Ukraine

[MarxSchmarx]

Whether Yushchenko or Yanukovich wins, the left is seriously shut out of any meaningful discussion on national direction there. What happened? What is with this false choice between the Kremlin and "the West"?

Why isn't there a viable leftist alternative in a country where so many people are so rightfully disgusted with the two major parties?

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:46 pm
Whether Yushchenko or Yanukovich wins, the left is seriously shut out of any meaningful discussion on national direction there. What happened? What is with this false choice between the Kremlin and "the West"?

Why isn't there a viable leftist alternative in a country where so many people are so rightfully disgusted with the two major parties?
Because the Bolsheviks murdered the anarchists with happy faces on, crushing the countries innovation for political ideas.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 01, 2007 02:21 am
Because the Bolsheviks murdered the anarchists with happy faces on, crushing the countries innovation for political ideas.
When anarchists get murdered by Bolsheviks, people turn to ultranationalism, even fascism, out of sheer disgust? :huh:

Luís Henrique

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 01, 2007 02:21 am
Because the Bolsheviks murdered the anarchists with happy faces on, crushing the countries innovation for political ideas.
Come on, you can't blame the Bolsheviks for the lack of a left alternative in the Ukraine 90 years after they crushed Makhno and his peasant guerrillas. Unless you're proposing that the Makhnovists would have been able to politically run the Ukraine even though they were nothing but a military movement.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by catbert836+September 30, 2007 09:10 pm--> (catbert836 @ September 30, 2007 09:10 pm)
Organic [email protected] 01, 2007 02:21 am
Because the Bolsheviks murdered the anarchists with happy faces on, crushing the countries innovation for political ideas.
Come on, you can't blame the Bolsheviks for the lack of a left alternative in the Ukraine 90 years after they crushed Makhno and his peasant guerrillas. Unless you're proposing that the Makhnovists would have been able to politically run the Ukraine even though they were nothing but a military movement. [/b]
Look at the history of the makhnovist movement, and you will see that they were more than a military organization.

[Iskra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:46 am
Whether Yushchenko or Yanukovich wins, the left is seriously shut out of any meaningful discussion on national direction there. What happened? What is with this false choice between the Kremlin and "the West"?

Why isn't there a viable leftist alternative in a country where so many people are so rightfully disgusted with the two major parties?
The communist party has increased its votes to 5,2 %. If i'm not mistaken, last time they received near 3% (just above the threshold).

I would say there is a viable leftist alternative - the communist alternative.

[Forward Union]

I would like to back up Organic Revolutions sentiments.

Things went wrong in the Ukraine from 1921 onwards when the nation was taken over, and its anarchist defenders and free-democratic workers soviets were destroyed by the attacking Bolshevik Red army, who did so on behalf of the German imperialists.

This national policy, (along with all the others Makhnovists policies) should have stayed in place!

"1. All decrees of the White Army are hereby abolished, those decrees of the Communist authorities which conflict with interestes of the peasants and workers are likewise abolished."

[Dr Mindbender]

I suspect its for the same reason that communism is rather unpalatible in all parts of the former soviet union right now. You only need to look in Russia, all the reactionary groups such as the fascists and the kossaks are on the rise again. I suspect it'll be a long time before anyone trusts the left there again, depressingly. :(

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 01, 2007 03:22 am
Look at the history of the makhnovist movement, and you will see that they were more than a military organization.
Well, I know that Makhno occasionally tried his hand at administration. He failed disastrously, for example when he made legal all forms of currency, including the forged variety. He also thought for some silly reason that the workers and peasants could form cooperation off of the peasant's grain surplus. In the end, it's probably a good thing that he didn't try to make himself the head of a fully-fledged anarchist government instead of what he was, a peasant warlord.

[Goatse]

Anarchist government?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 01, 2007 04:59 pm
Things went wrong in the Ukraine from 1921 onwards
Because before 1921 things were great in Ukraine?


when the nation was taken over, and its anarchist defenders

Anarchists defend nations?


and free-democratic workers soviets were destroyed

Eh? Makhno != soviets.


by the attacking Bolshevik Red army, who did so on behalf of the German imperialists.

Don't be ridiculous!


This national policy, (along with all the others Makhnovists policies) should have stayed in place!

So, again - the Ukrainian anarchists were nationalists?


"1. All decrees of the White Army are hereby abolished, those decrees of the Communist authorities which conflict with interestes of the peasants and workers are likewise abolished."

The absurd of such "legislation" is patent. Who decides which Red decrees conflicts with the interests of peasant and workers? Makhno's army?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:28 pm
The communist party has increased its votes to 5,2 %. If i'm not mistaken, last time they received near 3% (just above the threshold).

