Makhno - arshinov or skirda?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Hi

I'm interested in learning more about the Mahknovists, and am wondering what would be a good book to get. I gather that the main ones are Arshinov's 'History of the Makhnovist Movement' and Skirdas 'Anarchy's Cossack'. Arshinov the eyewitness and Skirda the historian - I'd imagine skirda would have more information and objectivity, but I've read that its quite badly written and not too objective either.

Which would be the one to go for, or is there something better?

Cheers

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Surely someone knows all about the makhnovists?

[Lord Testicles]

Countdown untill Wat Tyler finds this thread ...3...2...1

[Knight of Cydonia]

you can find all about Makhnovist/Makhnovschina at http://www.nestormakhno.info/

[Morpheus]

Both are worth reading. IMO, Michael Malet's book is better than either of them but it's out of print, although you may be able to order it through your library with interlibrary loan.

[Intelligitimate]

Try Yanowitz instead:

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

[Organic Revolution]

I would read anarchy's cossack, I whole heartedly recommend it.

[Forward Union]

Countdown untill Wat Tyler finds this thread ...3...2...1

:laugh:

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Try Yanowitz instead:

The Makhno Myth
I skimmed it. The thrust of it seems to be that Makhno betrayed anarchist principles, but the authors research into what 'anarchist principles' entail clearly hasn't gone beyond the average trotskyist pamphlet. straw man

Its 'exposes' of unsavoury makhnovist activity (mostly sourced from arshinov and skirda) contain nothing that I wouldn't have expected. Can the author cite any army or militant revolution facing remotley similar odds which behaved better?



Whats the Mallet book like? I couldn't find any information about it online.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its 'exposes' of unsavoury makhnovist activity (mostly sourced from arshinov and skirda) contain nothing that I wouldn't have expected. Can the author cite any army or militant revolution facing remotley similar odds which behaved better?I think that was one of the points that the article was making. It's argued by some anarchists that Makhno demonstrates a different way of organizing after the Revolution and therefore when the Bolshivks took war powers and other drastic measures, they did it because they wanted to be authoritarian rather than because they were responding to a deteriorating situation with war and famine. However, this article points out that under similar circumstances, Makhno was also forced to abandon some of the egalitarian features of his army.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I think that was one of the points that the article was making. It's argued by some anarchists that Makhno demonstrates a different way of organizing after the Revolution and therefore when the Bolshivks took war powers and other drastic measures, they did it because they wanted to be authoritarian rather than because they were responding to a deteriorating situation with war and famine. However, this article points out that under similar circumstances, Makhno was also forced to abandon some of the egalitarian features of his army. [/color]
Makhno clearly did demonstrate a different way of organising than the bolsheviks. The bolsheviks engaged in far greater levels of authoritarian behaviour, whilst facing much easier odds than the makhnovists.Generally speaking, the bolsheviks engaged in authoritarian behaviour in order to secure their power against the rest of the left / general population - using the situation as a justification. That this was their key concern is obvious from trotskys declaration that he would rather have seen Ukraine in the hands of the whites than the makhnovists.

By contrast, as far as I can tell, the makhnovists generally engaged in authoritarian behaviour to better fight a near impossible war. They started out egalitarian and principled, and changed their behavior when circumstances forced them - rather than arrogantly conjecturing from the outset that authoritarianism would be necessary, then implimenting it - as the bolsheviks did.

The important point is whether authoritarian behaviour in a revolutionary war creates the conditions necessary for the re-establishment of class society after 'victory'. With the bolsheviks it clearly did. With the makhnovists, I think it would have been far less likely - the consciousness they promoted being a key factor here.

[manic expression]

Makhno clearly did demonstrate a different way of organising than the bolsheviks. The bolsheviks engaged in far greater levels of authoritarian behaviour, whilst facing much easier odds than the makhnovists.Generally speaking, the bolsheviks engaged in authoritarian behaviour in order to secure their power against the rest of the left / general population - using the situation as a justification. That this was their key concern is obvious from trotskys declaration that he would rather have seen Ukraine in the hands of the whites than the makhnovists.

By contrast, as far as I can tell, the makhnovists generally engaged in authoritarian behaviour to better fight a near impossible war. They started out egalitarian and principled, and changed their behavior when circumstances forced them - rather than arrogantly conjecturing from the outset that authoritarianism would be necessary, then implimenting it - as the bolsheviks did.

