Original Makhnovist Footage

[Forward Union]

Really Rare reel of the Anarchist revolution in Ukraine. Including some epic battle scenes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcsYtHggelg

[Red October]

That's pretty cool footage, especially the battle in the last part.


I was sort of expecting to be rickroll'd.

[Comrade Krell]

Shame it doesn't show that gang of far-right fascists Makhnov led around raping and murdering.

[RedAnarchist]

Shame it doesn't show that gang of far-right fascists Makhnov led around raping and murdering.

Shame you can't even spell his name right. And I wouldn't go around slandering Makhno, because the Bolsheviks were hardly innocent themselves.

[Comrade Krell]

Shame you can't even spell his name right. And I wouldn't go around slandering Makhno, because the Bolsheviks were hardly innocent themselves.
Bolsheviks were fighting for the liberation of the peasants and workers from the bourgeois and landlords, for socialist revolution itself. Makhno on the other hand was a hooligan supported by both the lumpenproletariat and most degenerate factions of the petite-bourgeois in the formation of the Ukrainian far-right. It's telling that many anarchists these days have created a personality cult around him which completely undermines their already bankrupt criticism of comrade Stalin. Go vandalize something kid, leave the revolution to the Marxists.

[RedAnarchist]

Bolsheviks were fighting for the liberation of the peasants and workers from the bourgeois and landlords, for socialist revolution itself. Makhno on the other hand was a hooligan supported by both the lumpenproletariat and most degenerate factions of the petite-bourgeois in the formation of the Ukrainian far-right. It's telling that many anarchists these days have created a personality cult around him which completely undermines their already bankrupt criticism of comrade Stalin. Go vandalize something kid, leave the revolution to the Marxists.

1. The Makhnovists were often fighting alongside the Bolsheviks. Why would they do this if he was right-wing?

2. Personality cult? You're an Hoxhaist, so you would know all about personality cults.

3. Kid? I'm 22!

[Comrade Krell]

1. The Makhnovists were often fighting alongside the Bolsheviks. Why would they do this if he was right-wing?
Opportunistic, he turned against them soon enough and executed captured Bolshevik revolutionaries, and indirectly worked for the White armies of counter-revolution.


2. Personality cult? You're an Hoxhaist, so you would know all about personality cults.
That shows how little you know, Hoxhaists are the least dogmatic and most opposed group to personality-ism I have known. We treat Marxism-Leninism as the living breathing science is truly is, 'Hoxhaism' is actually a term I disagree with somewhat because of the obvious connotations of a personality cult. 'Hoxhaism' just indicates the advancements of M-L by Stalin and Hoxha themselves and more generally their parties and countries in building socialism and the dictatorship of the working class. This mostly concerns Stalin's 'Foundations of Leninism', but in particular it was the advancement of the science of proletarial liberation and defense of it by modern revisionism - in the case of Stalin revisionism was Trotskyism, Zinovievism, Bukharinism etc, in the case of Hoxha it was Titoism, Eurocommunism, Khrushchevism etc.


3. Kid? I'm 22!
Good good, keep reading and you'll be a mature Marxist soon.

[RedAnarchist]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedAnarchist http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1136990#post1136990)
1. The Makhnovists were often fighting alongside the Bolsheviks. Why would they do this if he was right-wing?

Opportunistic, he turned against them soon enough and executed captured Bolshevik revolutionaries, and indirectly worked for the White armies of counter-revolution.

They soon turned against him whenever they could.



That shows how little you know, Hoxhaists are the least dogmatic and most opposed group to personality-ism I have known. We treat Marxism-Leninism as the living breathing science is truly is, 'Hoxhaism' is actually a term I disagree with somewhat because of the obvious connotations of a personality cult. 'Hoxhaism' just indicates the advancements of M-L by Stalin and Hoxha themselves and more generally their parties and countries in building socialism and the dictatorship of the working class. This mostly concerns Stalin's 'Foundations of Leninism', but in particular it was the advancement of the science of proletarial liberation and defense of it by modern revisionism - in the case of Stalin revisionism was Trotskyism, Zinovievism, Bukharinism etc, in the case of Hoxha it was Titoism, Eurocommunism, Khrushchevism etc.

That shows how little I know about Hoxhaism, yes, and I have no interest in learning about Hoxhaism.




