When Makhno Met Lenin

[Forward Union]

(Extract from the Anarchist FAQ)

While in Moscow, Makhno met with Lenin. This meeting came about by chance. Visiting the Kremlin to obtain a permit for free board and lodging, Makhno met the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, Jakov M. Sverdlov, who arranged for Makhno to meet Lenin. Lenin asked Makhno, "How did the peasants of your region understand the slogan "All power to the soviets in all the vilages"?" Makhno states that Lenin "was astonished" at his reply:

Makhno; "The peasants understood this slogan in their own way. According to their interpretation, all power, in all areas of life, must be identified with the consciousness and will of the working people. The peasants understand that the soviets of workers and peasants of village, country and district are neither more nor less than the means of revolutionary organisation and economic self-management of working people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, the Right socialists and their coalition government."

Lenin; "Well, then, the peasants of your region are infected with anarchism!" [4] Later in the interview, Lenin stated: "Do the anarchists ever recognise their lack of realism in present-day life? Why, they don't even think of it." Makhno replied:


Makhno; "But I must tell you, comrade Lenin, that your assertion that the anarchists don't understand 'the present' realistically, that they have no real connection with it and so forth, is fundamentally mistaken. The anarchist-communists in the Ukraine . . . the anarchist-communists, I say, have already given much to prove that they are firmly planted in 'the present.' The whole struggle of the revolutionary Ukrainian countryside against the Central Rada has been carried out under the ideological guidance of the anarchist-communists and also in part by the Socialist Revolutionaries . . . Your Bolsheviks have scarcely any presence in our villages. Where they have penetrated, their influence is minimal. Almost all the communes or peasant associations in the Ukraine were formed at the instigation of the anarchist-communists. The armed struggle of the working people against the counter-revolution in general and the Austro-German invasion in particular has been undertaken with the ideological and organic guidance of the anarchist-communists exclusively.

"Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us credit for all this, but these are the facts and you can't dispute them. You know perfectly well, I assume, the effective force and the fighting capacity of the free, revolutionary forces of the Ukraine. It is not without reason that you have evoked the courage with which they have heroically defended the common revolutionary conquests. Among them, at least one half have fought under the anarchist banner. . .

"All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging that we, the anarchist-communists, don't have our feet on the ground, that our attitude towards 'the present' is deplorable and that we are too fond of dreaming about the future. What I have said to you in the course of this interview cannot be questioned because it is the truth. The account which I have made to you contradicts the conclusions you expressed about us. Everyone can see we are firmly planted in 'the present,' that we are working and searching for the means to bring about the future we desire, and that we are in fact dealing very seriously with this problem."

Lenin "Perhaps I am mistaken." [5]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/smilies/phorawhipsmiliegiffile.gif

[chebol]

Lenin "Perhaps I am mistaken." [5]

Neither an admission, nor an assertion.

Marxists are scientific socialists, and must measure these things on evidence.

I assume this was posted with a purpose? Care to elaborate?

[luxemburg89]

thanks for posting this comrade - i enjoyed reading it. Chebol mate, not everything has to have a reason maybe this was just for people to read if they are interested.

[TC]

The only source of this conversation is a book that Makhno wrote, so this should not be taken as lenin's direct words since Makhno was simply recalling his conversation (they didn't have dictaphones obviously) and may or may not have ever even happened.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think it's funny how many anarchists and related syndicalists would refer to Makhno as a "anarcho-stalinist", but several decades later, he is often portrayed as an heroic personality on the Revolutionary Left boards.

His policies were hardly 'libertarian', in that he appointed mayors from the upper echeleons of his military force, established a police-security organization while committing acts that were no less brutal than the Cheka themselves, and it was proof enough that he should be seperated from any promotion of being a 'libertarian' in that none of the senior commanders on the Revolutionary War Council were elected or democratically accountable to say the least. To acquire supplies and equipment, Makhno would order his forces to seize the food supplies that were ran through convoys and on the railroad. He had a direct orientation to the peasantry; in that he viewed the urban centers with a sense of unemotion and carelessness. If they starved, it was simply not his concern. 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.”

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Anarchist and narodnik ideologies are indeed quite REACTIONARY, as Marx and Lenin rightfully pointed out: orientation towards the peasantry, anti-Semitism, and ignorance by anarchists and narodniks of the workers.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:16 pm
^^^ Anarchist and narodnik ideologies are indeed quite REACTIONARY, as Marx and Lenin rightfully pointed out: orientation towards the peasantry, anti-Semitism, and ignorance by anarchists and narodniks of the workers.
I think that anarchists that approach things with a class perspective are fine.

[gilhyle]

"The Majority of Anarchists think and write about the future, without understanding the Present. That is what divides us Communists from them."

