articles on the civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War) and Black Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine).

[argeiphontes]

everyones got different facts.
It would seem to me that most anarchists see these issues as unavoidable outcomes of vanguardism and dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the actions or circumstances of the Bolsheviks specifically.

I haven't gotten to any actual Voline or Arshinov yet but this summary (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daniel-guerin-anarchism-from-theory-to-practice#toc30) is an interesting read, at least from an anarchist perspective.

[BIXX]

I haven't gotten to any actual Voline or Arshinov yet but this summary (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daniel-guerin-anarchism-from-theory-to-practice#toc30) is an interesting read, at least from an anarchist perspective.

I read Voline and Arshinov (for a paper I worked on for school), and at times they use the same exact sentences. I can't tell if they plagiarized, or if my editions are messed up.

[argeiphontes]

^ Huh, interesting. Voline wrote a preface to Arshinov's history (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921#toc1) and in Chapter 1 (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-the-unknown-revolution-1917-1921-book-three-struggle-for-the-real-social-revolution#toc9) of Vol II, Part II (Ukraine) of The Unknown Revolution he acknowledges that he's indebted to Arshinov's history:



Besides, my documentation on this movement is limited to the outstanding work of Peter Arshinov: History of the Makhnovist Movement.[16] (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-the-unknown-revolution-1917-1921-book-three-struggle-for-the-real-social-revolution#fn16) And in my present circumstances I cannot complete Arshinov’s work. On the other hand, filling pages with documents that have already been published — even if we take into account their specific character and the bibliographical rarity of the work — seems exaggerated.


I can obviously enrich the study with two important elements: (1) certain facts set forth in volumes II and III of the Memoirs of Nestor Makhno, initiator and military leader of the movement, which have been published only in Russian (in 1936 and 1937); (2) certain personal experiences of my own, since I took part in this movement on two occasions, at the end of 1919 and at the end of 1920, for about six months.



Maybe there is some duplication going on, then. I wouldn't say it's plagiarism though, unless there was some intent to steal the text or ideas.

[Oenomaus]

But, yeah, if we want to talk about actual politics, we're talking about anarchist army that, despite betrayal by the Bolsheviks, did the lions share of smashing the Armed Forces of South Russia, and defended a territory organized by Free Soviets and the principle of free exchange.

That, in itself, is a major part of the problem. "Free exchange" means market mechanisms operating between the villages and the cities, barely keeping alive a peasant economy based on petty commodity production. If you think this is an inspiring example of the sort of society we are aiming for - that and the Zapatistas! - it seems to me that you and most Marxists are talking past each other.

The notion that the Free Territory in the Ukraine was some sort of viable alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the Bolsheviks (but not exclusively by Bolsheviks - while we're on the subject of the Ch-K you despise so much, you do realise it included a significant non-Bolshevik element?), it suffices to examine other alleged peasant-based "alternatives", from the territory of the KomUch (supported by the right wing of the anarchists) to the Antonovshchina.

And yes, a significant number of anarchists, from Serge to Zheleznyak, supported the Bolsheviks. Zheleznyak was killed fighting the Makhnovtsy in the Cherson, if I'm not mistaken. It's not difficult to see why - class lines are stronger than ideological affinities (Lenin and Trotsky were not workers, as such, but they were part of that unstable stratum of the intelligentsia that often joins the communist movement).

[BIXX]

^ Huh, interesting. Voline wrote a preface to Arshinov's history (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921#toc1) and in Chapter 1 (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-the-unknown-revolution-1917-1921-book-three-struggle-for-the-real-social-revolution#toc9) of Vol II, Part II (Ukraine) of The Unknown Revolution he acknowledges that he's indebted to Arshinov's history:




Maybe there is some duplication going on, then. I wouldn't say it's plagiarism though, unless there was some intent to steal the text or ideas.

Well, yeah, duplication. I don't really consider plagiarism a bad thing, and generally when I say it I do mean duplication.

Either way, I think the histories are incredibly one-sided, but still interesting.