I would say there is a viable leftist alternative - the communist alternative.
And do you earnestly believe that the Ukrainian "Communist" Party represents a communist alternative in any meaningful way?

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Here's an interesting analysis on the situation in Ukraine:

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2...e/iuprc-ukraine (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/june/iuprc-ukraine)

The dissolution of the Verhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) or: Will we have a new 1917?

The day after All Fools Day 2007 in the Ukraine was followed by April 2nd...

On the evening of that day all Ukrainians were glued to the television. But not because they were broadcasting "Umorina" (an annual comedy festival - translators note). They were broadcasting the speech of President Yuschenko in which he informed the Ukrainian people of his decision to dissolve the parliament, and to hold new elections on May 27th this year. The reason for this dissolution was that a great number of deputies have quit the opposition in order to join the governing coalition where they will earn more money. According to the President this violates the constitution which only allows for the formation of fractions on the bases of agreements between the different parties (which includes all their deputies) represented in parliament. Deputies cannot as individuals move from one fraction to another, swelling the ranks of the parliamentary majority as they spontaneously fancy. Someone in the governing coalition joked: perhaps the President has mixed up the First of April with the Second?

But Yanukovich and the Speaker of the Verhovna Rada, Moroz, were in no mood for jokes. Moroz urgently called an extraordinary sitting of the Verhovna Rada. Its members called the decision of the President criminal and unconstitutional, and its execution as illegal. It also demanded the resignation of the Central Electoral Committee cancelling the December 8th 2004 decree which set it up. One the night of April 2nd an emergency cabinet meeting was called which declared that the Government had no intention of abiding by the President's decision and refused to finance the organisation of the expected elections.

Both parties are talking about a threat to the state and to the constitution. They remember 1993 in Russia when President Yeltsin signed the decree dissolving the Supreme Soviet and bringing forward the organisation of elections. The head of the Supreme Soviet, Khasbulatov and the Vice-President Rutskoy began an impeachment process against the President. It all ended with the entry of tanks into Moscow and the bombardment of the parliamentary building. But no-one wants to repeat the Russian scenario. Yuschenko says that he wants to avoid the spilling of blood at all costs. Yanukovich and Moroz, on the other hand don't want to share the fate of Khasbulatov and Rutskoy, who have disappeared from the political stage forever.

On April 4th Moroz had already proposed a change in the wording of the declaration of April 3rd to the members of the Verhovna Rada, eliminating references to the criminal character of the President's decision. During his meeting with foreign ambassadors, Yanukovich, said, "We have no fear of elections and if in the end they take place we will take part and we will win". He has ruled out the idea, proposed by the Communist Party of Ukraine, of impeaching Yuschenko.

In any case we need to remember that the orange and light-blue and white clans can go on for ever jostling amongst themselves for power and the most comfortable positions, for spheres of influence and the leading role in the drama whilst the Ukrainian proletariat remains silent and submissive, allowing the capitalists and their state functionaries to exploit them as slaves and cannon fodder. The Donetsk clan has even threatened a possible strike of their "slaves". On April 6 the lunch break of the Donbass miners from 12.00 till 1.00 p.m., was transformed into a strike to prevent the dissolution of the Rada. The unions organised assemblies close to the mines where resolutions of the following type were passed:

"We are expressing our clear workers' protest against the decision to dissolve the Verhovna Rada. As it stands parliament has been chosen by the people and represents our interests. We will not allow our rights to be taken away!" On the other side, the Confederation of Free Trade unions of the Ukraine to which the Independent Union of Miners is affiliated (leader of this Indepedent Union of Miners, M. Volynets, is deputy of parliament from Bloc of Yulia Timoshenko) has declared its total support for the President's decision.

The Orange bourgeoisie scares people with the possible disintegration of the Ukraine and the military intervention by Russia, whilst its adversaries instead predict a scenario full of tanks and bombardments in Kiev. Both parties will settle accounts in the constitutional court.

The governing coalition in parliament has organised a permanent vigil in the square in front of the Government building (the Maidan): 15,000 people in tents are there to demonstrate "the indignation of the people" over the dissolution of the Verhovna Rada, against the deputies' loss of their "caviar sandwiches"!

The greatest fear of the Ukrainian capitalists was expressed by the richest Ukrainian, the billionaire Renat Akhmetov: "I see only one democratic way out of this situation: a decision of the constitutional court which will be accepted and carried out by all political sides. Democracy means above all the rule of law. And now we must learn to respect that right not only with words but also with deeds". According to him the "value" of the country was being reduced by this instability. Akhmetov went on:

"It's an ugly thing for us all. Instability and the unending political conflict holds back economic growth. And therefore the life of every single Ukrainian citizen is made worse. Many are unhappy with this. There are emotions, points of view, ambitions and different desires. But we all need to be equal before the law. Otherwise, instead of doing everything according to the European tradition, we will have a new 1917."