The important point is whether authoritarian behaviour in a revolutionary war creates the conditions necessary for the re-establishment of class society after 'victory'. With the bolsheviks it clearly did. With the makhnovists, I think it would have been far less likely - the consciousness they promoted being a key factor here.

The Makhnovists weren't fighting a war, they were acting like a band of cossacks, and anarchists are naive enough to think they represent an example of organization. From all I've seen (not including the laughably deluded anarchist myths), Makhno's efforts amounted to riding around the power vacuum of Ukraine at the time and basically seeing his "revolution" get scattered to the four winds once any significant force challenged him. The same theme can be observed in every anarchist movement, ever.

The "consciousness" that the Makhnovists promoted was no different from the Zaporozhian Host. Give us all a break. His model offers no potential for abolishing capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Makhno clearly did demonstrate a different way of organising than the bolsheviks. The bolsheviks engaged in far greater levels of authoritarian behaviour, whilst facing much easier odds than the makhnovists.Generally speaking, the bolsheviks engaged in authoritarian behaviour in order to secure their power against the rest of the left / general population - using the situation as a justification. That this was their key concern is obvious from trotskys declaration that he would rather have seen Ukraine in the hands of the whites than the makhnovists.

By contrast, as far as I can tell, the makhnovists generally engaged in authoritarian behaviour to better fight a near impossible war. They started out egalitarian and principled, and changed their behavior when circumstances forced them - rather than arrogantly conjecturing from the outset that authoritarianism would be necessary, then implimenting it - as the bolsheviks did.

The important point is whether authoritarian behaviour in a revolutionary war creates the conditions necessary for the re-establishment of class society after 'victory'. With the bolsheviks it clearly did. With the makhnovists, I think it would have been far less likely - the consciousness they promoted being a key factor here.

Ugh, just read the article so we can have a debate that rises above "everything that socialists do is a lie, everything that anarchists do is good".

It's like some anarchists are the exact flip-side of Stalinists. For Stalinists any policy of Stalin or Lenin was always beyond questioning - it was always good. For anarchists anything that Lenin did was automatically bad or doomed.

Let's be political, not children arguing over questions of if the Hulk or Superman would win in a fight. I think this article makes a good point; the conditions of the revolution and civil war made it impossible for people in a country without much industry (in fact loosing industry) that was isolated from other countries. As you say about Makhnoists, they "changed their behavior when circumstances forced them" and this is what the Bolsheviks did too. I think this is why the Russian revolution went the way it did and then led to "socialism in one country" which basically completely took worker's power out of the equation.

When the Bolsheviks tried to create "socialism in one country", it was on the backs of the working class. What would have happened if Makhno tried to create communism in one region? I think he would have had little choice but to become a despot as history in Europe and China have shown to be the path of most rebel armies leading peasant uprisings.

[rebelworker]

The Makhnovists weren't fighting a war, they were acting like a band of cossacks, and anarchists are naive enough to think they represent an example of organization. From all I've seen (not including the laughably deluded anarchist myths), Makhno's efforts amounted to riding around the power vacuum of Ukraine at the time and basically seeing his "revolution" get scattered to the four winds once any significant force challenged him. The same theme can be observed in every anarchist movement, ever.

The "consciousness" that the Makhnovists promoted was no different from the Zaporozhian Host. Give us all a break. His model offers no potential for abolishing capitalism.

This is clearly the writing of someone who has done very little fact checking on much of Trotskyist propaghanda...

The Makhnovists were fighting a war, they were hugely sucessful militarily, the reason why their military strategists was studied by soviet generals for years to come. It can even be serriously argued that a late Makhnovist offensive that drew eliet units away from the white army was partially responsible for Moscow not falling.

Trotsky was one minded and stupid in his hatred of the Anarchists. Red generals in the Ukrain who had been working with him early in the war and who knew him to be a dedicvated revolutionary and important ally in the war against the whites was removed from his position by Trotsky when he reported fact on the ground in relation to the situation with the Makniovists and the direction of the war that contradicted Trotskies "vision" of things from behind his desk hundereds of miles away.