Lenin in conversation to Makhno, June 1918, quoted Nestor Makhno Russkaya revolyutsia na Ukraine, kniga II, Paris 1936, P.131

[chimx]

I agree firstly with TC that the source should be taken with a grain of salt, unless other memoir material exists that can corroborate this.

I also agree with RedDali that Makhno was a questionable dude, and anarchists should certainly hesitate to hero worship him. I wouldn't use it as an excuse to denounce the validity of anarchism generally though, but rather provide further evidence on how detached the peasantry and urban proletariat were from each other. Russia was a backwards agrarian economy and the peasantry was predominately apolitical despite its social revolution. Given the production relationships within Russia in 1917, there was little reason for the urban and agrarian sectors to be united. You can't fault ideology for this historical fact.

[syndicat]

reddali:
I think it's funny how many anarchists and related syndicalists would refer to Makhno as a "anarcho-stalinist", but several decades later, he is often portrayed as an heroic personality on the Revolutionary Left boards.

His policies were hardly 'libertarian', in that he appointed mayors from the upper echeleons of his military force, established a police-security organization while committing acts that were no less brutal than the Cheka themselves, and it was proof enough that he should be seperated from any promotion of being a 'libertarian' in that none of the senior commanders on the Revolutionary War Council were elected or democratically accountable to say the least.

Not an "anarcho-stalinist" but maybe "anarcho-bolshevik". That, however, was not due to Makhno's role in the revolution but his advocacy of the "Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists", a proposal for a disciplined anarchist cadre organization, to intervene in, and help build, mass organizations.

The Revolutionary Administrative Council was effectively the government of the revolutionary region of the eastern Ukraine, an area with a population of 3 million. The Administrative Council had oversight over the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine and was elected by the periodic People's Congresses of the revolutionary region. These congresses were attended by delegates representing a million or more people in the region -- local soviets, unions, peasant communities. It was the first people's congress that authorized the setting up of the revolutionary army. Makhno was elected. That's why he was called "Batko". In the traditions of the Ukrainian cossacks, a "batko" is an elected military leader, as opposed to an officer appointed from above. And most of the officers in Makhno's army were elected.

The administrative council elected by the people's congresses had the participation of a range of political groups -- Federation of Anarchists of Ukraine (Makhno's libertarian communist organization), the Union of Maximalists (anti-parliamentary libertarian socialists), syndicalists, Left SRs, and even the Bolsheviks at one point. for example at the 4th People's Congress, held in Alexandrovsk, after the Right Mensheviks and Right SRs (representing the craft unions in the city) walked out, the 22-member Admin Council was elected and the Bolsheviks, who did not walk out, elected one or two reps on the Council. that was during the period of alliance between the Bolshevik government and the Makhnovist movement.

The military intelligence unit in the revolutionary army was set up due to plots to kill Makhno which they took pre-emptive action against. The railway union apparently didn't share your interpretation of Makhno's advice. They went off and formed an organization to self-manage the railways -- this was their interpretation of Makhno's comment. They had come to people's congress asking how they were to be paid, still thinking like government employees.

Makhno's advice to the people in the major towns -- Alexandrovsk and Ekaterinoslav -- was to form horizontal free soviets, as had been formed in Makhno's hometown of Gulyaie Polye, rather than topdown soviets like those in St. Petersburg and Moscow, with power concentrated in the executive, controlled by members of the intelligentsia from the left parties.

in "Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack", Alexandre Skirda suggests that Makho viewed the structure of people's congresses, administrative council, soviets, and revolutionary army as a kind of government or governance structure, and he seemed to have thought of it as a transitional form to something different in the future. but there is no need to see it as inconsistent with anarchism.

the Bolsheviks, for their part, engaged in the method of falsification -- intentional lying -- against the Makhnovist movement, and eventually invaded Ukraine with the Red Army to impose their will from outside.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The Revolutionary Administrative Council was effectively the government of the revolutionary region of the eastern Ukraine, an area with a population of 3 million. The Administrative Council had oversight over the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine and was elected by the periodic People's Congresses of the revolutionary region. These congresses were attended by delegates representing a million or more people in the region -- local soviets, unions, peasant communities. It was the first people's congress that authorized the setting up of the revolutionary army. Makhno was elected. That's why he was called "Batko". In the traditions of the Ukrainian cossacks, a "batko" is an elected military leader, as opposed to an officer appointed from above. And most of the officers in Makhno's army were elected.

I don't think that I have ever came upon any historical evidence that would suggest that they were elected. As I have previously stated, Makhno was deemed as anarcho-stalinists by Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eikhenbaum, Victor Serge, Grigori Maximov, and other prominent anarchists within Russia at that time. It is obvious that some measures would of had to be taken; that there is no such thing as a 'libertarian' army since strict inner-organization and discipline when deemed necessary was essential to the survival of the Makhnovites. Duing the period of 'reconciliation' with the Bolsheviks, Vassili Ivanov 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.”