Quote:
3. Kid? I'm 22!
Good good, keep reading and you'll be a mature Marxist soon.

No thanks. Besides, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to reject the state and then go back to accepting a state again wouldn't it?

[Comrade Krell]

They soon turned against him whenever they could.
Well that's what they should have suspected of course, the anarchists of course were always opposed to the working class.


That shows how little I know about Hoxhaism, yes, and I have no interest in learning about Hoxhaism.
By all means, don't let me shine any light in that box of yours.


No thanks. Besides, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to reject the state and then go back to accepting a state again wouldn't it?
Not really, nothing bad about finding out you are wrong. You can oppose the bourgeois state and thus fight for the working class, but to oppose the state entirely displays a lack of knowledge of the State as a result of class antagonism. And whether you mean to or not, you are working for the Ruling class bourgeoisie, fascism, anarchism and other such lumpenprole 'street movements' are the violent vanguard of the bourgeois state.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, many libertarians are in fact remarkably ignorant and believe all that crap about 'freedom' but are in fact themselves victims of the bourgeois cultural hegemony. You wouldn't be the first person used as a pawn by the bourgeois state.

[RedAnarchist]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedAnarchist http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1136999#post1136999)
They soon turned against him whenever they could.

Well that's what they should have suspected of course, the anarchists of course were always opposed to the working class.

Even though most well-known anarchists were working-class, as are most anarchists today? And its all very strange - I'm an anarchist and I'm working-class, and yet I'm opposed to the working-class?



Quote:
That shows how little I know about Hoxhaism, yes, and I have no interest in learning about Hoxhaism.
By all means, don't let me shine any light in that box of yours.

I just have no interest in it, thats all. If that upsets you, then you must value my opinion too much.


Quote:
No thanks. Besides, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to reject the state and then go back to accepting a state again wouldn't it?

Not really, nothing bad about finding out you are wrong. You can oppose the bourgeois state and thus fight for the working class, but to oppose the state entirely displays a lack of knowledge of the State as a result of class antagonism. And whether you mean to or not, you are working for the Ruling class bourgeoisie, fascism, anarchism and other such lumpenprole 'street movements' are the violent vanguard of the bourgeois state.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, many libertarians are in fact remarkably ignorant and believe all that crap about 'freedom' but are in fact themselves victims of the bourgeois cultural hegemony. You wouldn't be the first person used as a pawn by the bourgeois state.

I'm wrong am I? Oh no, if the great Comrade Krell thinks I'm wrong, then that must be true!:lol:

Anarchism is the total opposite of fascism, and has consistently fought against it, often alongside other Communists, sometimes by themselves.

We're all victims of the bourgeois cultural hegemony, unless you're a lifestylist, and then you're just deluding yourself.

[Red October]

Shame it doesn't show that gang of far-right fascists Makhnov led around raping and murdering.

This is utter bullshit of the worst kind. Of all the ML propaganda against Makhno, your accusations are the most absurd. Was the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine Perfect? Of course not. But they fought tenaciously against the Whites and eventually when the Bolsheviks betrayed them. You may disagree with their Anarchist ideas, but to call them "far-right fascists" is absolutely ridiculous.

[Forward Union]

akhno on the other hand was a hooligan

Hooligan. Emotive term void of objective meaning. I will ignore it.


supported by both the lumpenproletariat

Definition and then a source please.


and most degenerate factions of the petite-bourgeois

Like who? The Kulas? are the tankies still peddling that paper?


It's telling that many anarchists these days have created a personality cult around him which completely undermines their already bankrupt criticism of comrade Stalin.

Two things, most anarchists actually oppose Makhhno and the the later politics of Makhnos French group "workers cause" And furthermore, even platformists like myself don't exaclty criticise stalin for the personality cult, It's more to do with the stalinism bit.



Go vandalize something kid, leave the revolution to the Marxists


Thing is, I am an adult, don't be a patronising wanker or I'll just suspend you. You're more than welcome to propose criticisms of tha Makhnovist movement. But we prefer to keep debate constructive.

[Tower of Bebel]

The battle scene seems more like propaganda. To bad I don't know shit about the Ukraine back then.

You might also notice how backwards those peoples were. No way they could have survived, especially in a more decentralized society than Sovjet-Russia, without the help of the German revolution.

