nestor makhno

[Organic Revolution]

Makhno resisted three month to the White army trying to invade Ukraine from the South-West, before the Bolshevik army joined the Makhnovschina. When unified, the anarchists maintained their main structures (self-management, elections, voluntarism) and refused the presence of Bolshevik commissaries within their own areas. The Red Army temporarly accepted, but soon Bolsheviks ceased supplying the Makhnovists with cereals and coal. The Nabat paper was banned and the Third Congress declared outlaw and counter-revolutionary by Dybenko. The Congress asked so if "might laws exist as made by few persons so-called revolutionaries, allowing these to declare the outlawing of an entire people which is more revolutionary then them?" (Archinoff, The Makhnovist Movement). This position set up a new campaign in the communist press, which lead Lenin to send Kamenev to Ukraine, conducted a seemingly cordial interview with Makhno. But when Kamenev left, Makhno intercepted two bolshevik messages, the first an order to the Red Army to invade Ukraine, the second evoking a terrorist attack against Makhno. Soon after the Fourth Congress, Trotsky sent the clear order to arrest every congressist, then declared "it's better to cede the entire Ukraine to Denikin (White Army) than allowing an expansion of Makhnovism" (quoted by Archinoff in The Makhnovist Movement). Trotsky then pulled the Bolshevik army out of Ukraine, declared Makhno responsible for the White Army's success, and sent order to arrest him. Makhno's answer was to escape with his closest fellows. Trotsky's forces suffered a disaster—they were soon beaten by Denikin and so forced to withdraw from Ukraine. Makhno decided to fight back, reformed his army and successfully attacked the monarchist troops, saving the Revolution.

Having become powerful and popular, Makhnovshchina turned again to the self-organization of the country, and upheld anarchists principles by destroying prisons and guardhouses and by granting freedom of speech, conscience, association, and press. But Makhno, sure of the support of the popular masses, did not think of protecting himself from another Bolshevik felony, and when the half of his troops had been decimated by a typhus epidemic, Trotsky resumed his harassment. There was a new truce in October 1920, near Wrangel's White army. Makhnovshchina still agreed to help the red Army, but when the monarchists were decisively eliminated, the communists turned on Makhno again. Makhno interceped three messages from Lenin to Rakovsky, head of government of the commissioners of the people of Ukraine; orders were: stop all anarchist activists and judge them as nonpolitical criminals.

why did the communists say they would rather give ukraine to the white army then let it have its anarchist revolution?

[JKP]

Because the Anarchists might have actually put the working class in the saddle.

[novemba]

that's a good fucking question.

maybe it's cause lenin was an ass...

[RASH chris]

Maybe its cause anarchism doesn't provide the political necessities to prevent counter-revolution.

Don't say Makhno defeated the white army as a response to the above statement. I said political necessites. Anarchists allow the bourgeousie to organize and propagandize. From the Ukraine the white forces could have built a counter-revolutionary force.

Put the working class in the saddle? I suggest you look into the crimes Makhno committed, especialy things like forced labor.

[Organic Revolution]

hold on... it was stalin who set up the forced labour camps, and the whites were defeated before the "glorious" Red army came in and tried to control everything.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by organic [email protected] 13 2005, 11:13 PM
hold on... it was stalin who set up the forced labour camps, and the whites were defeated before the "glorious" Red army came in and tried to control everything.
Look it up, makhno committed lots of actions which were far from anarchistic.

I know Makhno was instruemental in the defeat of the white army in the Ukraine. Re-read my post and you will see what I'm saying. In fact I made it very clear that I'm talking about the political aspects not military aspects of preventing counter-revolution.

[Scars]

They attacked Makhno because he stood in the way of the plan to unite all of the former-Russian controlled provinces into a united soviet republic. They attacked him for 2 main reasons:
1) He was a nationalist. He wanted the Ukraine to be independent and not be part of a greater Soviet republic.
2) He was an Anarcho-Communist and opposed the Bolsheviks on numerous key issues.
This made him an enemy, not of the same ranking as the whites, but an enemy never the less.

The repression of the Makhnovist movement was more Trotsky's doing than Lenin's, as it was a primarily military matter. And they attacked all non-Red groups, so Makhno wasn't unique in being attacked by the Reds. Other Green groups (Anarchists were considered greens, not blacks. Thew Greens were a mixture of Anarchists and bandits) throughout the Civil War were attacked and put down.

