Nestor Makhno

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What do you think of Nestor Makhno?

What do you think of his ideas, politics, warfare..?

Personally, from what limited knowledge I have aquired, his ideas and actions seemed and seems like a good alternative between the authoritarian leninism/stalinism and the capitalists...

[Intelligitimate]

Makhno shot his own troops on the spot for various offenses, like putting up anti-Semitic posters, which the Anarchist FAQ gives us proof he wasn't anti-Semitic, even though his troops committed pogroms. There was nothing anti-authoritarian about Makhno.

[Comrade Marcel]

Didn't Makhno also want a peasant socialism, i.e. an early version of Pol-Pot's primitivism like that womyn who shot Lenin?

[Comrade-Z]

Nestor Makhno was a self-proclaimed "libertarian communist" from the Ukraine. (For his collected works, see marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/index.htm)). He grew up in the town of Gulyai-Pole. If I remember correctly, in his late teens he was arrested by the Czar for revolutionary activities. Makhno was then released as a part of a general amnesty during the February Revolution in 1917. He immediately went back to his hometown of Gulyai-Pole and started trying to put his ideas into practice. He was a supporter of the idea of "All Power to the Soviets!" and initially approved of this policy of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It fit together rather nicely with his already-existing ideas of loosely-federated councils of workers and peasants running the means of production and coordinating society's activities. That is, he was against any centralized state apparatus, and he wanted the councils to hold both economic and political power, which put him at odds with the Bolsheviks. So, pretty soon there formed a movement around these ideas that Makhno was espousing. To get a picture of the nature and extent of this movement, see The Manifesto of the Makhnovists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1918/manifesto.htm), The Anarchist Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/anarchist-revolution.htm),To All the Peasants and Workers of the Ukraine (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1920/telegraph.htm), and Who Are the Makhnovists and What are They Fighting For? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1920/who-makhnovists.htm).

Makhno immediately encouraged the dispossession of the aristocratic estates and from those establishing peasant communes. In the towns he encouraged the formation of soviet councils. It would be incorrect to say that Makhno "hated" the city or that he was "an early version of Pol Pot." He had disdain for some of its aspects, and he felt closer to the countryside himself, having grown up in that environment, but he nevertheless recognized the importance of the urban populations and made revolutionary proposals concerning them as well (with some limited success), which usually centered around the formation of soviet councils, as stated earlier. Unlike the Bolsheviks, Makhno saw no fundamental class antagonism between the peasantry and the urban proletariat. (In my personal opinion, this idea is of dubious validity. Obviously, Makhno was no orthodox Marxist. He was, fundamentally, an idealist, whatever else one may say about him, pro or con).

Pretty soon the Makhnovists encountered problems, thanks in part to the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, in signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, gave away all of the Ukraine to the Central Powers. (This already created some bad blood between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks). Thus the Makhnovists had to deal with German and Austrian occupiers from March of 1918 until the end of the war. These occupying forces persecuted the Makhnovists and often reinstated the former aristocracy and bourgeoisie. The Makhnovists responded by waging a guerrilla war against the occupiers. Partly thanks to this, and partly thanks to the outcome of WWI, the Germans and Austrians were forced to leave the Ukraine.

Next came problems with the White Armies. Using a volunteer (and mostly peasant) army numbering at his height during the non-harvest season some 50,000 soldiers, the Makhnovists waged war against the armies of Denikin and, later, Wrangel (and intermittently the Bolsheviks--explained below). The Makhnovist "Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine" came to be known particularly for its clever guerrilla-style hit and run attacks and acquiring provisions by banditry against its enemies, the White Armies and sometimes the Bolsheviks.

Around this time Makhno travelled to Moscow to have a discussion with Lenin. Makhno disagreed with what he and other anarchists saw as the Bolsheviks destroying democracy in the soviet councils and the soviets becoming subordinated to the Bolshevik Party. Makhno said that he and others back in the Ukraine conceived of "soviet power" as meaning that the soviets had to in all cases follow the popular, democratic will. Lenin responded that Makhno and his followers were "infected with anarchism."

Thus a stormy relationship brewed between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists. At various points during the Civil War, especially when the White Armies were at their most threatening, the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists were tentatively allied. And then when the White Armies were no longer an immediate threat, the Bolsheviks sought to crack down on the Makhnovists and bring them, their soviets, and their rural communes under Bolshevik control. After the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks' joint defeat of Wrangel's army, the Bolsheviks gained a free hand to deal with the Makhnovists as they liked, which meant militarily destroying the Makhnovist movement and bringing the Makhnovist-influenced parts of the Ukraine under Bolshevik control.

Upon being hunted by the Bolsheviks, Makhno and about 50 other Makhnovists were able to escape the Soviet Union in 1921, I believe. During the 1920s he would reside in exile in Paris as a taxicab driver and would continue to write for the remainder of his life. From exile, Makhno would go on to support the Kronstadt Revolt (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/03/kronstadt.htm). Most notably, he and some other exiles (the "Dielo Truda), drawing from their experiences from 1917 to 1921, sought to address some of the weaknesses they saw in hindsight in their movement in their Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/platform/index.htm), which helped spur the "Platformist" line of thought within the anarchist movement. The basic idea behind Platformism is to create greater unity of struggle and greater ideological clarity within an anarchist organization or movement while preserving federalism, democracy, and autonomy for all involved. NEFAC is a notable example of a modern anarchist organization that embraces Platformism.

I would say if there was one fatal weakness in the Makhnovist movement, it was a tendency towards leader-worship around Makhno himself. One example that comes to mind is how some of the peasant soldiers serving in the Makhnovist "Black Army," being still somewhat religious and/or superstitious, believed that Makhno was blessed with invincibility towards enemy bullets.

The charges of anti-semitism and authoritarianism within the Makhnovist army come, as far as I know, solely from Leninist sources, usually Trotsky, who hated the Makhnovites with a vengeance and personally saw to their complete destruction. Needless to say, the various anarchist sources on the subject, and Makhno himself (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1927/11/anti-semitism.htm), have no record of such things and deny these accusations (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1927/04/to-jews.htm). Which is the truth? I'm more apt to deem the anarchist sources as credible, but in any case, take this stuff with a grain of salt.