[Geiseric]

I lol'd when somebody said Leninist elitism. What are you talking about? The rest of Ukraine voted in the Bolsheviks except from Makhnos corner. They eventually kicked them out. Makhnos area was no less a dictatorship than the USSR, of not worse since they were at constant war. They had an organized police, army, and government, so they weren't even really anarchistic, if we consider ideal anarchism to be like the lack of a state.

Btw Leninism isn't substitutionalist, they were voted in.

[argeiphontes]

Either way, I think the histories are incredibly one-sided, but still interesting.

I realize it's biased, but given the history of the Soviet Union, and the Bolshy's statist and anti-worker-control policies, I would have a hard time believing any pro-Bolshevik propaganda about the Makhnovistas, frankly. "History is written by the winners" after all. But if you could suggest something maybe I'll get to it after I read all three volumes of the Voline. ;) I suppose I could read Trotsky's history of the revolution. Not any time soon, though, bcbm has a point about it all being in the past.

@Geiseric: By way of symmetry, don't we get to say that a temporary government was necessary as a matter of expediency, since that's the argument usually given by Bolshevik supporters about Lenin's iron fist pressing on the soviets? ;)

[Art Vandelay]

Geiseric: By way of symmetry, don't we get to say that a temporary government was necessary as a matter of expediency, since that's the argument usually given by Bolshevik supporters about Lenin's iron fist pressing on the soviets? ;)

No. How anarchists even spit out this argument without understanding how ridiculous it is, is completely surprising to me. Either it is possible to achieve statelessness immediately following the smashing of the bourgeois state, or else a dictatorship of the proletariat is needed. You don't get to claim to be an anarchist, uphold the anarchist Makhnovists as an example of the practicality of anarchism and then dismiss the fact that the state existed, as merely being a 'matter of expediency.'

[Art Vandelay]

I agree that it's silly name calling: revolutionary consciousness doesn't arise mechanically out of an individual's (or group of individuals') class, but out of the broader dynamics of the class struggle generally. Consequently, dismissing the Black Army on the basis that it was numerically dominated by peasants (as was the Ukraine generally!) is a refusal to grapple with the real organization of the Free Territory and the Black Army.

The peasants were merely allies for the proletarian movement within the USSR, who could be temporarily bought off; its quite clear that at a point in the development of the revolution, there would be competing class interests, since the peasantry would be getting lead to its demise as a socio-economic class, by the proletariat. This is indisputable in my mind, so no I don't consider allowing the peasantry into revolutionary organizations, to the point where they become an overwhelming demographic majority, is in anyway a productive revolutionary tactic.


As for Trotsky, he was the son of well-off landowning farmers, whose revolutionary activity began after he dropped out of his bourgie-ass school. I don't think this is a solid basis for dismissing his political ideas or activity, but his petit bourgeois background is pretty indisputable.

The socio-economic background of ones parents does not bare relation to an individuals, unless he/she is financially supported by them. Trotsky was a broke revolutionary in exile for the majority of his adult life, outside of the years surrounding the October revolution.


Wrangel was defeated when the Bolsheviks turned on and attempted to exterminate the anarchists (and sympathizers).
That this could be construed as a Makhnovist attempt to undermine the revolution (which, in your mind, is evidently synonymous with the Bolsheviks, and not the soviets) is some wacky revisionism. It's a straight up question of historical sequence.

The Bolsheviks were the proletariat's leadership, who were voted a majority in the soviets, at the period of the highest class consciousness among the proletariat. I don't consider the ban on the soviets to be a counter-revolutionary measure, quite the contrary, a call for immediate elections in the soviets (during or following the civil war) would have been tantamount to treason to the proletarian cause and premised on the idea that the proletariat (following the destruction of the civil war) was at a period of higher class consciousness then before the seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks. This fetishization of democracy runs contrary to Marxists principles, what matters are class interests (which cannot be democratized); all this strikes me as is the fetishization of form over content, which pervades most of the 'anti-authoritarian left.'


Of course, given that the Free Soviets and Free Territory actually existed, that democratic soviets had existed across Russia before the Cheka crackdowns, etc., I think it's clear that calling the third option "mythical" is dishonest. You could argue that it wasn't viable, and that this was proven by the success of the Bolsheviks (ah, the self-justifying beauty of founding crimes!), but that's a different matter than "doesn't exist".