And teh Makhnovists were by no means free of sin, so their supporters can't take some sort of moral high ground. The difference is that the Makhnovist army were far smaller and operating in a far more limited geographic area than the various Red Armies (who operated from Mongolia to Poland). There has been very little unbias research done on the movement because of the situation that his revolution was put in after the war ended. It was in the best interest of the Reds to demonise and suppress the memory of Makhno and the only people who would remember him would be his supporters, thus would sweep any misdeeds under the carpet so to say.

I agree with a lot of his Platform (which was written after he was defeated and fled to France) and I think that many of his comments on Anarchism are correct (that 'pure' anarchism is impossible, there must be some sort of organisation, structure etc. Makhno described himself as a Libertarian Communist, NOT an Anarchist). Although I am not an Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist or Libertarian Communist I must admit I do have a soft spot for Makhno and have read much of what he wrote.

I think that it would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the Ukraine had Lenin followed his original plans of allowing the various parts of the former Russia Empire to become independent and if the Makhnovists came to dominate the Ukraine. However quite honestly I don't think that it would have survived. It probably would have been invaded by Western Imperialists and even if it survived that it would have been crushed during WWII. We shall never know.

[bombeverything]

Maybe its cause anarchism doesn't provide the political necessities to prevent counter-revolution.

According to Lenin and co.

Oh right, so the red army had no choice but to take the power from the workers. Oh ok, I get it now.

:rolleyes:


Put the working class in the saddle? I suggest you look into the crimes Makhno committed, especialy things like forced labor.

What would be the point of that? How exactly would it justify the actions of the red army? Despite it's failings, the Makhnovist movement was the expression of the masses themselves. It was one of the first great mass movement that by its own efforts attempted to free itself from government and establish economic self-sufficiency. This was too much for the Bolsheviks.

And wasn't it Trotsky who argued in favour of the militarization of labour?

[Scars]

<<And wasn&#39;t it Trotsky who argued in favour of the militarization of labour?>>

Possibly, but this was abandonned in favour of a formalised army with ranks etc. In fact Stalin was more commited to Anarchist-style militias than Trotsky ever was.

[YKTMX]

No doubt a fine representative of the petit-bourgeois ideals of the anti-Soviet peasantry, but he was nothing to write home about. The proletarian movement accepted them "into" the fight against the bourgeosie, but as they drifted rightwards they were rightly dispensed with.

A great anarchist hero, I know.


Other Green groups (Anarchists were considered greens, not blacks. Thew Greens were a mixture of Anarchists and bandits) throughout the Civil War were attacked and put down

Yes, why?

Because the Bolsheviks were "blood thirsty tyrants"? No.

It was because the areas The Greens controlled were the most backward and undemocratic in the whole of Soviet Russia. The areas of Ukraine that Makhno ruled (and I use that word literally) were the homes of the worst of petit-bourgeois ideals - anti-Sovietism, quite vicious anti-semitism, Ukranian nationalism etc. Certain "green" groups were also famous for their liberal use of torture, armed robbery and terror against "statist" elements i.e the Soviet working class.

So, I&#39;m not going to shed any tears for this shower. Sorry.

[OleMarxco]

Yeah, that&#39;s pretty usual for y&#39;Leninist&#39;s, isn&#39;t it? Don&#39;t regret cold-bloody murders, we got a job to do&#33; Slay, slay, slay, they don&#39;t deserve it, we&#39;re better, no thinkin&#39;, the deadline for corpses is not reach&#39;t yet&#33; ;)

But, &#39;tho, however, honestly....our job is not to gloat over and/or proclaim that we&#39;re cynic/non-caring about killing, we should HATE it, and love to be pacifistic....and seek as nonviolent revolution as POSSIBLE. Of course; We&#39;d be gettin&#39; to wave with gun&#39;s and shit, but would we -ACTIVELY- seek to kill, no matter what? "Take no prisoner"-style, it is, eh? YAY FOR GENOCIDE :P

The point was never to end their lives...but to change them.
As for the Anarchist&#39;s - I didn&#39;t know of &#39;EM in Soviet-Russia,
and the "White" Petitite-Burgerouis Army, I definately think
the latter is "worse". But it&#39;s kind of stupid: Compare me to
Red Khmer, and I&#39;m better, and compare me to George W.
Bush, and I&#39;m better only by a nudge, and if you compare me
to da friggin&#39; Bob Dylan and I&#39;m worse. Atleast the Anarchist&#39;s
had a revolutionary STANCE, the White Army were burgerouis,
FOR the burgerouise. You can&#39;t possibly tell me that an "experimenting"
and non-Totalarian "green" army, is worse than a reactionary one.