The Skidra book is excellent in that it uses never before published recently released Soviet archives relating to this time period, includinjg many important letter between soviet officials that paint a rather embarrasing portrait of the Bolshevik Beurocracy in Russia.

Other important episodes discussed include the plots by Red oifficers to intentionally under arms the Makhnovist and send them on suicide missions during joint campaigns, offer peace talks with makhno as a way to lure him into assasination and the letter written by a division of the red army to their officers when they disbabnded from the red army on mass and joined the Makhnovists who they saw as the real revolutionaries.

Again all these particular episodes come directly from soviet archives.
There are many more things discussed from more nutral or pro anarchist sources.

Its true that Skidra's book is a little biased, the man is a sometimes overzealous promoter of Platformist politics, but his sourcing is almost always well researched and only a few times in the book did I not find abundant sourcing to back up his historical accounts.

In Particular the White Army sources on the way the war was going sheds a a great deal of light on hoiw effective the Makhnovists were militarily (often at times when the red army in the Ukrain was totally innefective).

That Trotskyist article sourced above is quite funny in its "summing up" of Skidras book.
The author often Makes points that were directly contradicted by the book,entierly ignoring research that dosnt fit with his "historic lessons".

As a former Trotskyist (I was a trot for more years than many of you have been active) I have to say that although there is much to be learned from Lenin (despite the fact that he often aknowledged his own mistakes and then repeated them) there is very little to learn from Trotsky by way of theory or analysis of history.

The man was a reactionary, and often blinded to reality by his own vision of the ways things should be done. Much of Trotskyist lit to this day is equilly devoid of reality when making a point is required...

[manic expression]

This is clearly the writing of someone who has done very little fact checking on much of Trotskyist propaghanda...

The Makhnovists were fighting a war, they were hugely sucessful militarily, the reason why their military strategists was studied by soviet generals for years to come. It can even be serriously argued that a late Makhnovist offensive that drew eliet units away from the white army was partially responsible for Moscow not falling.

Really? So deep operational strategy, which is marked by use of mobile armour and planes, was innovated by the Makhnovists? That's quite funny. Try reading about what Tukhachevsky and Zhukov actually thought before making such silly statements.


Trotsky was one minded and stupid in his hatred of the Anarchists. Red generals in the Ukrain who had been working with him early in the war and who knew him to be a dedicvated revolutionary and important ally in the war against the whites was removed from his position by Trotsky when he reported fact on the ground in relation to the situation with the Makniovists and the direction of the war that contradicted Trotskies "vision" of things from behind his desk hundereds of miles away.

The Bolsheviks were right in their dismissal for anarchist fantasies. Their very success shows the futility of anarchist "theory". Now, on your second sentence (which is the majority of the paragraph), the Red Army was fighting on multiple fronts, many of them more pressing than the situation in Ukraine (the Baltic, Crimea, etc.), and you expect Trotsky to what? Thanks for showing your complete lack of knowledge regarding the Civil War and its implications beyond a band of cossacks.


The Skidra book is excellent in that it uses never before published recently released Soviet archives relating to this time period, includinjg many important letter between soviet officials that paint a rather embarrasing portrait of the Bolshevik Beurocracy in Russia.

The bureaucracy was in its infancy during the Civil War, it was just a case of the Soviets trying to keep everything together against the wave of reaction and counterrevolution (which included the Makhnovists).


Other important episodes discussed include the plots by Red oifficers to intentionally under arms the Makhnovist and send them on suicide missions during joint campaigns, offer peace talks with makhno as a way to lure him into assasination and the letter written by a division of the red army to their officers when they disbabnded from the red army on mass and joined the Makhnovists who they saw as the real revolutionaries.

Yeah. It's called war. What, did you want them to have tea with the enemies of Soviet power?

On the supposed desertions, you'll need to be specific. At any rate, it is quite right for deserters of the revolution to join the Makhnovists; like to like I guess.


Again all these particular episodes come directly from soviet archives.
There are many more things discussed from more nutral or pro anarchist sources.

And yet...


Its true that Skidra's book is a little biased, the man is a sometimes overzealous promoter of Platformist politics, but his sourcing is almost always well researched and only a few times in the book did I not find abundant sourcing to back up his historical accounts.