Makhno's advice to the people in the major towns -- Alexandrovsk and Ekaterinoslav -- was to form horizontal free soviets, as had been formed in Makhno's hometown of Gulyaie Polye, rather than topdown soviets like those in St. Petersburg and Moscow, with power concentrated in the executive, controlled by members of the intelligentsia from the left parties.

I think that this statement is approached from a biased; anti-Bolshevik viewpoint that does not have a fair grasp with the reality of objective conditions within the Soviet Republic at that time. I have read into this subject, and discovered a peice that was written by Paul Avrich entitled Russian Anarchists and the Civil War. It has interesting content on the subject of Makhnovshchina.


Paul Avrich wrote:
During October and November, Makhno occupied Ekaterinoslav and Aleksandrovsk for several weeks and thus obtained his first chance to apply the concepts of anarchism to city life. Makhno's aim was to throw off domination of every type and to encourage economic and social self-determination. Thus, when the railroad workers of Aleksandrovsk complained that they had not been paid for many weeks, he advised them to take control of the railway lines and charge the passengers and freight shippers what seemed a fari price for their services. Such utopian projects, however, failed to win over more than a small minority of workingmen, for, unlike the farmers and artisans of the village, who were independent producers accustomed to managing their own affairs, factory workers and miners operated as interdependent parts of a complicated industrial machine and were lost without the guidance of supervisors and technical specialists. Furthermore, the peasants and artisans could barter the products of their labour, whereas the urban workers depended on regular wages for their survival. Makhno, mnoreover, compunded the confusion when he recognized all paper money issued by his predecessors - Ukrainian nationalists, Whites, and Bolsheviks alike. He never understood the complexities of an urban economy, not did he care to understand them. He detested the "poison" of the cities and cherished the natural simplicity of the peasant environment into which he had been born. In any event, Makhno found very little time to implement his ill-defined economic programmes. He was forever on the move, rarely pausing even to catch his breath. The Makhnovshchina, on the words of one of the batko's associates, was a "republic on tachanki .... As always, the instability of the situation prevented positive work,"

I think it is interesting to note that an anarchist such as Avrich has evaluated that Makhno had no previous understanding of the necessities of a diversified and advanced industrial-based economy. Makhno told the railway workers “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”, showing his ultimate ignorance towards the mechanisms and cooridination needed for a railway to function in the first place. After all, these centers were spots of malignant poison; the admitted "simplicity" of agricultural life had driven Makhno and his advisers into a position of unwillingness to understand the social texture of the urban centers. I think it would of been excellent for 'self-management' to readily exist within the railways, but I don't even have to go into details on why such a form of administration would of been incomprehensible at that time. Towards the end of this, Avrich relates to the reality of the times by quoting one of Makhno's associates himself, in that "instability of the situation prevented positive work", which was certainly true.

As for the slogan of "free soviets", it has became sort of a slogan of mythical proportions based on the assumption that the democratic soviets could be 'free' in the first place. The Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, were all competing for control of the soviet power, and with the majority gained by the Bolsheviks; the most advanced section of the working class that had a programme of clear initiative and the utmost commitment that underlayed a militant character, had to retain control. I think that the failure of the worker councils in other countries, paticularly Germany and Italy, has lied in the fact that the moderates infiltrated them and simply pacified them in accordance to the interests of the ruling class. I think that, in the case of the Russian Revolution, it would of ended much sooner and it would of degenerated at a much faster rate, with imperialist victory even being an option, if the soviets were simply made "free" to the opposing parties of the bourgeois parties.

But if I may get back onto the topic of the Makhnovistas, I don't think you have truly been able to grasp their anti-working class nature. I will not condemn anarchists in general, but I have noticed that many within this site have been slow to recognize that he represented the petit-bourgeoisie, and that his actions were actually contradictory to their divine value of 'liberty' that they hold so closely to their hearts. I think that the cutting of electrial lines, the disrupting of soviet control over food supplies, the derailing of trains, and butchering of communists at the hands of secret agents employed by this 'anarchist' himself should not be classified as 'libertarian' whatsoever. These are not 'falsifications', but actual events as they occured at that moment.

[syndicat]

To begin with Paul Avrich was not an anarchist. That is a common misconception. A person who views what anarchists say as unrealistic is not a defender of anarchism. And there are various hints of this in "Russian Anarchists".

Anyway, there is a much more thoroughly documented book on the Makhnovist movement available, written by a man of Ukrainian origin, Alexander Skirda.