All in all, in my opinion, Makhno had a mix of good and bad ideas, and the Makhnovists had some short-lived accomplishments and some failures, both of which deserve study. The Makhnovists and Makhno himself have a tendency to be romanticized a bit by anarchists as creators of some sort of anarchist paradise, and this is incorrect. But they contributed some valuable historical experiments in revolutionary communism which are worth studying with an open mind, at least.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z
It would be incorrect to say that Makhno "hated" the city or that he was "an early version of Pol Pot." He had disdain for some of its aspects, and he felt closer to the countryside himself, having grown up in that environment, but he nevertheless recognized the importance of the urban populations and made revolutionary proposals concerning them as well (with some limited success), which usually centered around the formation of soviet councils, as stated earlier. Unlike the Bolsheviks, Makhno saw no fundamental class antagonism between the peasantry and the urban proletariat. (In my personal opinion, this idea is of dubious validity. Obviously, Makhno was no orthodox Marxist. He was, fundamentally, an idealist, whatever else one may say about him, pro or con).

But didn't he realize that the peasantry couldn't bring about super-abundance which is essential for Communism with their modes of production?

Also he didn't take into account that all the peasants wished to do was to divide up the lands, and sell their goods. They didn't want collectivism.

[Comrade-Z]

Didn't Makhno also want a peasant socialism, i.e. an early version of Pol-Pot's primitivism like that womyn who shot Lenin?

Are you referring to Franya Kaplan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanya_Kaplan)? She was a Socialist-Revolutionary, and thought the SR's were dominant in the countryside, they were certainly no Maoists or primitivists. Neither was Makhno. In fact, I don't believe primitivism even existed as an ideology until at least the 1960s, possibly even the 1990s until the emergence of the likes of John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen.

[Comrade-Z]

But didn't he realize that the peasantry couldn't bring about super-abundance which is essential for Communism with their modes of production?

I don't think he thought that far ahead theoretically. Like I said, he was fundamentally an idealist. He thought he could take religious, backward peasant society and with that and the right ideological instruction and encouragement create a libertarian communist society. It seems to me that his proposals were, Bolshevik intervention or not, sadly destined to be short-lived experiments, if perhaps admirable ones at that.


Also he didn't take into account that all the peasants wished to do was to divide up the lands, and sell their goods. They didn't want collectivism.

Considering that he supported the Kronstadt Revolt, and the fact that one of the demands of the Kronstadt revolt was for a free market in small, independelty-produced (non-wage-labor) produced goods, it is probable that he wasn't entirely adverse to such a thing in the Makhnovist movement either. Thus, as a likely scenario without Bolshevik intervention, I can see the Makhnovist movement getting more and more saturated with exchange-value relations and the gradual restoration of capitalism coming about shortly thereafter (which happened anyways, so...whaddayaknow....) But it might have made a nice social experiment while it lasted. And the peasants certainly would have liked that path better than Stalin's five-year plans. Who knows?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 14 2006, 02:40 AM
But didn't he realize that the peasantry couldn't bring about super-abundance which is essential for Communism with their modes of production?
You don't need "super-abundance" for communism. The very first economic system humanity had was communism, in hunter-gatherer societies (what you probably call "primitive communism") which were hardly abundant in the sense you mean it.


Also he didn't take into account that all the peasants wished to do was to divide up the lands, and sell their goods. They didn't want collectivism.

There were numerous peasants in Ukraine & Russia at the time who wanted collectivism, including Makhno himself, so clearly your statement is false. The immense majority of Russian & Ukrainian peasants never practiced private property nor did they favor it. They had a system called a repartitional commune instead. Land didn't belong to anyone, instead a village assembly consisting of all the heads of households in the village (ie. old men) would divide up the land to each family, assigning each a plot. The goal was to keep things equal, giving families an amount of land proportionate to the number of people in their family. Every couple of years the village assembly would redivide up the land to reflect changes in population so as to keep things equal. During the 1917 revolution the village assembly was democratized, allowing women & the young to join as equals. When they obtained new land (by expropriating landlords) they just incorporated it into this system. After the 1905 revolution the Czar tried to convert peasants into small farmers owning land as private property, but it failed because most peasants preferred their communes to private property. In the Ukrainian revolution some peasants took this further and formed "free communes" which didn't even divide up the land at all. Makhno and a large percentage of the more committed peasant anarchists preferred the free commune over the repartitional commune. A number of them were set up during the revolution, but they were repeatedly attacked & destroyed by authoritarian armies during the war, which inhibited their spread. Had there not been a counter-revolution they likely would have flourished.

[Severian]

The "Makhnovschina" was a Ukrainian peasant rebellion with many features in common with earlier Ukrainian peasant rebellions, like the Zaporozhian Camp. That's why it was undisciplined and anti-Semitic, although I'll stipulate Makhno personally was not. (And for an army to be undisciplined, that means it is practices banditry against the civilian population - it's a severe temptation for any organized armed group.)

And as others have said, there was nothing anti-authoritarian about this movement. The fact it's named after its leader should tell you that. As Makhno wrote about himself:
2. Why are they called "makhnovitsi"?

Because, during the darkest and gravest moments of the reaction in the Ukraine, our ranks included our indefatigable friend and condottiere, Makhno, whose voice rang out across the whole of the Ukraine, in protest at every act of violence against the toilers, summoning them all to the struggle against the oppressors, robbers, usurpers and political charlatans who deceive the toilers. To this very day that voice rings out among us, within our ranks, unchanging in its exhortation to struggle for the ultimate goal of the libertarian and emancipation of toilers from each and every oppression.
Carried on an anarchist site as one of Nestor Makhno's works (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/progmani.htm)
If writing that about yourself ain't personality-cultism, I don't know what is.


Of all the peasant movements which sought to play the middle-ground, the most famous was that led by Makhno in the Ukraine from 1918 to 1921. This military force was a typical peasant army, unchanged from the old Medieval-era structure – possessing both the strengths and weaknesses of that form. Makhno’s militia began as a guerrilla force formed when Germany occupied the Ukraine in 1918. These guerrillas excelled in their own sphere of action, but couldn’t stand firm against an extended clash with a regular army. While these guerrillas operated in their home areas, they could expect help from locals. But, when fighting away from their home villages, they lived by banditry and as a result lost support from most people.