I should have guessed as much.

The picture that you are painting does not match historical facts. The Red Army did not really take Makhnovist tactics, because the best generals were far more interested in new technology altogether than Makhno's glorified cossack host. The bureaucracy had not developed to anything near its height at that point. The errors in your view go on and on. The worst of them all, however, is thinking that any anarchist "movement" could challenge capitalism (or socialism); Makhno could only hope to operate aimlessly in a temporary power vacuum before the socialist revolution inevitably wiped him and other brigands off the map.


In Particular the White Army sources on the way the war was going sheds a a great deal of light on hoiw effective the Makhnovists were militarily (often at times when the red army in the Ukrain was totally innefective).

And yet the Red Army handily beat the Makhnovists, who would only become a footnote in serious history books.


That Trotskyist article sourced above is quite funny in its "summing up" of Skidras book.
The author often Makes points that were directly contradicted by the book,entierly ignoring research that dosnt fit with his "historic lessons".

You might want to make a specific charge instead of nebulous claims.


As a former Trotskyist (I was a trot for more years than many of you have been active) I have to say that although there is much to be learned from Lenin (despite the fact that he often aknowledged his own mistakes and then repeated them) there is very little to learn from Trotsky by way of theory or analysis of history.

Wrong. Trotsky pinpointed the nature of the Soviet Union, while ultra-lefts, anarchists and Stalinists alike were incapable of grasping the reality. That is a momentous contribution to the communist movement. Yes, Trotsky was at his best putting ideas into practice: Lenin provided the theoretical basis, Trotsky came to agree with it and lent his considerable support. However, Trotsky's analysis in "The Revolution Betrayed" remains, far and away, the most accurate of its kind.


The man was a reactionary, and often blinded to reality by his own vision of the ways things should be done. Much of Trotskyist lit to this day is equilly devoid of reality when making a point is required...

Trotsky was a revolutionary. Makhno was a common brigand with anarchist pretensions. Trotsky made a revolution and defended it from both anarchist and Stalinist; Makhno made another example of the failure of anarchism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is essential reading on Makhno, for it shows that the books mentioned here are largely fictional/fanciful:

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

See the discussion here, too:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/55/letters.shtml

[Intelligitimate]

I already linked to it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, sorry I missed it!:)

You, linking to Trots!!!:scared:

Wonders never cease!:)

The discussion I linked to is also worth reading.

[rebelworker]

Sorry as i said before the article is bullshit.

There were huge differences between the behavior of the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks, and the differences had real ideological substance behind them.

The makhnovists never sought to controll the political process the way the Bolshevik party did, and they were never as systematically authoriatrian in dealing with people who held different views as them on the left.
Makhno himself tried to avoid the kind of personal cult of leadership that Lenin Trotsky and Stalin all encourged in differing degrees.

Again the author of the article ignores the facts of the books and just uses the parts the fits his/her argument.

Did the Makhnovits do things differently than many other anarchists. Yes and this also had an ideological and organisational basis, something Bolsheviks would like to ignore.

After what remained of the Makhnovist movement was forced to flee their homeland, the lessons they took from the anarchist and Bolsheviks failing in the Russian revolution were printed and debated within the anarchist movement. This http://nefac.net/node/544Organisational Platform of Libertarian Communists was an important document that eventually lead to a whole new tendency of anarchism which i think successfully deals with the shortcoming of both anarchism and Bolshevism.

[manic expression]

As I've said before, rebelworker, your arguments simply don't hold up to the facts.

The Makhnovists didn't control a political process because there wasn't a political process to begin with! More importantly, the Bolsheviks didn't control a political process, as they were supported by the Soviets (where workers, soldiers and peasants practiced worker democracy), unlike the isolated band of brigands known as the Makhnovists. The Bolsheviks were always ready and willing to work with other working class parties (specifically the Left-SR's), so your assertions are simply wrong. Lastly, there was no cult of leadership until the 1930's, long after Lenin and Trotsky were inactive in the USSR.

And yes, I am well aware of the origins of the platformists and their theories, but what does that prove? Makhno's experience should be looked upon as the failure that it was, not as a source of inspiration.