The idea that the 'free territory' was anarchism in practice, is nonsense predicated on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a state. Whatever you want to call it, a state existed.


Given that the Zapatistas have persisted in Chiapas for just a month short of twenty years, despite the presence of hostile armed forces, and, in fact, outgunned to a far greater degree than Russian workers and peasants, your thinking on this matter falls somewhat flat.

No my manner of thinking is quite on point actually and you using the Zapatistas as an example is quite telling of what you think constitutes a 'revolutionary organization.' Its entirely possible of creating small pockets of statelessness (so to speak), where by means of autarky people can drop out of the capitalist mode of production. This has never been denied. What is being denied is that the Zapatistas are in any way, shape, or form a revolutionary organization. Anti-capitalist sure, progressive yeah, a totally positive development absolutely, but revolutionary or proletarian? No. Their methods pose no viable avenue for the proletariat to accomplish its historical task of abolishing itself as a class, thereby destroying capital and all classes with it. They have more in common with Proudhon than Marx.


Partially, I think this seems to come out of a reading that sees "War is the extension of politics by other means," without seeing that the inverse is every bit as true, and that the distinction isn't particularly sharp. So, while it may be fair to say that the state is necessary to win a purely military victory against another state, cases such as the Zapatistas demonstrate that it's not in fact necessary to win a military victory in order to not be militarily defeated.

You'd be making more persuasive contributions if you didn't point to the Zapatistas as proof for your arguments.


The two primary historically untrue points are the insinuation that the Black Army attacked the Red Army, rather than vice versa, and that the Black Army were de facto in the White camp (despite the fact that the whites were defeated in the Ukraine prior to Trotsky's unilaterally ending the treaty between the Red and Black armies). The broader propagandistic character of your post is in its framing - of a conflict between two forces (the Bolsheviks and Whites) with only two possible outcomes.

I never stated anything about when the black and red armies treaty ended, let alone in relation to when the violence broke out between the two groups. Regardless, as I stated before, the Makhnovists were a counter-revolutionary movement, their battle with the Bolsheviks was inevitable. This will probably get dismissed as propaganda but whatever:


Trotsky describes in his "Military Writings" how Makhno's mutiny in the spring of 1919, which reflected Ukrainian peasant antagonism to the overwhelmingly Russian and Jewish working class of the Ukrainian cities, played a major role in the collapse of the Southern front, and led to White Guard commander Denikin's seizure of the Ukraine that summer. But Makhno never sided with Denikin. To the contrary. The Makhnovite insurgency played a major role in the collapse of White rule in the Ukraine that fall. And when Denikin's successor, White Guard commander Wrangel, invaded the Ukraine in 1920, a Bolshevik-Makhnovite alliance was reconstituted, which lasted until Wrangel was driven out.

Makhno did attempt to ally with other anti-Bolshevik forces in the Ukraine. Notably, there was Makhno's attempt to ally with the forces of fellow former Red Army commander Grigorev. Grigorev had the worst record of murder, rape, torture and other atrocities committed against Jews of all the peasant bandit leaders ravaging the Ukrainian country-side during the Russian Civil War.

This alliance ended badly for Grigorev. Makhno murdered him, and Grigorev's peasant followers joined Makhno's rebel army—but continued to commit pogroms.

Makhno himself was not personally anti-Semitic, indeed there were Jews in his "collective."


Of course, like you, I'm less concerned with anarchist ideals than with actual concrete questions concerning the "real movement which abolishes capitalism". While Makhno and Co. may have failed to perfectly hold up the anarchist ideals they professed, they did a much better job of initiating communist transformation than the Red Army did: free soviets, free exchange along communist lines; within the army, the election of recallable officers by troops, and self-discipline. Was it perfect? Of course not! But why would we hold it to such a standard?

I simply find it disingenuous when anarchists uphold anarchist ideals, denounce the Bolsheviks as the grave diggers of the revolution due to their authoritarian statism, while in the same breath admiring Makhno and the state he was at the head of.


My point is that, if you insist that the Makhnovshchina didn't enjoy the support of Russian anarchists, I'd like to know which anarchists. Do you mean individuals? Or do you mean there was a real anarchist body which didn't support them?