Makhno led a peasant movement, and so never had a strong base of support in any of the cities. Most of the workers who lived in areas of the Ukraine under Makhno’s control sided either with the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. The following examples illustrate the attitude that Makhno had towards the working class. When railway and telegraph workers from the Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take this armoured car for free and pay nothing.” (1) Jakovlev J. Machnovshina I Anarchizm (http://sky.kuban.ru/socio_etno/magister/library/revolt/yakoy001.htm)

With clashes between peasants and landlords on the one hand, and clashes between peasants and workers on the other, Makhno was pressed to institute policies that were far from “libertarian”. The real conditions of life for the peasants of the Ukraine from 1919-1921 were cruel and repressive. The cities in Makhno’s territories were not ruled by Soviets. Instead, they were ruled by mayors drawn from Makhno’s military forces. Makhno’s movement was severely centralized, with the leadership in the RevCom deciding everything. Makhno even established a police-security organization (!) led by Leo Zadov (Zinkovsky), a former worker-anarchist who was to become notorious for his brutality. Incidentally, in the early 1920s Zadov returned to the USSR – to join the GPU! He was rewarded for his services with his own execution in 1937. In the Ukraine, we see clearly that the anarchists were committing the same crimes that they accused the Bolsheviks of.

In September of 1920, Ivanov V. (representative of the Southern Front Revolutionary Soviet) visited Makhno. He later wrote this description of Makhno’s camp: “The regime is brutal, the discipline is hard as steel, rebels are beaten on the face for any small breach, no elections to the general command staff, all commanders up to company commander are appointed by Makhno and the Anarchist Revolutionary War Council, Revolutionary Military Soviet (Revvoensovet) became an irreplaceable, uncontrollable and non-elected institution. Under the revolutionary military council there is a ‘special section’ that deals with disobediences secretly and without mercy.” (2) Jakovlev J. op. cit.

In order to acquire supplies and equipment, Makhno would sometimes ally himself with the Red Army. However, he always refused to accept the Red Army’s discipline and order. In order to get food, Makhno’s forces robbed not only villages under their control but also Red Army convoys. This caused many conflicts. Finally, in 1921, actions like these played a part in the decisive split between Makhno and the Soviet State. It was at this time that Makhno and his anarchist advisors lost support from the peasants as a result of the New Economic Policy of the Bolsheviks, which replaced prodrazverstka with a bread tax. After a short period of battles, Makhno’s militia was crushed. Nestor Makhno himself escaped to Romania, while the majority of his fighters capitulated and received an amnesty.
source (http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm)

Trotsky comments on Makhno's proposal for an alliance with the Red Army. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920-mil/ch69.htm)

[rebelworker]

Was the makhnovist army organised democratically? No

Was Makhno and the movement carying his name anti authoritarian? Yes

For a follower of Trotsky to criticise Makhnos military discipline is laughable.

Its also important to remeber that the Makhnovist Army (remeber thats what they were an army) worked directly with Urkanian Anarchist Federations that were democratically organised political groups.

Now the debate around the need for democracy in an armed body is a long one, with most anarchists coming down on the yes side, Makhno was an exeption to this. Was he wrong mabey, dose it really matter to his theoretical contributions to anarchism, not really.

If you want more info check out The Nestor Makhno Archive (http://www.nestormakhno.info/), it has a compleete collection of his writings in English.

The "Struggle against the state and other essays" should clear up his position on Authority.

In the end though his most importnat contributions to anarchism, i think, were his critiques of the state of disorganisation the movement found itself in during the Russian revolution.

The Friends of Durrutti Group, are often credited with coming to similar conclusions about the direction of the Spanish civil war.

I think both do a god job, from within the anarchsit movement, to put forward organisational solutions that would allow the movement to more adequetly deal with the probems of State controll ( or the need to destroy completely the old state) and also the threat of authoritarians to the freedom of the workers and peasants movements (obviously only the workers movement in this day and age).

[Comrade-Z]

You don't need "super-abundance" for communism.

Yes, you most certainly do!


The very first economic system humanity had was communism, in hunter-gatherer societies (what you probably call "primitive communism")

This is a very different type of communism than the one we want. Instead of being a society where products are too abundant to be worth the effort of hoarding, it was a society where there existed few or no products to hoard in the first place! :o


If writing that about yourself ain't personality-cultism, I don't know what is

Exactly. Like I said, one of their greatest weaknesses. Or else why did the movement fall apart when Makhno was forced into exile? If the movement had been truly self-directed and determined (and more widespread, I suppose), it would have carried on without him, Bolshevik repression or not.


That's why it was undisciplined and anti-Semitic, although I'll stipulate Makhno personally was not.

I'll admit this sounds a great deal more likely than "Makhno the Jew-killer." I'll buy it (tentatively, although with skepticism). Like I said, Makhno thought he could take backward peasants and shape them into anarcho-communists with the right ideological conditioning, totally irrespective of material conditions.


And for an army to be undisciplined, that means it is practices banditry against the civilian population

I had the idea that the army practiced banditry against only its enemies. Maybe even that is too romanticized? If you could get some non-Bolsheviks sources to verify, that would be great, but I guess even Bolshevik sources would be worth looking at.


Was the makhnovist army organised democratically? No

That's news to me. Glad to know, though.


For a follower of Trotsky to criticise Makhnos military discipline is laughable.

Very good point. :lol:


Was he wrong mabey

He was most definitely wrong if that is indeed what his view was on democracy in the military.


In the end though his most importnat contributions to anarchism, i think, were his critiques of the state of disorganisation the movement found itself in during the Russian revolution.

Agreed.

[Intelligitimate]

Comrade Z, there exists Jewish sources regarding pogroms comitted by Makhno's troops. This is not to say Makhno approved of this, but it does tell us something about the nature of his troops.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politic...0b1f8fe8a46c008 (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/518d431bbaf02d27/00b1f8fe8a46c008?lnk=st&q=makhno+pogroms&rnum=2&hl=en#00b1f8fe8a46c008)

[rebelworker]

Im not going t say that there was no anti semetic behavior on behalf of members of the makhnovchina, but Makhno himself once shot one of his officers in front of a whole general assembly of is troops for participating in a pogrom.

Also it is important that the makhnovists workerd very closely with the Jewish anarchist federation in the Ukrain.

There are also several articles dealing with anti semitism in the above mentioned Makhno archive. Remeber that Trotsky and later the Stalinists did a great deal of lyibg in their press to try and discredit the movement.

[Comrade-Z]

Comrade Z, there exists Jewish sources regarding pogroms comitted by Makhno's troops.

Thanks for the source. That was very interesting.


Also it is important that the makhnovists workerd very closely with the Jewish anarchist federation in the Ukrain.

It almost makes you wonder, considering the nature of the Makhnovist movement, how easy would it have been for unaffiliated groups to take some sort of action, be it anti-semitism or whatever, and then claim to be affiliated with the Makhnovists?