Your suggestion that, during the revolution, Eichenbaum regarded Makhno as an "anarcho-stalinist" is absurd given that Eichenbaum played a major role in Makhno's army as a teacher, writer and active member of the cultural section of the army. Later on, in the late '20s, Eichenbaum and Makhno had a falling out due to Eichenbaum's disagreement with the "Organizational Platform." This led to some harsh personal back and forth and Eichenbaum put some critical personal comments, not substantiated by others, in his book "The Unknown Revolution", which was published later, while they were all in exile. I've found evidence of things that contradict a number of Eichenbaum's accounts so i do not regard him as particularly reliable.

Victor Serge was never a social anarchist. Prior to the Russian revolution, he had been an extreme individualist anarchist, a nihilist who supported the Bonnot Gang in their bank robberies. And when he returned to Russia, he joined the Bolshevik party and became an apologist for the Bolsheviks.


there is no such thing as a 'libertarian' army since strict inner-organization and discipline when deemed necessary was essential to the survival of the Makhnovites.

It's possible you are operating with some sort of misconception as to what anarchism is. But if you think there can't be a "libertarian army", then you'd need to explain the existence of the very large army -- far larger than Makhno's -- built by the Spanish anarcho-syndcalist labor federation in the Spanish Revolution in 1936. Ultimate decision-making in regard to unit affairs was the general assembly. Each company elected a delegate to the war committee which was the administrative committee of a divsion-size unit. The entire division elected a chief delegate, the responsible officer, for the entire divsion. But the division couldn't do just anything it wanted since it was subject to the decisions of the Union Defense Committee, set up by the unions, to direct and coordinate the labor army.
Why would such a structure not be capable of being disciplined? It sounds like maybe you're confusing social anarchism with individualism.

The Bolsheviks notoriously engaged in a practice of intential lying about the Maknovist army, in their published comments about it -- accusing them of being bandits, anti-semitic, kulaks etc -- except during the brief periods of their compacts, when they needed their support. So anything a Bolshevik government or Red Army official would say is suspect. If your accusations about "butchering communities" had any substance, I think Skirda would have uncovered it. Makhno's army depended on the support it received from the peasantry, such as fresh horses. Tcherkover, a Jewish historian, who did a study of the anti-semitic atrocities during the cvil war, says that he was never able to document any evidence of anti-semitic pogroms by Makhno's forces which, he said, treated the civilian population in general far better than any other army operating in the Ukraine.

Makno may have been harsh in discipline. I don't know. But the only intelligence unit Skirda mentions is one that looked into activities of the enemy, or potential infiltration, as in the case I mentioned of a plot to kill Makhno that was uncovered.

The accusation that the Makhnovist movement is "petty bourgeois" is hard to square with the evidence of who belonged to it. It was mainly based on the poor peasants, agricultural laborers, and urban workers. Skirda found a document about the land ownership of partisans in the Makhnovist army who were demobilized by the Soviet authorities in 1921. This shows that most owned no land. Makhno himself was a foundry worker and president of a branch of the Russian metal workers federation in his hometown.

in regard to what Makhno said to the railway workers who came to the Alexandrovsk people's congress, I would trust the accounts of Eichenbaum or Skirda more than Avrich. Eichenbaum was the chair of that congress. And Skirda has had better opportunity in terms of sources.


if the soviets were simply made "free" to the opposing parties of the bourgeois parties.

This shows you don't understand the meaning of the slogan of "free" or "non-party" soviets. A really good source on this subject is Israel Getzler's very detailed description of the Kronstadt soviet of 1917. The libertarian Left -- maximalists and syndicalists -- were dominant there, and the soviet was very close to their idea of "free" or horizontal soviet. Key differences from the big city soviets are these:

1. There were regular assemblies on each ship, military unit, or workplace, and they elected their committees to carry out their decisions.

2. The delegates to the soviet elected by the assembly had to be someone who worked there. This was not the case in the St. Petersburg and Moscow soviets. That's how members of the intelligentsia like Trotsky or Martov could get elected to the soviets. They would campaign at a factory to get elected.

3. The real decision making body was the plenary meeting of delegates in the Kronstadt soviet. The ordinary working people who were the delegates debated and discussed and made the actual decisions. The executive committee was merely charged with ensuring the decisions were carried out. This was different than the situation with the St. Petersburg and Moscow soviets where power was concentrated into the executive committee, and then even further centralized in the presidium, and the plenaries were treated like a rubber stamp, a place where people could talk and give speeches but not where the real decisions were made. The executive committees tended to be dominated by members of the intelligentsia who were party stalwarts.

Precisely because only workers (or soldiers or sailors) could elect delegates, members of the intelligentsia, much less "bourgeois" representatives, did not have much chance to be elected, unless they happened to work in some facility in Kronstadt. The "bourgeois parties" did not elect delegates to that soviet.