I mean that most of the well known anarchists at the time, were (initially) supporters of the Bolsheviks. I've read in the past that at the time of the black army's existence, it did not have the support of many of the notable Russian and Ukrainian anarchists.


And, as a Marxist, I'm against murdering communists. Similarly, I have no issue with violence for the political purposes. Of course, something must justify the ends: state capitalism is, in my opinion, poor justification. Of course, I'm not moralizing - I don't "blame" the Bolsheviks. I don't think they were "the bad guys" as compared to the "noble" anarchists: it's just that the history of the Soviet Union aptly demonstrates the real consequence of Leninist substitutionism (and now I'm borrowing from Trotsky! ha!).


Which is fair enough, but I think we most likely wont make much headway in that regard seeing as how we evaluate the situation differently, but I must point out you are borrowing from a politically immature Trotsky. ;)


Well, you brought them up, and I would assume having done so that you have some basis for them. So, go at 'er.Post some history and analysis of the anti-semetism, authoritarianism, and use of conscription in the Black Army. I think that would be a far better basis for discussion than this other crap.

Okay, anarchist historian Paul Avrich okay? Or is that going to be pretty flippantly denounced as vile propaganda as well?


"The Second [Makhnoite Regional] Congress, meeting on February 12, 1919, voted in favor of ‘voluntary mobilization,' which in reality meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve when called up. The delegates also elected a Regional Military Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers, and Insurgents to carry out the decisions of the periodic congresses. The new councils encouraged the election of ‘free' soviets in the towns and villages—that is, soviets from which members of political parties were excluded. Although Makhno's aim in setting up these bodies was to do away with political authority, 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 Gulyai-Polye.

"Like the Military Revolutionary Council, the 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."


You "don't see their parade[s]"?

I was more referring to the anarchists who populate this site.


But, yeah, if we want to talk about actual politics, we're talking about anarchist army that, despite betrayal by the Bolsheviks, did the lions share of smashing the Armed Forces of South Russia, and defended a territory organized by Free Soviets and the principle of free exchange.

While they played a role in the smashing of white forces on the southern front, they also played a role in its collapse.


That you can only see this as in conflict with workers' power, and not a particular expression of it, echos the mistakes of the Bolsheviks in eery ways.

Mistakes that you and I do not agree upon.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I lol'd when somebody said Leninist elitism. What are you talking about? The rest of Ukraine voted in the Bolsheviks except from Makhnos corner. They eventually kicked them out. Makhnos area was no less a dictatorship than the USSR, of not worse since they were at constant war. They had an organized police, army, and government, so they weren't even really anarchistic, if we consider ideal anarchism to be like the lack of a state.

Btw Leninism isn't substitutionalist, they were voted in.
But even those institutions were far more democratic than the Cheka and other elements of Lenin's"dictatorship of the proletariat." Even the army was controlled almost entirely by the people themselves. It was a democratic institution. For example, according to the Makhno FAQ:

[Dagoth Ur]

@echoshock:
1. Which makes you a moralist. Someone who rejected moralism doesn't begrudge an enemy for being an enemy.

2. Some bandits in Ukraine vs the second biggest power in the world. Yeah anarchists are on a totally even keel with the Bolsheviks. History shows who the west feared, and the Soviets liberated more people than any anarchist movement ever (who always thought defeating communists I the middle of revolution was a thing to do).

3. An ad hom is an attack on the person which made a statement. This didn't happen. You're wrong. I was rather wondering out loud why anarchists fall prey to emotionalism and act as though injustices are anything more than what could have happened.

4. Not a Trot. I'm a Stalinist who appreciates Trotsky's contributions to the USSR. Also while yes the deaths of communists and workers in general are tragedies but they're small potatoes compared to the tragedy of capitalism. And also it's a shame when capitalists kill anarchists too. But when they're commie-killing blacks I don't care who strings them up.

Oh and you're right. That was an ad hom, unlike anything I've done.

5. There is nothing false about anarchists being idealists. Otherwise they could mechanically and materially explain anything about their ideas.