In any case, it sounds like the hardcore anarchists of Makhno's movement were not anti-semites, but that some of the peasant fighters who got swept up into the movement and especially the army were anti-semitic and carried their previously-held feelings on this issue into their activites in the army.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:32 AM
Comrade Z, there exists Jewish sources regarding pogroms comitted by Makhno's troops. This is not to say Makhno approved of this, but it does tell us something about the nature of his troops.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politic...0b1f8fe8a46c008 (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/518d431bbaf02d27/00b1f8fe8a46c008?lnk=st&q=makhno+pogroms&rnum=2&hl=en#00b1f8fe8a46c008)
Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists? (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_9.htm)

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Taiga+Jul 15 2006, 07:17 AM--> (Taiga @ Jul 15 2006, 07:17 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 01:32 AM
Comrade Z, there exists Jewish sources regarding pogroms comitted by Makhno's troops. This is not to say Makhno approved of this, but it does tell us something about the nature of his troops.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politic...0b1f8fe8a46c008 (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/518d431bbaf02d27/00b1f8fe8a46c008?lnk=st&q=makhno+pogroms&rnum=2&hl=en#00b1f8fe8a46c008)
Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists? (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_9.htm) [/b]
Oh look, the glorious Anarchist FAQ, the crown jewel of anarchism, claims otherwise. Unfortunately for you, nowhere in this section does it address the completely independent Jewish testimony regarding the pogroms comitted by Makhno's troops.

But thank you for linking to this document anyway, because it shows exactly what I said in my first post:

"He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom Makhno knew personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle against Denikin's troops, a person who was in general decent. He presented himself immediately and was shot on the spot."

Here is your anti-authoritarian Makhno, shooting an anti-Semitic person in his army, on the spot for putting up posters.

[rebelworker]

So he's anti semetic, and too hard on anti semites???

but serriously, what do you think he should have done? I admit that shooting the man on the spot is not the best way to deal with things. This kind of revolutionary "quick hand" is often seen in times of extreem conflict, like the Spanish Anarchist killing facist prisoners (often as a response to similar behavior from the facists, as related to me by a veteran).

Military justice during conflict is a very dificult situation, and often in history, behavior that would normaly not be tolerated by revolutionaries is readily employed under pressure. This is an interesting subject in itself.

If The makhnovists were constantly on the move, and could not really deal with any number of prisoners (they traveled on hourses at great speeds for weeks on end, how were they to properly deal with serrious abuses by soldiers, lets use the example of anti semetic organising (thats what putting up a poster is). They could not have very well just left the man in the community to continue his work, also as mentioned in the link, there was no real time under the conditions for proper re education (or was there?)

What are peoples thoughts?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:53 AM
So he's anti semetic, and too hard on anti semites???

but serriously, what do you think he should have done?
Rather than personalizing everything, it'd be more useful to ask: what was the political character of the Makhnovist movement?

It's been amply documented that anti-Jewish pogroms are part of the answer to that question. Shooting this one guy didn't change that. And if a commander could summarily execute soldiers, purely on his own instant decision, then the Makhnovshchina was a lot more authoritarian than the Red Army.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:25 PM
It's been amply documented that anti-Jewish pogroms are part of the answer to that question. Shooting this one guy didn't change that. And if a commander could summarily execute soldiers, purely on his own instant decision, then the Makhnovshchina was a lot more authoritarian than the Red Army.
If he had executed all the anti-semtic soldiers that he wanted to, there wouldn't have been a Makhnovschina :lol:!

[rebelworker]

The above statement is rediculous.

Were there limited instances of anti semetic behavior by individual mebers of the army, yes, but this was after all rural ukrain (which is still incredible anti semetic).

It is clear that by and large the makhnovchina was a very progressive movement with jews and women in important positions. They encouraged direct democracy and collectivisation of farming and quite the contrary to what was stated above they were a very progressive force in combating anti semitism.

If soem of you feel that peasants are inherently ignorant and incapable of progressive actions then Im not going to bother arguing with you. But history has show otherwise, the majority of the actions of the Makhnovchina, the peasant revolutionaries in Spain and even the peasant colectives in China all show that peasants are capable of progressive political character.

I have spent time in Central Amarica (living with Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua) and they were clearly building collective democratic organs of control and governance.

Also the Zapatistas or Magonistas of Southern Mexico are currently doing similar work.

Can the Makhnovists be criticised, of course, but your insistance on keeping your heads up your asses to guard the biblical docrtinarie of Lenin and Trotsky is just counter productive.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:51 PM
Were there limited instances of anti semetic behavior by individual mebers of the army, yes, but this was after all rural ukrain (which is still incredible anti semetic).
May it brought to your attention that these individuals inspired whole division at their command. No matter how limited you think of them as they shouldn't be reguarded as insignificant.


It is clear that by and large the makhnovchina was a very progressive movement with jews and women in important positions.

Nothing is so clear in the pages of history, otherwize there wouldn't be that many pages.


If soem of you feel that peasants are inherently ignorant and incapable of progressive actions then Im not going to bother arguing with you.

Uh noone stated that.


But history has show otherwise, the majority of the actions of the Makhnovchina, the peasant revolutionaries in Spain and even the peasant colectives in China all show that peasants are capable of progressive political character.

On the contrary there as been instances where peasents weren't happy about collectivization, such as the Kronstadt rebellion. Because they didn't want another rebellion and for the economy the Bolsheviks introduced the NEP.
But it also must be known there is a regional character of collectivizations, some peasents lived in collectivized societies.


Can the Makhnovists be criticised, of course, but your insistance on keeping your heads up your asses to guard the biblical docrtinarie of Lenin and Trotsky is just counter productive.

Must I have to explain that which my avatar and whatnot I'm making fun of your " you're either with us or against us Anarchists" mentality?

Sorry but you don't have a moral highground either.

[rebelworker]

Your rediculous characterisation for the reasons for the kronstat revolt proove my point.

[chimx]

Aside from telling us about the prevalence of anti-semitism early 20th century Russia, how Makhno personally felt about Jews seems astonishing inconsequential from a historical point of view.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:03 AM
Your rediculous characterisation for the reasons for the kronstat revolt proove my point.
Hey the peasents didn't complain about the NEP.


Aside from telling us about the prevalence of anti-semitism early 20th century Russia, how Makhno personally felt about Jews seems astonishing inconsequential from a historical point of view.

Well um Stalin didn't hate the Jews and you dont hear about his guerilla division in the Caucausus mountians attacking people because they were Jews.

Something just kind of rubs me as irresponsible when a man tries prevention of anti-semitism after it happens.