Unless, of course, you&#39;re hellbent on a "pure" class-movement.
Just like Aryan&#39;s. We&#39;re not them - We&#39;re da friggin&#39; commies, man.
Unity and all, but not exclusion. Sure, the Anarchists where not perhaps
acceptin&#39; of the Red Army..and kept them out, but they DIDN&#39;t join the
White Army, either. You fail to adress THAT fact.. If their alternative was
better I don&#39;t know, but capitalist beatches, I&#39;m sure they weren&#39;t.

[JC1]

why did the communists say they would rather give ukraine to the white army then let it have its anarchist revolution?


Simple Ansewer: While a temporary deal with Mahkno was nessecary, destroying him was also nessecary. He was the Ukrainian Pol Pot.

[Scars]

<<It was because the areas The Greens controlled were the most backward and undemocratic in the whole of Soviet Russia. The areas of Ukraine that Makhno ruled (and I use that word literally) were the homes of the worst of petit-bourgeois ideals - anti-Sovietism, quite vicious anti-semitism, Ukranian nationalism etc. Certain "green" groups were also famous for their liberal use of torture, armed robbery and terror against "statist" elements i.e the Soviet working class.>>

You can&#39;t make generalisations about the whites or the greens in the war. Green was a by-word for anyone not white or red. The Green groups with the worst track record were bandits and warlords, the Anarchists behaved no worse than the Communists, overall.

The Ukraine was largely ruled by the Makhovists, Makhno did not run it as some sort of personal empire. However they were guilty of nationalism and anti-scemitism was rife throughout all of Eastern Europe and still is. In these things he was in no way unique.

<<So, I&#39;m not going to shed any tears for this shower. Sorry.>>

And over all, neither am I. I agree with some of what he said and I think that his works are informative to read because it is good to see how the other side views things. This said, I do object to blatant lies.

<<Yeah, that&#39;s pretty usual for y&#39;Leninist&#39;s, isn&#39;t it? Don&#39;t regret cold-bloody murders, we got a job to do&#33; Slay, slay, slay, they don&#39;t deserve it, we&#39;re better, no thinkin&#39;, the deadline for corpses is not reach&#39;t yet&#33;>>

Oh damn, you&#39;ve figured out our secret agenda. Leninism is actually a branch of Satanism which poses as an egalitarian movement to attract followers. When we take power we proceed to kill as many people as possible, as sacrifices for ou LORD SATAN&#33; BWAHAHAHAHA&#33;

/sarcasm

<<Simple Ansewer: While a temporary deal with Mahkno was nessecary, destroying him was also nessecary.>>

Basically.

<<He was the Ukrainian Pol Pot.>>

Rubbish. Total and utter rubbish. You obviously have no idea what you&#39;re talking about in regards both to the Makhnovist movement and the Khmer Rouge. Comparing the two serves only to insult your intelligence.

[Comrade Hector]

Perhaps you should mention also about how the Makhno and his band of reactionaries opened their fronts and allowed the White Army to march towards the Bolsheviks unopposed. It was for this reason that Trotsky ordered a Red Army attack on Makhno&#39;s counter-revolutionary forces.

[Scars]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2005, 05:46 AM
Perhaps you should mention also about how the Makhno and his band of reactionaries opened their fronts and allowed the White Army to march towards the Bolsheviks unopposed. It was for this reason that Trotsky ordered a Red Army attack on Makhno&#39;s counter-revolutionary forces.
Yes, he made agreements with both sides because, as I&#39;ve said, what happened in Russia was not of his concern. He was concerned with furthering the Anarcho-Communist cause in the Ukraine and maintaining the Ukraine&#39;s independence. This said he spent most of his time fighting various white armies.

And it should also be noted that the Reds would, at times, work with some whites if it would further their ultimate goal.