6. I care about it [world revolution] more than to leave it in the hands of bandits and anticommunist rats.

[BIXX]

@echoshock:
1. Which makes you a moralist. Someone who rejected moralism doesn't begrudge an enemy for being an enemy.

I have two questions for you: can you read? And if so, can you understand the words that you're reading?

If the answer to those questions are yes, then maybe you should re-read my post. Bemoan and begrudge are different.


2. Some bandits in Ukraine vs the second biggest power in the world. Yeah anarchists are on a totally even keel with the Bolsheviks. History shows who the west feared, and the Soviets liberated more people than any anarchist movement ever (who always thought defeating communists I the middle of revolution was a thing to do).

You're moving the goalposts. You asked which was closer to world revolution, I replied neither, because both were pathetic. One was highly authoritarian and centralized, never moving past state-capitalism, the other was weak, and centralized. They are both pathetic attempts in my opinion.


3. An ad hom is an attack on the person which made a statement. This didn't happen. You're wrong. I was rather wondering out loud why anarchists fall prey to emotionalism and act as though injustices are anything more than what could have happened.

You said that it seems Marxists are better than anarchists at not forming moral contradictions. That is in regards to the general statement, "We don't like it when communists kill anarchists, but we do when anarchists kill the communists who betrayed them". This as to be followed, of course, by the reasons we disrespect and dislike the Bolsheviks, which we have given reasons for many times over the years, which I am honestly tired of reiterating. You are using the "moral contradictions" line to try and invalidate both our reasons for disliking the Bolsheviks, and the anger we feel for their betrayal of the blacks. The reasons for this anger isn't directly because they killed the blacks, but it marked those communists as anti-anarchist, which they repeatedly showed throughout the years.


4. Not a Trot. I'm a Stalinist who appreciates Trotsky's contributions to the USSR. Also while yes the deaths of communists and workers in general are tragedies but they're small potatoes compared to the tragedy of capitalism. And also it's a shame when capitalists kill anarchists too. But when they're commie-killing blacks I don't care who strings them up.

Why is it that we oppose capitalism if not for the violence it generates toward us? (I'm assuming you're working class, but I wouldn't surprised to discover you have a bourgeois background. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).


Oh and you're right. That was an ad hom, unlike anything I've done.

Right. Ok. Whatever you say, boss.


5. There is nothing false about anarchists being idealists. Otherwise they could mechanically and materially explain anything about their ideas.

Actually we can. You just haven't asked any questions about our ideas.


6. I care about it [world revolution] more than to leave it in the hands of bandits and anticommunist rats.

Spoken like a true anti-worker authoritarian! Seriously now, you're getting into the kinda fucked up territory of calling people "rats".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Re: Mr. Populi

I concede I need to carry out further research.

Except for the thing about Trotsky. Being an oogle is not being a proletarian.

Thank-you for your serious engagement.

[Bright Banana Beard]

i skimmed most of the thread. who cares? honestly. the dead are dead.

Just because you're not interested in knowing what's up doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. Learner want to learn something to see the details of what happened.

[Art Vandelay]

Except for the thing about Trotsky. Being an oogle is not being a proletarian

I didn't say he was proletarian however, just that simply because his family was petite-bourgeois, does not necessarily mean he was. Truth be told I could care less what his class background was, I simply care about his politics.

[JohnnyD]

From what I've read, Makhno himself never conducted any pogroms, and was quite open about his loathing of anti-semitism.

That being said, some of his units and their officers did go rogue and conducted pogroms on their own, without Makhno's knowledge. When Makhno found out, he did discipline said officers, but the damage was done.


This is a valid point about when you have a revolution, some of the people in your movement aren't going do what you want them to do all the time (cant make omlete without broken egg, eithier). However,what does "discipline" in an anarchist "army" look like? And why when Marxist-Leninist's use this argument to explain some of there transgression's, it's no longer valid?

[consuming negativity]

Just because you're not interested in knowing what's up doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. Learner want to learn something to see the details of what happened.

You can be interested in something and still see the futility in discussing it. I would love to know the truth about Makhno and every part of left-wing history, but I also recognize that we probably won't ever know and that this thread quickly degenerated into sectarian nonsense.