[chimx]

makhno wasn't a significant political leader. for a political historian to study him in the same light as one would stalin is asinine.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:25 AM
makhno wasn't a significant political leader. for a political historian to study him in the same light as one would stalin is asinine.
Actually that proves my point, for such a non-significant political leader in history to have anti-semitism tied to his forces (even though he wasn't himself) and on the otherhand a very prominent political to not have anti-semtisim tied to their forces around the same time, with both men fighting with the same method--guerilla warfare, this goes to show you how irresponsible Makhno was.

[chimx]

maybe i'm just forgetful, but i don't recall when we ever established that anti-semitism wasn't present in stalin's forces. infact, trotsky was quite vocal in accusing stalin of anti-semitism against himself, as well as kamenev and zinoviev--letalone his tropps!

[rebelworker]

Clearly Makhno will not go down in history as a "big man" like Stalin (thank god) but the Makhnovchina had influence over an area that included around 2 million inhabitants, hardly insignificant.

And if he was so insignificant, why did Lenin personally meet with him, or why did trotsky denounce him so vehimently?

[chimx]

my point is that his anti-semitism is irrelavent. Makhnovchina as a movement again tells the historian that the peasant revolution was not at all synonomous with the bolshevik revolution, but merely ran in conjunction with it; while the anti-semitism of Makhnovchina--and the exploitation of anti-semitism by stalin--is an indicator of ethnic hostilities rampant in russian society at the turn of the century. From a historical perspective, the Makhnovchina critique of bolshevism isn't undermined by its anti-semitism, which is in fact quite negative and unfortunate, because it is socially distinct from it. Its as logically erroneous as attacking the political philosophy of Bakunin because he too was an anti-semite.

[JC1]

The fundemental problem of maknovia is its peaseant base and petit-bourgoise orientation. It's petit bourgoise nature is charesteristic of most anarchists.

Anti-Semitism is a symptom of this.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Chimx+--> (Chimx)maybe i'm just forgetful, but i don't recall when we ever established that anti-semitism wasn't present in stalin's forces. infact, trotsky was quite vocal in accusing stalin of anti-semitism against himself, as well as kamenev and zinoviev--letalone his tropps! [/b]
Well I don't recall a history of Stalin and the guerillas in Caucausus Mtns having a nutball among the troops commiting murders on the Jews.


rebel worker
And if he was so insignificant, why did Lenin personally meet with him, or why did trotsky denounce him so vehimently?

He's "insignificant" in the mainstream history books.

What I hate about Anarchists with Makhno is while you claim you're nothing like the other guys, you had the cult of personality, you had degenerates among your forces, and yet you feel so vehemately determined to defend the history of your movement.

So maybe not so many people in history have died as a result of Anarchist organizations taking power, but these organizations havn't held power nearly as long as Marxist/Communist ones. You use the card about the victums of Marxism/Communism all the time when taking to the masses. This card is very handy when backing away from what happened during the USSR-- so much easier to say the Bolsheviks weren't Communist, but most working class people just won't buy such a simple explaination. It doesn't explain how it can't happen all again.

You even get other Marxists and Communists to add more to their theorectical titles " autonomous-Marxist, libertarian-Marxist, council-Communist". Yes these are all historical trends, but it's pointless taking up a trend in the past as one now because objective conditions always change, though history influences the future-- saying you're part of trend is like living in the past. Besides you don't change a theory by adding a historical trend title to it.And another thing about this rediculous adding to titles it's like giving another person the right to the original theoretical title. I can still be a Communist and not support so-and-so's position on this or that.

Anyways back to you, I fail to see whats so different about you from me. Different packaging-- similar stuff in the container. Though by using the Anarchist title as your escape route from what happened, you miss out the theoretical contributions of Karl Marx, the most prominent figure in forumlating class struggle, and the critique of capitalism because you even have capitalists and reactionaries masquerading as Anarchists. The anarchist movement has splintered into several directions thanks to life-stylism, the uniting factor isn't class-struggle but anti-authoritarianism. If you believe that the working-class should seize political power, the means of production through revolution, and the theory of class-struggle you are Communists.

As Communists, collectively we have A LOT of explaining to do. We have to forumlate a direction for the 21st century than to keep following trends of the past, and defending historical trends like religious sects. We have to learn from our mistakes, but realize none of us has a higher ground.

[chimx]

The fundemental problem of maknovia is its peaseant base and petit-bourgoise orientation. It's petit bourgoise nature is charesteristic of most anarchists.

Anti-Semitism is a symptom of this.

that is the most dogmatic reply i have ever heard. are you going to expand upon these abrasive assertions are just try to slip them in as fact?


What I hate about Anarchists with Makhno is while you claim you're nothing like the other guys, you had the cult of personality, you had degenerates among your forces, and yet you feel so vehemately determined to defend the history of your movement.

while the followers of makhno certainly were guilty of following a cult of personality, i don't know nearly as many anarchists that refer to themselves as "makhnoists" or "bakunists" as there are "trots" or "leninists" or "marxists". and again, i think there is a difference between defending the nature of anarchists revolts and the unfortunate events that occured because of the social context (ie. anti-semitism). Nobody is defending anti-semitism, we are defending the principles of autonomy and free association.


Anyways back to you, I fail to see whats so different about you from me. Different packaging-- similar stuff in the container. Though by using the Anarchist title as your escape route from what happened, you miss out the theoretical contributions of Karl Marx, the most prominent figure in forumlating class struggle, and the critique of capitalism because you even have capitalists and reactionaries masquerading as Anarchists. The anarchist movement has splintered into several directions thanks to life-stylism, the uniting factor isn't class-struggle but anti-authoritarianism. If you believe that the working-class should seize political power, the means of production through revolution, and the theory of class-struggle you are Communists.

you aren't referring to me, but i prefer the anarchist title because i do not have an exclusively classed based conception of revolution--though I do find marx extremely helpful as a historian.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:21 PM
while the followers of makhno certainly were guilty of following a cult of personality, i don't know nearly as many anarchists that refer to themselves as "makhnoists" or "bakunists" as there are "trots" or "leninists" or "marxists".
My last reply was for everyone who follows historical trends, or lifestylism.
But Marxism is a theory, it also defines modern Communism, you can't put it on the same page as Trotskyism, anti-Revisionist ect ect.



and again, i think there is a difference between defending the nature of anarchists revolts and the unfortunate events that occured because of the social context (ie. anti-semitism).
Point is atrocities did happen in Mahknovschina while anarchists look at the attrocities that happened in the USSR, and shriek in horror. A bit hypocritical.


Nobody is defending anti-semitism, we are defending the principles of autonomy and free association.