Given that horizontal soviets of this sort actually existed, I think the top-down structure of the major soviets has more to do with the lack of a commitment to participatory democracy on the part of Russian Marxism. I suppose you could argue that the educational level in Russia at the time was so low that self-management of public affairs by working people wasn't really possible, but then you'd have to explain the success at this of the Kronstadt soviet, as described by Getzler.

[rebelworker]

Very interesting thread,

i think the point about who works in the area may make decisions for the area is an important one.

For me this is an important factor for limiting the development of a burocratic class.

Rotating delegates who actually work would go a long way to building a healthy working class culture of democracy, comething that is essential if communism is possible.

[Tower of Bebel]

I assume this was posted with a purpose? Care to elaborate?

The emoticon explains the most of it.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 26, 2007 12:50 pm
(Extract from the Anarchist FAQ)

While in Moscow, Makhno met with Lenin. This meeting came about by chance. Visiting the Kremlin to obtain a permit for free board and lodging, Makhno met the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, Jakov M. Sverdlov, who arranged for Makhno to meet Lenin. Lenin asked Makhno, "How did the peasants of your region understand the slogan "All power to the soviets in all the vilages"?" Makhno states that Lenin "was astonished" at his reply:

Makhno; "The peasants understood this slogan in their own way. According to their interpretation, all power, in all areas of life, must be identified with the consciousness and will of the working people. The peasants understand that the soviets of workers and peasants of village, country and district are neither more nor less than the means of revolutionary organisation and economic self-management of working people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, the Right socialists and their coalition government."

Lenin; "Well, then, the peasants of your region are infected with anarchism!" [4] Later in the interview, Lenin stated: "Do the anarchists ever recognise their lack of realism in present-day life? Why, they don't even think of it." Makhno replied:


Makhno; "But I must tell you, comrade Lenin, that your assertion that the anarchists don't understand 'the present' realistically, that they have no real connection with it and so forth, is fundamentally mistaken. The anarchist-communists in the Ukraine . . . the anarchist-communists, I say, have already given much to prove that they are firmly planted in 'the present.' The whole struggle of the revolutionary Ukrainian countryside against the Central Rada has been carried out under the ideological guidance of the anarchist-communists and also in part by the Socialist Revolutionaries . . . Your Bolsheviks have scarcely any presence in our villages. Where they have penetrated, their influence is minimal. Almost all the communes or peasant associations in the Ukraine were formed at the instigation of the anarchist-communists. The armed struggle of the working people against the counter-revolution in general and the Austro-German invasion in particular has been undertaken with the ideological and organic guidance of the anarchist-communists exclusively.

"Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us credit for all this, but these are the facts and you can't dispute them. You know perfectly well, I assume, the effective force and the fighting capacity of the free, revolutionary forces of the Ukraine. It is not without reason that you have evoked the courage with which they have heroically defended the common revolutionary conquests. Among them, at least one half have fought under the anarchist banner. . .

"All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging that we, the anarchist-communists, don't have our feet on the ground, that our attitude towards 'the present' is deplorable and that we are too fond of dreaming about the future. What I have said to you in the course of this interview cannot be questioned because it is the truth. The account which I have made to you contradicts the conclusions you expressed about us. Everyone can see we are firmly planted in 'the present,' that we are working and searching for the means to bring about the future we desire, and that we are in fact dealing very seriously with this problem."

Lenin "Perhaps I am mistaken." [5]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/smilies/phorawhipsmiliegiffile.gif
Post the whole extract and leave the cheap Goebbels' style propaganda methods aside.

For those who are interested here is the entire conversation.

When Makhno Met Lenin (http://libcom.org/history/makhno-nestor-1889-1934)

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:16 pm
^^^ Anarchist and narodnik ideologies are indeed quite REACTIONARY, as Marx and Lenin rightfully pointed out: orientation towards the peasantry, anti-Semitism, and ignorance by anarchists and narodniks of the workers.

bullshit

[Question everything]

:lol: When I first read this I thought you were talking about the Makhno on revleft (formerly TAKN)

[Severian]

So this would be Makhno's version of the conversation, then?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Severian+May 27, 2007 06:34 am--> (Severian @ May 27, 2007 06:34 am) So this would be Makhno's version of the conversation, then? [/b]

TragicClown
The only source of this conversation is a book that Makhno wrote, so this should not be taken as lenin's direct words since Makhno was simply recalling his conversation (they didn't have dictaphones obviously) and may or may not have ever even happened.

I'd say yes if TragicClown is to be believed (and I have no evidence to the contrary).