[Chapaev]

I recommend getting a copy of an article by S.N. Semanov appearing in Voprosii Historii, 1966, № 9

[Bilan]

The Makhnovists weren't fighting a war, they were acting like a band of cossacks, and anarchists are naive enough to think they represent an example of organization. From all I've seen (not including the laughably deluded anarchist myths), Makhno's efforts amounted to riding around the power vacuum of Ukraine at the time and basically seeing his "revolution" get scattered to the four winds once any significant force challenged him. The same theme can be observed in every anarchist movement, ever.

This really epitomises marxists; patronising drivel, with no content worth really taking seriously.
This poor, irritating "analysis" (it's not that; its just nonsense) has no factual basis whatsoever, and its entire basis is from propaganda-history, not a realistic approach to understanding Makhno's form of organization, nor any other historical examples of anarchism.

Doesn't surprise me though. It's not unlike Trotskyist and Leninists, and all other bastardisations of communism, to come up with such an absurd, fact-less analysis.



The "consciousness" that the Makhnovists promoted was no different from the Zaporozhian Host. Give us all a break. His model offers no potential for abolishing capitalism.

Speak for yourself, Leninist.
Every Leninist organizational method has degenerated into an oppressive hierarchical state, and a return to class systems. You offer nothing to the emancipation of capitalism but a lesson - that is, your approach is wrong. And more, you are bloody hypocrites.

[Bilan]

Hi

I'm interested in learning more about the Mahknovists, and am wondering what would be a good book to get. I gather that the main ones are Arshinov's 'History of the Makhnovist Movement' and Skirdas 'Anarchy's Cossack'. Arshinov the eyewitness and Skirda the historian - I'd imagine skirda would have more information and objectivity, but I've read that its quite badly written and not too objective either.

Which would be the one to go for, or is there something better?

Cheers


It's hard to find a good analysis of the Makhnovists. Many, as proved by the morons in this thread, fail to analyse any solid facts about the nature of the Makhnovists, and instead play on Bolshevik and bourgeois propaganda (Don't be surprised); anarchists also have a tendency to romanticise it, and fail to recognize its flaws.
From what I gather, the best analysis of it is The Russian Anarchists (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Anarchists-Paul-Avrich/dp/1904859488).

Be aware though. Opportunist and dishonest people have made many attempts to rewrite history. Romantacism and the poor criticisms by Bolsheviks, and wannabe-Bolsheviks, wont bring any understanding.

[Chapaev]

According to Semanov, the social base of the Makhno movement was the well-to-do peasantry of eastern Ukraine, where a considerable stratificiation of the peasantry could be observed as early as the late 19th century and where the proportion of kulaks was substantial. It was from this region that the Makhno movement drew its forces and material resources and most of its leaders. The prosperous strata of the eastern Ukrainian peasantry, who after the Revolution had acquired the estates of many large landholders in that area, had a decisive influence on the political orientation of the Makhno movement. At times when there was a threat of restoration of the large landowners relatively broad strata of the peasant masses joined the Makhno movement.

In the struggle against soviet power the followers of Makhno drew their support from the well-to-do strata in the countryside. From 1921 the movement was supported only by the kulaks. Declasse elements rallied to Makhno’s banners throughout the existence of his movement—deserters, criminals, and former White Guard soldiers. In the final period these elements came to predominate.

With respect to ideology, the Makhno movement espoused the slogans of a “powerless state” and “free soviets,” which in practice meant a struggle against the proletarian state. Such leaders of Russian anarchism as Volin (Eikhenbaum), Arshinov (Marin), Baron, and Gotman had considerable influence on the Makhno movement.

[Sasha]

funny to see how it seems that the trotskist here atack Makhno with almost the same ferrocity as trotsky himself, i guess not much changed in the last 8 decades.

anyway, i necromanced this thread because i also try to find out more about the Makhnovis, i read an very intresting articel about them in "orgasms of history, 3000 years of insuruction" (http://www.amazon.com/Orgasms-History-Years-Spontaneous-Insurrection/dp/1902593340)and i was wondering of people found other intresting reads since this thread was last up.

oh, and i'm with S.O.B. on this one, what a pathetic flames in this thread, "booohooo anarchism doesn't work and this proves it again" and than complaining if people retort with "well maybe if the leninst/stalinist would stop stabbing us in the back we might pull it of one day".