See the problem without class struggle defining the revolution you make it unclear about who this autonomy and free association is for.


you aren't referring to me, but i prefer the anarchist title because i do not have an exclusively classed based conception of revolution--though I do find marx extremely helpful as a historian.

Not only did Marx forumlate class-struggle, but he also made it clear that people won't desire Communism because of eternal truths, but because that humankind is evolving.

[chimx]

But Marxism is a theory, it also defines modern Communism, you can't put it on the same page as Trotskyism, anti-Revisionist ect ect.

i certainly agree, but it still seems to encourage a tendency to idolize everything that marx wrote and not look at him in the proper historical context of the time. even on this board, so many folk anachronistically apply 19th century analysis to a 21st century context. while there is crossover certainly, to simply speak in terms of "proletariats" and "bourgeoisie" in this day and age is helplessly naive and ultimately a barrier to real class struggle and class goals.


Point is atrocities did happen in Mahknovschina while anarchists look at the attrocities that happened in the USSR, and shriek in horror. A bit hypocritical.

At times, yes. I certainly agree. But I think some would say that the attrocities behind mahknovschina were correlative, the starvation following kulak extermination or the purges on the right and left imply a political causation of bolshevism--or at least how bolshevism evolved.


See the problem without class struggle defining the revolution you make it unclear about who this autonomy and free association is for.

Please don't misunderstand. I am interested in class struggle. I am an anti-capitalist. However, I think history has shown us times that the usurption of power has come from sectors outside of marx's typical "proletariat", which in turn can be evolved to proper class struggle. France's May '68 popular uprising superseded class and ethnic lines and is a wonderful example, as is Korea's 1980 Kwangju uprising.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:25 PM
i certainly agree, but it still seems to encourage a tendency to idolize everything that marx wrote and not look at him in the proper historical context of the time. even on this board, so many folk anachronistically apply 19th century analysis to a 21st century context.

I'm not talking about his exact words on class-struggle two centuries ago when proletarian exclusively meant producer. Now the proletarian class has broadened, and with it there are jobs in service, distribution, office jobs, ect. with eah "sub-classes" of the proletariat consciousness will emerge in different ways.It would be totally wrong to stay with the old 19th century definition because that would deny the historical-materialism aspexct of it-- that conditions change.


At times, yes. I certainly agree. But I think some would say that the attrocities behind mahknovschina were correlative, the starvation following kulak extermination or the purges on the right and left imply a political causation of bolshevism--or at least how bolshevism evolved.

The fact that the Mahknovists were "put-down" would be a causation of Bolshevism, and not the organization of the Black Armies, Makhno' overly-optimistic idealism, and Grigorievs anti-Semetic progroms.

In historical perspective we all have blood on our hands, we all have to explain what happened without religiously sticking to a trend, because no matter how much we hate a historical trend we will borrow some ideas from that trend, and people will find it objectionable. We have to do what no one group in political history has ever done-- come clean.

On another note you may have not liked what the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks did, but just because you don't agree with them doesn't make you not a Communist. Look at Gavril Myasnikov for instance.


Please don't misunderstand. I am interested in class struggle. I am an anti-capitalist. However, I think history has shown us times that the usurption of power has come from sectors outside of marx's typical "proletariat", which in turn can be evolved to proper class struggle. France's May '68 popular uprising superseded class and ethnic lines and is a wonderful example, as is Korea's 1980 Kwangju uprising.

True there are a few pette-bourgeois people and intellectuals who decide to come to the side of the proletariat. But usually the majority body of the revolution is the proletariat, otherwize it couldn't be a Communist or Socialist revolution.

I still don't understand how Anarchism isn't Communism, besides the fact it accidentally misplaced class-struggle which resulted in the prevalance of lifestylism.
Its kind of sad that some people have to explain " I'm a class-struggle Anarchist".

[Intelligitimate]

Something I stumbled on a long time ago. If anyone here can help me get to the bottom of this, I'd be greatly appreciated (though it makes Makhno look terrible).

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...minrussia5.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/worldwidemovements/anarchisminrussia5.html)

This is an anti-Makhno document written by Yaroslavsky, head of the Militant Atheist League in the USSR. This document relies on the diary of his "mistress." Here are some entries:


Feb. 23, 1920. Our boys captured some Bolshevik agents, who were then shot.
Feb. 25, 1920. We moved to Mayorovo. Three graincollecting agents were caught and shot.
Mar. 1, 1920. Soon the boys arrived and reported that Fedyukin, a Red Army commander, had been taken prisoner. Makhno sent for him, but the messenger returned with the news that the boys had not been able to mess around with him-he was wounded-and had shot him at his own request.
Mar. 7. In Varvarovka. Makhno got very drunk, began swearing loudly in the street in unprintable language. We arrived in Gulyay-Polye, and something incredible began under Makhno's drunken orders. The cavalrymen used their whips and the butts of their rifles against all the former Red partisans they met in the streets. They charged like a mad horde into innocent people.... Two had their heads broken and one was driven into the river. . . .
Mar. 11, 1920. Last night the boys took two million rubles and today they all got a thousand apiece.
Mar. 14, 1920. Today we moved to Mikhailovka. One Communist was killed here.


June 5, 1920. At Zaitsevo station Makhno had telephone and telegraph communications cut, the track in front and behind
train No. 423 torn up, the property on the train plundered and all Communists hacked to pieces.
July 16, 1920. Makhno made a raid on Grishino Station, where he stayed three hours. Fourteen officials of Soviet and workers' organizations were shot, telegraph communications destroyed and the railwaymen's food storehouse looted.
July 26, 1920. Makhno broke into Konstantinograd junction and eighty-four Red Army men were killed in two days.
Aug. 12, 1920. In Zenkovo, Makhno killed two Ukrainian Communists and seven officials of workers' and rural organizations.


Dec. 12, 1920. A raid on Berdyansk. In the course of three hours the Makhno anarchists, led by Makhno himself, killed 83 Communists, including Mikhalevich, one of the best Ukrainian workers, twisting their arms, hacking off legs, ripping up stomachs, bayonetting and hacking them to death.
Dec. 16, 1920. A train was derailed between Sinelnikovo and Alexandrovsk. About fifty workers, Red Army men, and Communists were killed.

The quotes are allegedly taken from a diary account of a woman close to Makhno, who Yaroslavsky calls his mistress, giving no name. Some internet searching revealed a woman in his life named Galina A. Kuzmenko, but she is never described as his mistress, but his wife.