[chebol]

The Makhno Myth (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:57 am
The Makhno Myth (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

same old shit

15 How do the modern followers of Bolshevism slander the Makhnovists?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/...nd46.html#app15 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append46.html#app15)

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by abbielives!+June 25, 2007 02:29 am--> (abbielives! @ June 25, 2007 02:29 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 10:57 am
The Makhno Myth (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

same old shit [/b]
The article shouldn't be dismissed just like that. It makes some excellent points, for example...

- The anarchist historians of Makhno's movement are almost without fail severely biased and offer little or no corroboration for their claims. Makhno himself was notoriously unreliable, and there exists no record of his meeting with Lenin besides his own claims- accounts of such a meeting are notoriously absent from the notes and diaries of both Lenin and Sverdlov, who was also supposed to have been present.

- His movement that has been lauded as a great experiment in anarchism was in fact centered in just one community, that of Guilai-Pole, their base of operations. There was only one commune established before the Austro-Hungarian invasion, and in that conflict it was destroyed. The second attempt to organize production along anarchist lines resulted in, by the admission of anarchist historians, only as little as four communes, which lasted less than six months. Only a few thousand peasants were involved in these communes; there was little interest in such radical change. Approximately 0.01% of the population he claimed to hold sway over participated in the communes.

- Makhno's views of worker-peasant dynamics were severely flawed, and he never quite grasp that one cannot build a working cooperation between the two off of a possible food surplus of the peasants. His knowledge of wartime economics was even more tragically mistaken; he and his followers would simply hand out all the money and food until their was nothing left to give, and when the workers were left without food, he responded that it was not his responsibility to feed them. While printing a currency, he had written on the bills "feel free to forge this", which combined with his allowance of all other currencies caused skyrocketing inflation. They would loot town after town for food, equipment and lodging, increasing the misery of the workers.

- The Maknovists, who claimed to be against all authority, established what most would call a state. They monitored monetary policy, regulated the press, redistributed land, established a police force to enforce their laws, and banned any political party except themselves from election to the regional bodies. He even had a secret police force in the mold of the Cheka that he leveled endless criticism of the Bolsheviks for. One anarchist congress, asking him to explain his actions, stated "It has been reported to us that there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik Cheka. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported." In the army, while Makhno claimed that the troops had the right to elect their own commanders, he maintained veto power over all decisions, and his command remained absolute, arbitrary, and impulsive. One unit of the army passed a decree stating that “all orders must be obeyed provided that the commanding officer was sober at the time of giving it.” Just like the Bolsheviks who receive no shortage of anarchist criticism for the practice, he was forced by the war to conscript soldiers, a far cry from the "free association of individuals" extolled in anarchist theory.

- Makhno was not an anarchist saint, despite many of his supporters' claims. He accepted many political positions in the name of "reducing the authority of these committees" (Ultimately, this is the inherent flaw of anarchism, that in the real world one cannot dispense with all authority.) Although he made public drunkenness a crime for his soldiers, he placed himself above that law, and his close collaborator Voline stated "His greatest fault was certainly the abuse of alcohol…. Under [its influence], Makhno became irresponsible in his actions; he lost control of himself. Then it was personal caprice, often supported by violence, that suddenly replaced his sense of revolutionary duty; it was the despotism, the absurd pranks, the dictatorial antics of a warrior chief." His treatment of women was more disturbing: he and his officers would often hold drunken orgies in which certain women were forced to participate.

- While anarchist historians claim that the forces of Makhno were crushed to prevent a successful example of anarchism, the reality is far different. The alliance between his army and the Bolsheviks had always been tenuous, as he prevented collection of grain in his territories and raided any supply trains passing through. In mid-May 1919, General Deniken of the White Army broke through Makhno's lines and advanced 30 miles into the Red Army's rear. Makhno's response was to resign his command and abandon the front, calling for a new anarchist congress. The announcement for that congress called for the overthrow of the Bolshevik state, and called on Red Army soldiers to abandon their posts. In light of this, it is easy to understand the Bolshevik "betrayal". The Makhnovists had betrayed them once before, and declared hostility towards their regime. The Soviet state was barely holding on, and could not afford to leave a hostile force in the Ukraine.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:24 pm
.... the notes and diaries of both Lenin and Sverdlov.....

Good post !

Just one question: Lenin's Diary ??? Just explain that one a bit to me.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by gilhyle+July 01, 2007 05:24 pm--> (gilhyle @ July 01, 2007 05:24 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:24 pm
.... the notes and diaries of both Lenin and Sverdlov.....

Good post !

Just one question: Lenin's Diary ??? Just explain that one a bit to me. [/b]
Not that I'm familiar with them, but Lenin kept very thorough diaries throughout the time of the revolution.