[OleMarxco]

Guess what. There&#39;s sumthin&#39; called&#39;re for "Neutrality", and that&#39;s what people who dont&#39; side with either sides do... It&#39;s like, well... "You let them walk trough your territory withouth shooting them&#33; YOU MUST BE ALLIES&#33; REACTIONARY&#33; WHIZZ&#33; HEAH&#33; SCREAM&#33;" ;)

Feh&#39;sho, the point is not the faction but the result it had for regular people. Fightin&#39; against Russian imperialism - White or Red - Was certainly on the agenda, and being nice one day to let the White fight the Red, well, is only cunning tactic. "Split and Rule", at it is called, &#39;cept it weren&#39;t to Rule, only to let them Split eachother. So it all comes down to them and why they want to fight for an old Feudalistic system....they gave themselves the opportunity, not the Greens or the Red&#39;s. Or whoever left alot of shotguns lyin&#39; around. HAH&#33; :D

As for the accusation on me as excaggarating the Leninist&#39;s "blood thirstyness"; History speaks for itself, doesn&#39;t it? Need I say more. Hah&#33;
Sure, they slaughtered White&#39;s...and those pesky russian -CIVIL- protests later joined by the White&#39;s...hmm.....and the "No step back"-act, shooting your own soldiers...right.....And no, I&#39;ve never said it where a part of the Stalinists, Stalinists are the Leninists taking this into effect, aswell as the Trotskyist&#39;s...unfortunately - I thought they where better, but no.

Orginally, Lenin was not as &#39;bloody&#39; as his paws Stalin and Trotsky, no. But the execution of the Royal Family - was that hardly necessary? What would they do, reflect the bullet&#39;s with the jewelry and kill them all? :engles:

[Andy Bowden]

I read an article by Socialist Appeal claiming the Makhno&#39;s chief of Secret Police Leo Zadov later returned to the USSR in the 20&#39;s to join the GPU :o

Here is the article here - http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm

[JC1]

Rubbish. Total and utter rubbish. You obviously have no idea what you&#39;re talking about in regards both to the Makhnovist movement and the Khmer Rouge. Comparing the two serves only to insult your intelligence.



Why ? There are striking similarity&#39;s. Mahkno and Pot shared many core value&#39;s like warlordism, anti-industrial and anti-worker sentiment&#39;s, and crude nationalism. "Democratic" Kampchuchea (Spelling ?) and Mahkno&#39;s Ukrain where ran in a similar, Warlord like, de-centrelizied manner.

[Organic Revolution]

jc1, why do you make up such bullshit? did you find this bullshit on some sort of authoritarian leninist website ? the soviets were oppurtunistic counter-revolutionaries. they used REAL revolutionaries for there own personal gains. once makhno kicked the whites out they used there tiredness to attack. do you find that right?

[JC1]

The Soviet&#39;s were the bad guy&#39;s ? You do know that a "soviet" is the russian word for concil, and Soviet&#39;s were orginizied on the basis of class ? And that group&#39;s other then the bolshevik&#39;s participated in the soviet&#39;s ? Did you know Nestor suppresed the orinization of soviet&#39;s, and set up millitary tribunal&#39;s in there place ?

The material condition&#39;s in Russia realy did not exist for socialism. So how could an experiment in peaseant anarchism result in any thing besides peaseant warlordism ?

[Scars]

<<Why ? There are striking similarity&#39;s.>>

No, there aren&#39;t. Go read a good book about the Khmer Rouge and the Makhnovists instead of just making up shit as you go.

<Mahkno and Pot shared many core value&#39;s like warlordism>>

How the fuck did either of them support warlordism? Besides, there had never been a tradition of warlordism in Camodia.

<<anti-industrial>>

Makhno was not anti-indutrial, Pol Pot had certain ideas regarding industry, namely that industry should exist to suppliment agriculture (as food is important).

<<and anti-worker sentiment&#39;s,>>

Their support base were peasants because most of the country were peasants. The indutrial working class in both the Ukraine and Cambodia were almost non-existant.

<<and crude nationalism.>>

Actually their nationalism wasn&#39;t crude. Both the Ukraine and Cambodia share the historic experience of slavery to a larger, stronger neighbour. Russia, in the Ukraine&#39;s case and Vietnam in Cambodia&#39;s case. While nationalism is inheirantly reactionary, I think it&#39;s understanable for Ukrainians to be kinda twitchy about Russia after being shitted on by them for several hundred years.

<<"Democratic" Kampchuchea (Spelling ?) and Mahkno&#39;s Ukrain where ran in a similar, Warlord like, de-centrelizied manner.>>

Decentralised warlords? You do realise that that makes no sense what-so-ever, right? Democratic Kampuchea was incredibly centralised, every aspect of life was determined by Angkar (&#39;The Organisation&#39; i.e. the CPK). The Ukraine under Makhno was nothing like Democratic Kampuchea and the Makhnovists and Khmer Rouge are not at all similar. Attempting to say the opposite is stupid and fatally flawed. However, feel free to continue along this track if you really want to. I&#39;ll be happy to prove you wrong in your comparisions.