Interestingly enough, the Anarchist FAQ seems to address this issue. Allow me to quote them:


Originally posted by Anarchist FAQ
He [Rees] quotes reports from the Ukrainian Front to blacken the Makhnovists, using them to confirm the picture he extracts from "the diary of Makhno's wife." These entries, from early 1920, he claims "betray the nature of the movement" (i.e. after, as we shall see, the Bolsheviks had engineered the outlawing of the Makhnovists). [Op. Cit., p. 58] The major problem for Rees' case is the fact that this diary is a fake and has been known to be a fake since Arshinov wrote his classic account of the Makhnovists in 1923:

"After 1920, the Bolsheviks wrote a great deal about the personal defects of Makhno, basing their information on the diary of his so-called wife, a certain Fedora Gaenko .. . . But Makhno's wife is Galina Andreevna Kuz'menko. She has lived with him since 1918. She never kept, and therefore never lost, a diary. Thus the documentation of the Soviet authorities is based on a fabrication, and the picture these authorities draw from such a diary is an ordinary lie." [Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 226f]

Of course, this seems to be false, because there is a book in french by an author named Ettore Cinnella which quotes from that diary. An English blurb of the book reads thusly:


Makhno and the Makhnovshchina have been strongly attacked by the
Bolsheviks and, on the contrary, praised to high heaven by anarchists.
But there are few people who can find the happy medium and emphasize
the positive points as much as the contradictions of this vast and
original popular movement which, it should be pointed out, saved the
Bolsheviks from a heavy defeat against the Whites. It is true that the
anarchists, with Makhno at their head, at times had to fight against
the antisemistism, almost traditional, of the Ukrainian peasants who
joined the insurrectionary army.

It is true that Makhno, who spoke almost no Ukrainian, was unable to
accept an alliance with Petliura's forces and so to unite to fight the
Whites and later against the Reds. Ettore Cinnella's text is followed
by the diary that Galina A. Kouzmenko, Makhno's wife, kept from
February to March 1920. It fell into the hands of the Communist police
and remained buried in the archives for seventy years; it was published
for the first time, in Russian translation, on the eve of the fall of
the USSR. This document provides further detail on the epic of the
Makhnovshchina.

Here is a link to the book in question:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/libertaire/makhno2.html

My search for documentary evidence of Yaroslavsky's claims turned cold here. If anyone can read French and find the book in question to shed some light on this subject, it would either go a long way to clearing Makno's name, or either put him in the dustbin of history where he belongs.

[Comrade-Z]

This is an anti-Makhno document written by Yaroslavsky, head of the Militant Atheist League in the USSR. This document relies on the diary of his "mistress." Here are some entries:

So the Makhnovist forces were killing Bolsheviks (who were trying to liquidate the Makhnovist movement in the first place). We already knew this. This is not new information.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 24 2006, 07:35 PM

This is an anti-Makhno document written by Yaroslavsky, head of the Militant Atheist League in the USSR. This document relies on the diary of his "mistress." Here are some entries:

So the Makhnovist forces were killing Bolsheviks (who were trying to liquidate the Makhnovist movement in the first place). We already knew this. This is not new information.
Sure, but this is certainly a very unflattering account of it, and I am very interested in the authenticity of the diary Yaroslavky relies on. My guess is that the document recovered from the archives after the fall of the USSR and the diary Yaroslavsky relies on are one and the same, but my search has gone cold. If you can be of any assistance, comrade, I would greatly appreciate it.

[chimx]

I'm not talking about his exact words on class-struggle two centuries ago when proletarian exclusively meant producer. Now the proletarian class has broadened, and with it there are jobs in service, distribution, office jobs, ect. with eah "sub-classes" of the proletariat consciousness will emerge in different ways.It would be totally wrong to stay with the old 19th century definition because that would deny the historical-materialism aspexct of it-- that conditions change.

and it is great that so many marxists are capable of stepping outside of marx and 19th century socialism. even the folk here at revleft seem pretty content to condemn dialectical materialism. i love marxists like that--the kind that don't treat the scholarly work of marx as religious doctrine.


The fact that the Mahknovists were "put-down" would be a causation of Bolshevism, and not the organization of the Black Armies, Makhno' overly-optimistic idealism, and Grigorievs anti-Semetic progroms.

In historical perspective we all have blood on our hands, we all have to explain what happened without religiously sticking to a trend, because no matter how much we hate a historical trend we will borrow some ideas from that trend, and people will find it objectionable. We have to do what no one group in political history has ever done-- come clean.

On another note you may have not liked what the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks did, but just because you don't agree with them doesn't make you not a Communist. Look at Gavril Myasnikov for instance.

i just don't think it is healthy to condemn this or that historical figure for their unfortunate historical prejudices. It doesn't necessarily speak to their political philosophies. Makhno was, or at least tolerated, anti-semtism. That sucks, but I don't see why that should ever be brought up in a critique of Makhno's anarchism--especially when dealing with him as a historical figure. It should be brought up in the context of prevalences of anti-semitism in czarist russia and after.

and I usually only call myself an anarchist when i'm around communists, because i want to emphasize a power deprecation tendency within any communist movement. when i'm around regular joes i'll actually call myself a 'marxist' to avoid confusion. It's a tendency that can transcend class due to its unalienating effects. It is why Kwangju 1980 fascinates me, or Lyons in 1831. It is why I don't want to limit myself to a class-oriented spontaneity when dealing with any vision of revolution. what is important is being able to turn it towards anti-capitalism--this is why Kwangju was a failure and the Paris Commune was a success, despite both ending in military defeat.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 23 2006, 07:21 PM


So maybe not so many people in history have died as a result of Anarchist organizations taking power, but these organizations havn't held power nearly as long as Marxist/Communist ones. You use the card about the victums of Marxism/Communism all the time when taking to the masses. This card is very handy when backing away from what happened during the USSR-- so much easier to say the Bolsheviks weren't Communist, but most working class people just won't buy such a simple explaination. It doesn't explain how it can't happen all again.

I have never met an anarchist who idolises makhno, or really holds up the Ukranian rebvolution as an example of how anarchism should work. I just personally think that his reflections on the failure of the russian anarchists during one of the most important revolutionary episodes in history was an important contribution to revolutionary theory.

As far as anarchist atrocities goes, there is a big difference between limited anti semtic activity by small sections of an anarchist influenced army, who were severly punished for their activities, and the systematic and ideologically driven supression of the most progressive elements of the working class by the bolsheviks.