[abbielives!]

historical 'bias' is not important truth is. i would also point out that most communists site bolshevik propaganda as "evidence".
i would add that many of the accounts are from people who were there.
i would also point out that the meeting between makhno and lenin was by chance and informal.
the experiments in Hulyai Pole were hardly "lauded as a great experiment in anarchism" the makhnovists were mainly a military movement. though it should be noted that the Red army was responsible for destroying the communes. since it was a peasent movement most of the political aspect was involved in land redistribution.

inflation is prety normal for a war time economy and does not preclude victory.
the makhnovists certianly were not against all authority though authority is often used in place of authoritarian. they did sometimes appoint commanders but only in times of urgency. it was not a perftect model of anarchist organization but compared to the red army it was far superior
of course mahkno prevented grain collection, given that the result of grain requisitioning elsewhere was mass starvation.
the personal accusations are false propaganda, Volines accusations cannot be given credability given that he took up with Makhno's wife and stole his personal diary
the white breakthough of makhno's lines was due to two things 1. the bolsheviks stopped supplying them with weapons 2. the whites broke though the left flank WHERE THE RED ARMY WAS STATIONED leaving it wide open
you say the makhnovists betrayed the bolsheviks the truth is the opposite, as the conflict started with Trotsky's banning of the anarchist congress and his ordering the arrest of Makhno.
the resolution stating: "to obey the orders of the commanders if the commanders are sober enough to give them" was from a red army source, further they were only punished if they drank in a military situation.
i know of only one concrete exapmle of cheka like behavior
the acusations of looting are false though wealth was expropriated from the rich, the acusations are consistant with the bolshevik propaganda which smeared the Makhnovists as "bandits"

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by abbielives!+May 17, 2007 09:27 pm--> (abbielives! @ May 17, 2007 09:27 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 10:16 pm
^^^ Anarchist and narodnik ideologies are indeed quite REACTIONARY, as Marx and Lenin rightfully pointed out: orientation towards the peasantry, anti-Semitism, and ignorance by anarchists and narodniks of the workers.

bullshit[/b]
Gulag socialism is quite REACTIONARY, as the workers of the world rightfully pointed out. Its mumbo jumbo dazzled peasant societies and was discarded as they modernized; and here we are, the crackpot saviours of the workingclass still issuing orders to a ghost army of the proletariat and stamping their little feet in rage. And the hour grows late: the potential that Marx and others sensed is dissipating.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by abbielives!@July 01, 2007 07:32 pm
historical 'bias' is not important truth is. i would also point out that most communists site bolshevik propaganda as "evidence".
i would add that many of the accounts are from people who were there.
i would also point out that the meeting between makhno and lenin was by chance and informal.
the experiments in Hulyai Pole were hardly "lauded as a great experiment in anarchism" the makhnovists were mainly a military movement. though it should be noted that the Red army was responsible for destroying the communes. since it was a peasent movement most of the political aspect was involved in land redistribution.

inflation is prety normal for a war time economy and does not preclude victory.
the makhnovists certianly were not against all authority though authority is often used in place of authoritarian. they did sometimes appoint commanders but only in times of urgency. it was not a perftect model of anarchist organization but compared to the red army it was far superior
of course mahkno prevented grain collection, given that the result of grain requisitioning elsewhere was mass starvation.
the personal accusations are false propaganda, Volines accusations cannot be given credability given that he took up with Makhno's wife and stole his personal diary
the white breakthough of makhno's lines was due to two things 1. the bolsheviks stopped supplying them with weapons 2. the whites broke though the left flank WHERE THE RED ARMY WAS STATIONED leaving it wide open
you say the makhnovists betrayed the bolsheviks the truth is the opposite, as the conflict started with Trotsky's banning of the anarchist congress and his ordering the arrest of Makhno.
the resolution stating: "to obey the orders of the commanders if the commanders are sober enough to give them" was from a red army source, further they were only punished if they drank in a military situation.
i know of only one concrete exapmle of cheka like behavior
the acusations of looting are false though wealth was expropriated from the rich, the acusations are consistant with the bolshevik propaganda which smeared the Makhnovists as "bandits"

i would also point out that the meeting between makhno and lenin was by chance and informal.

Evidence? And may I point out that Lenin was known for his incredibly meticulous diaries in which, make no mistake, he did not just write down official business.


inflation is prety normal for a war time economy and does not preclude victory.

Please explain why, if inflation is normal during wartime, your friend Makhno went out of his way to increase it by not only legalizing ALL forms of currency but encouraging forgery of the one his government issued.


the makhnovists certianly were not against all authority though authority is often used in place of authoritarian. they did sometimes appoint commanders but only in times of urgency. it was not a perftect model of anarchist organization but compared to the red army it was far superior

Replace a few key words in there and you would end up with a similar apology for the Bolsheviks, who recieve no end of criticism for establishing similar structures by anarchists.


of course mahkno prevented grain collection, given that the result of grain requisitioning elsewhere was mass starvation.