The fact that I&#39;m defending Makhno is quite ironic.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Scars+Oct 15 2005, 06:38 AM--> (Scars @ Oct 15 2005, 06:38 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 15 2005, 05:46 AM
Perhaps you should mention also about how the Makhno and his band of reactionaries opened their fronts and allowed the White Army to march towards the Bolsheviks unopposed. It was for this reason that Trotsky ordered a Red Army attack on Makhno&#39;s counter-revolutionary forces.
Yes, he made agreements with both sides because, as I&#39;ve said, what happened in Russia was not of his concern. He was concerned with furthering the Anarcho-Communist cause in the Ukraine and maintaining the Ukraine&#39;s independence. This said he spent most of his time fighting various white armies.

And it should also be noted that the Reds would, at times, work with some whites if it would further their ultimate goal. [/b]
Well there goes any of my faith in him. Just another petty nationalist. No wonder he got attakced by the red army, he was basically a harbour for imperialist armies.

[Morpheus]

Makhno was actively opposed to anti-semitisim and actually shot people just for putting up anti-semitic signs. The claim that he was anti-semitic is a bolshevik smear. Makhno also wasn&#39;t a nationalist, he actively fought against the "blue" Ukranian nationalists who were trying to impose a nation-state on the ukraine. Makhno never made agreements with the White army, that&#39;s another thing the Bolsheviks made up. He consistently fought them to the end. His mistake was in making agreements with the Reds against the Whites, as the Reds stabbed them in the back. Makhno also wasn&#39;t anti-industrial, anti-worker, a worldlord or any of that bullshit Bolsheviks made up.

There&#39;s detailed refutations of these lies at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append4.html#app46

[The Feral Underclass]

The historical inaccuracies and out right distortions in this thread are beyond words. I think some of you kids need to do your research a bit better...

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 09:50 PM
The historical inaccuracies and out right distortions in this thread are beyond words. I think some of you kids need to do your research a bit better...
which ones in particular? the ones that are anti mahkno?

[Scars]

As I said at the start, pretty much everything written about Makhno is bias due to the very nature of the research that is done.

Makhno was a nationalist in the sense that he wanted a free and independent Ukraine, he did not want the Ukraine to continue to be a province of Russia. So he fought various white armies, but also made agreements with them (ceasefires, for instance) just like he made agreements with the reds at various points in time. He didn&#39;t support white or red, he supported the Makhnovists and his priority was attempting to establish and preserve his movement. Hero worship is just as bad as demonisation.

Makhno is to be admired for what he achived, under the conditions that he did and some of his ideas are have merit. He was not a bandit, or an Ukrainian Pol Pot, or an Anarchist- he was a self-described Libertarian Communist.

Although bias in favour of Makhno, http://www.nestormakhno.info/index.htm is probably the best place to look at his writings. The Platform is his most famous and influential work and probably best describes his beliefs, so it&#39;s the bets pace to start. It&#39;s not that long and is pretty easy reading.

[Morpheus]

Scars, by your definition of "nationalist" Lenin was a Ukrainian nationalist, or at least claimed to be. He purported to respect the right of self-determination of all nations. A "nationalist" is someone who advocates an independant nation-state, downplays the role of class within that nation, and tends to value the citizens of his own nation above others. There were real nationalists in the Ukraine, Makhno fought against them.

Makhno never made agreements with the Whites. The website you cite (which is a good website, BTW) even says so: http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_12.htm If he made agreements with the Whites, show me the text of the agreement. I&#39;m not hero worshipping him - there are lots of things he did & said (like the platform) that I disagree with - I&#39;m pointing out that a lot of the things being said about him here are false.

Libertarian Communism is another name for anarcho-communism. I&#39;m a libertarian communist. "Libertarian" in a political sense was first used as a synonym for anarchism due to demonization & outlawing of that term. Libertarian socialism is another name for anarchism. "I am an anarchist and a revolutionary myself" - Nestor Makhno, http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/anar_rev.htm

BTW, the Platform was written mostly by Arishnov although Makhno did attach his name to it. It was also written several years after his defeat in Ukraine.

[TheReadMenace]

http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm

Was the Ukraine another Kronstadt?

Andrew