The Factory Commmittee's represented the future communist society, they were marginalized from the start by the bolsheviks, the Trade Unions, the next most progressive layer of workers self organisation, while temporarily supported (while politically dominated by bolsheviks) were in Lenin's time at the helm subordinated to a class of Party burocrats. Even within the Party the workers dominated oposition groups, lead by the steelworkers union, the most active participants in the council movement, were atacked and later banned.

These were deliberate and theoretically driven actions that lead to the total subordination of the rusian working class to the burocrat dominated party aparatus.

Trotsky by all his previous actions, would not have been that much better than Stalin at the Helm. His positions on the militarisation of labour (even after the civl war was over) has harkenings to Facism, and clearly represented more pety burgeioise domination of workers.

I called myself a communist long before I ever became an anarchist. I still all myself a communist(as dose everyone in nefac). I was a member of a trotskyist party for longer than most people on this board have been active revolutionaries. I am reading "redaing capital politically" right now. I have Capital on my bookshelf along with writings by Lenin.

I still worry about the rediculous people that identify with anrchism.

Biut the fact is that anarchism has a little blood on its hands, but it was the owrk of angy individuals. Bolshevism is dripping with blood and it is a systemic and theoretical problem.


To respond to the "lifestylist" camp within anarchism, are there not just as many "communists" (wearing che shirts ect) that have mad ideas about politics aswell.

I think you need to look at the tradition of anarchism and organised anarchist groups, not the north american individualism and consumerism influenced politics of some people who call themselves anarcists (and fie if they do, but they dont represent the anarchist movement, if there is such a thing).

The fact that anarchist sentiment has reached a large (if not somewhat politically confuesed) section of the population is I think a positive legacy of anarchist philosophy.


I was very excited when I first heard about both the communist league and RAAN, I hoped we could work togeather (I think where we overlap geographically nefac dose work on a limited basis with RAAN). But holding on to Bolshevism is the barrier that I cannot cross. I find more in common with most libertarian Marists than the majority of anarchists in North America (which is not at all repesentative of anarchism world wide).

But as a working class person, I will never again be in the same camp as my class enemies, and the adhearants to dictatorships of the party burocracy are in that group.

I hope that CLers can continue to debate with "class war" anarchists, I feel all working class communists should be able to find a common ground, fighting for our class interests. But again Vanguard Party dictatorship politics dont fly with that as far as im concernd. I dont know what exactly CL stands for, you seem to have members withvarying political stances (from anti leninist, to supporters of the Bloshevik model).

I say, continue the debate.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Heres what I don't get,
(some)Anarchists claim Mahknovschina was an Anarchist response to Marxism, and Marxism was expressed through Bolshevism. However they don't notice it was just a response Bolshevism. How can anyone say the Bolshevism is the only form of Marxism, and futhermore whenever Bolshevism is presented by Libertarian-Communists or Anarchists it is always discussed as it was a solid line-- there were oppositions within it.

Please don't think I'm accussing you of this personally-- I know some anarchists varies in opinion towards what I've stated, I was talking in generallities. But if you really want to know what I think about Nestor Mahkno I think he was a bit over-optimistic and idealistic because he thought he could turn hateful anti-semites into anarchists, and him being a native of Ukraine didn't take any precautions against anti-Semitism. But ofcourse it's easy to say "this should have happened" when looking back on history, well atleast we'll know better next time.

[chimx]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 31 2006, 01:32 AM
How can anyone say the Bolshevism is the only form of Marxism
i think you can ask that to just as many marxists as you can anarchists. ;)

[gilhyle]

Mahno was without political significance. He had a ramshackle army half bandit, half warlord living off the chaos of civil war, adopted (reluctantly on his part) by Moscow anarchist intellectuals.

He was neither exceptionally terrible, nor exceptionally interesting.

Why cant it be accepted that some people just are of no political significance ?

[rebelworker]

The last post is just bullshit.

As for the Makhnovchina being a response to Bolshevism this is also not true.

There was a large and active anarchist segement of the workers and peasant movements in the ukrain for many years (the best example is the NABAT federation). makhno grew up a poor peasant and hated the ruling class. He identified himself as an anarchist very early on in his life, while serving a prison sentence in his teens for attacking his boss, he worked as a stable hand for a rich man.

Anarchism and the makhnovchina was a response to class society IN THE UKRAIN.

The peasants and workers in the ukrain attacked the ruling class with revolutionary zeal just like their counterparts in russia.

because of ties between russian and ukranian revolutionaries, and the revolutionary upheavals both launching on a mass scale at the same time, the makhnovchina came into conflict with a Bolshevik party that wanted to take controll of the revolution. Anarchism and Bolshevism usually comento real conflict around practical issues.

As for the Petty Burgeoise label of anarchism, I dont know what to say. Are there petty burgeoise influences(whatever that really means) and tendencies within anarchism? yes

Can the same be said of marxism? yes

for a practical example, studirs have been donne of the memberships of differnet revolutionarie tendencies in spain during the 1930's.

The peasnant membership of the CNT was seen to be of a majority landless "rural working class" while the Spanish communist party's membership was mostly based in the petty burgeoise, small landowner "peasants". (see We the Anarchist: a study of the Iberian Anarchist Federation, by Stuart Christie).

The fact is that at most periods of time the majority of anarchist influence has been among working class peopleor landless peasnats(rural working class for all intents and purposes). Why Stalinist have tried to whish anarchism away with the slander petty burgeoise escaes me. As i have said before, nefac is in practice a response by many woring class militants to thgeir discust with the middle class politics of vanguard parties and the bolshevik policy and tradition of supression of the working class in favor of a class of petty burgeoise party hacks and burocrats.

I encourage genuine working class stalinists (or other styles of bolshevism) to do a bit more research into the positive contributions of anarchist communism, specifically especifismo(developed by the Uraguyan anarchist federation, over 50 years old) and platformism-lite(NEFAC, WSM, ZACF and other modern adhearants to the platformist tradition)

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:41 PM

I encourage genuine working class stalinists (or other styles of bolshevism) to do a bit more research into the positive contributions of anarchist communism, specifically especifismo(developed by the Uraguyan anarchist federation, over 50 years old) and platformism-lite(NEFAC, WSM, ZACF and other modern adhearants to the platformist tradition)
There is a hidden history of Russian anarchism - its the history of the hundreds (if not more) anarchist militants who jointed the bolshevik party and worked tirelessly for the Russian Revolution - ignored by anarchist histories because these are not 'histories' but hagiographies of the anti-bolshevik faction within Russian anarchism. Only Victor Serge escapes the deafening censorship of their own tradition by anarchist historians who prefer to write about Makhno.