He wasn't being a very good ally to the Bolsheviks then, was he? And how do you justofy his stealing of grain shipments?


the personal accusations are false propaganda, Volines accusations cannot be given credability given that he took up with Makhno's wife and stole his personal diary

What reason would Voline have to lie about such things in a man who he clearly considered a great military leader? May I also point out that his account is, as you seem to require, from someone who was there. In any case, his alcoholism is corroborated by Malet and Peters.


the white breakthough of makhno's lines was due to two things 1. the bolsheviks stopped supplying them with weapons 2. the whites broke though the left flank WHERE THE RED ARMY WAS STATIONED leaving it wide open

Does that justify, in your mind, his withdrawal from the front? In any case, the Bolsheviks stopped supplying Makhno with arms because, well, he wasn't being a very good ally, with raiding their grain shipments and all.


you say the makhnovists betrayed the bolsheviks the truth is the opposite, as the conflict started with Trotsky's banning of the anarchist congress and his ordering the arrest of Makhno.

Which was only after the Bolshevik leadership discovered the announcement for that congress, which called for the overthrow of the Bolshevik state and for Red Army soldiers to abandon their units.


the acusations of looting are false though wealth was expropriated from the rich, the acusations are consistant with the bolshevik propaganda which smeared the Makhnovists as "bandits"

Evidence, please.

[abbielives!]

most of the questions you have are anwered in an essay at the begining of another thread called "On the Bolshevik Myth",


as to the grain i would ask you, By what right did the bolsheviks take the peasents grain?
i would certainly argue that if you are low on weapons and ammunition and are being flanked and in danger of being encircled that is certainly a good time to withdraw.

[CornetJoyce]

his alcoholism is corroborated by Malet and Peters.

Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals"= A. Lincoln

[Random Precision]

as to the grain i would ask you, By what right did the bolsheviks take the peasents grain?

Forget any right, they did it because of necessity, which I might add is the same reason that Makhno and his forces did.


i would certainly argue that if you are low on weapons and ammunition and are being flanked and in danger of being encircled that is certainly a good time to withdraw.

Do you think that that is also a good time to call for the overthrow of your only ally, and for his soldiers to abandon their posts?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:03 am


his alcoholism is corroborated by Malet and Peters.

Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals"= A. Lincoln
If your point was that he was a brilliant military tactician, you'll get no arguments here.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:14 am

as to the grain i would ask you, By what right did the bolsheviks take the peasents grain?

Forget any right, they did it because of necessity, which I might add is the same reason that Makhno and his forces did.


i would certainly argue that if you are low on weapons and ammunition and are being flanked and in danger of being encircled that is certainly a good time to withdraw.

Do you think that that is also a good time to call for the overthrow of your only ally, and for his soldiers to abandon their posts?

the differance is that the mahknovists were part of the peasentry who produced the grain.
anytime is a good time to rise up against tyranny.
as to his aleged alcoholism i would point out that many good generals have been, such as Grant, though it was probably exagerated because of the whole 'bandit' image (created courtesy of the bolsheviks)

[Random Precision]

the differance is that the mahknovists were part of the peasentry who produced the grain.

Forgive me, but I do not see how their movement originating in the peasant class gives them more of a right to take the peasants' grain than the Bolsheviks did.


anytime is a good time to rise up against tyranny.

Tyranny? Hardly more than the Makhnovists themselves.


as to his aleged alcoholism i would point out that many good generals have been, such as Grant, though it was probably exagerated because of the whole 'bandit' image (created courtesy of the bolsheviks)

A couple points:

1. It does not take an alcoholic to make a great general. Nor is his behavior excused by his briliant military mind.
2. His bizarre behavior when under the influence of alcohol, as documented by Voline and others close to him, makes him a far from garden-variety alcoholic. Especially the drunken orgies mentioned earlier.

[abbielives!]

the people who made the grain ought to have a say in who gets it, also a good deal of the grain the bolsheviks had was left to rot
the mahknovists did not have gulags, i am afraid you will have to site some evidence(not from a bolshevik source) if you expect me to accept that the makhnovists were anywhere close to the bolsheviks. particularly given the democratic nature of the army.
as to the alleged orgies:
both Ida Mett and Leah Feldman said nothing of the kind happened. both were active female members of the makhnovists. both said that Makhno's wife (who fought along side him, as did other women) would not have allowed it.
so we have a choice between Voline's claims (whom, I think, is repeating rumours as he did not claim to have seen such activity) and the counter-claims by two female Makhnovists.