In 1917 the Russian workers and peasants gunned down these masters who earn millions and billions on the back of human lives, on our blood and bones. They took power into their own hands establishing the dictatorship of the Soviet of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies, factory commitees and workers' Red Guard.. The bourgeoisie throughout the world will always remember this lesson and, even today, fear the sleeping giant, pretending to treat their slaves as human beings, as "citizens", offering to them, every so often, the crumbs from their rich table, like the latest increase in the minimum wage to 20 grivna ($4).

We should also remember this lesson. Yuschenko and Yanukovich, Akhmetov and Timoshenko will always know how to reach an agreement at our expense, thanks to the blood we spill and the lives we lose. They have demonstrated this on more than one occasion. Only the proletarian revolution can drive out this filth. This year we celebrate the ninetieth anniversary of the Proletarian Revolution of 1917 year.

Let we will worthy the courage and the heroism of our predecessors, who made that revolution, we must prepare the forces for the future class struggle and build our class proletarian organisations in order to become real human beings!

International Union of the Proletarian Revolutionaries - Collectivists (IUPRC).

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 01, 2007 09:32 pm
Anarchists defend nations?

As geographic areas. (Not nation-states) Yes.


Eh? Makhno != soviets.

A soviet is a council. Anarchists argue for a system of free democratic workers soviets. C'mon luis, you know that much at least. Makhno objected to the bolsheviks because they didn't recognise the power of the Ukranian (or russian) soviets.

"4. It is proposed that all organizations of workers and peasants begin to create free workers' and peasants' soviets. These soviets must consist only of toilers engages in some form of labour that is necessary for the national economy. Representatives of political organizations have no place in workers' and peasants' soviets, for their participation will transform the latter into soviets of party deputies, which can only bring about the demise of the soviet order.
"


So, again - the Ukrainian anarchists were nationalists?

Depends what you mean by nationalist. They didn't recognise national boarders as legitimate. They had no sympathy with the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, or Kulas, and had no interest in a "nation state" but a region that is commonly referred to as Ukraine, had a political system with decrees, and principals etc.


The absurd of such "legislation" is patent. Who decides which Red decrees conflicts with the interests of peasant and workers? Makhno's army?

The federation made up of workers soviets. Makhnos army was a service to the mandates of those soviets.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:12 pm
Anarchist government?
Yea. The Makhnovists during the Civil War established what most would call a state, Makhno even had a secret police like the Bolshevik Cheka if I can recall correctly. It just was never that well organized.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:55 pm
Yea. The Makhnovists during the Civil War established what most would call a state,
Then most would be idiots.

The Makhnovist military was hierarchical to some extent - it had to be. Thought that hierarchy was as accountable as it could be, with recallable officers. But that command was mandated by a free system of workers soviets, which were open to the participation of everyone.

Hardly a "state"


Makhno even had a secret police like the Bolshevik Cheka

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40600000/jpg/_40600967_callmybluff.jpg

Let's consult points 5, 6 and 7 of the Makhnovist constitution.

5. The existence of Chekas, party committees or similar ocercive, authoritarian and disciplinarian institutions is impermissible among pesants and workers.

6. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, trade unions, and the like is an inalienable right of every worker, and any limitation of this right represents a counter-revolutionary act.

7. State militias, police and armies are heeby abolished. In their place the people will organize their own self-defence units of the workers and peasants, and the individual peasant and worker must not allow any counter-revolutionary manifestations by the bourgeoisie or military officers


:rolleyes:

[Random Precision]

While condemning the Soviet Cheka as an authoritarian betrayal, Makhno created two secret police forces that carried out numerous acts of terror.82 After a battle in one village, they shot a villager suspected of treachery with no trial. They summarily executed many of their prisoners of war.84 Their secret police were tasked with getting rid of “opponents within or outwith [sic] the movement.”85 Their activities led to one anarchist Congress asking Makhno to explain his activities:

"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."

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:59 pm
http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
Wait, you mean someone else said the same shit?

All you have done is shown me that your statement is just a rewrite of some other trotskyist propaganda! I've still called your bluff!. :D

[Random Precision]

Well, it would make sense if you would look at the citations that article provided before calling it "Trotskyist propaganda". Since you won't, the accounts of Makhno's secret police may be found in David Footman's The Civil War in Russia and Michael Malet's Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War.