[razboz]

Thanks for the footage. If you poke around on the page you can find this whole documentary on Makhno that im sure could silence some of the sectarian trolling above.

[Andres Marcos]

Even though most well-known anarchists were working-classNot the ones, I know. Proudhon was a petty-bourgeois intellectual(and always defended petty-bourgeois property or property isnt property[according to Proudhon] if its put into use), kropotkin and bakunin were aristocrats and Francisco Ferrer was wed into money and Subcom Marcos was according to the mexican govt. a Maoist student in the 1960s. Thats nothing against them but its true, as for the Marxist-Leninists Hoxha, Marx, Engels, and Lenin were of priviledged backgrounds only Stalin was of working class origin.



as are most anarchists today?All of the anarchists I met were middle class teenagers, college kids, or lumpens not uneducated(and by that I mean no college or HS dropout) full time proletarians.


I'm an anarchist and I'm working-class, and yet I'm opposed to the working-class?I am an uneducated(no college) Marxist-Leninist worker(and yes actually a worker not some radicalized college elitist) and yet people smear my set of beliefs as ''Red Fascist", although yes objectively anarchism is anti-working class since it opposes the dictatorship of the proletariat and more pro-petty bourgeoisie just read some of Proudhon's writings or Marx's critiques of Proudhon in the Poverty of Philosophy the state is no friend to the petty-bourgeoisie the socialist state is no friend and neither is the capitalist state, so Proudhon dives into humanism:


"All things for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men worked to produce them in the measure of their strength, and since it is not possible to evaluate everyone's part in the production of the world's wealth... All is for all"
This is utter bullshit of the worst kind. Of all the ML propaganda against Makhno, your accusations are the most absurd. Was the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine Perfect? Of course not. But they fought tenaciously against the Whites and eventually when the Bolsheviks betrayed them.Really?...I was under impression that it was the Makhnovites who were the first ones to fire on the Bolsheviks by murdering Lithuanian officers in Ukraine as well as certain acts of sabotage and terrorism in Russian cities. Also there is an absurdity of the so-called success of the Ukranian anarchists, Makhno had said the grain production in the Ukraine had been successful in his Free territory despite things to the contrary like facts. There is no possible way grain production could have been successful even by merely abiding by anarchists principles after most of the land was pillaged by Germans before the war ended as well as simultaneously being in a civil war.


im sure could silence some of the sectarian trolling above.

Not related to the topic but what is sectarian about being opposed to anarchism? Anarchism(Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin etc.) has ALWAYS been against Marxism and Marxism against it. Marxism is a science and anarchism is objectively utopian. Anarchist mutalism appeals to petty-bourgeoisie not workers.

[razboz]

Not related to the topic but what is sectarian about being opposed to anarchism? Anarchism(Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin etc.) has ALWAYS been against Marxism and Marxism against it. Marxism is a science and anarchism is objectively utopian. Anarchist mutalism appeals to petty-bourgeoisie not workers.

None of your comments are "related to the topic"

The topic is "Original Makhnovist Footage", NOT "random attacks on people who dont think the same as us."

Your comments are sectarian because you are defending your particular sect of marxism-leninisnm by attacking anarchists (a creed that seems to bother you on a very personal level), accusing them of being less "holy" than you because they are less "proletarian" than you. The only reason you posted in this thread is so you could make cheap stabs at anarchists and flaunt how much more holier - proletarian - than anarchists you and your particular political ideal is.

to squabble like school-children and hawk your beleifs i suggest going over to theory. At least there it'll be topically relevant.

[thejambo1]

to get back to the main topic as per thread title. this is good footage altho the battle scenes do look like propaganda. still excellent stuff. as for the crap from various trolls i would just ignore it as they have only shown themselves up on this thread.

[Andres Marcos]

None of your comments are "related to the topic"

The topic is "Original Makhnovist Footage", NOT "random attacks on people who dont think the same as us."

Your comments are sectarian because you are defending your particular sect of marxism-leninisnm by attacking anarchists (a creed that seems to bother you on a very personal level), accusing them of being less "holy" than you because they are less "proletarian" than you. The only reason you posted in this thread is so you could make cheap stabs at anarchists and flaunt how much more holier - proletarian - than anarchists you and your particular political ideal is.

to squabble like school-children and hawk your beleifs i suggest going over to theory. At least there it'll be topically relevant.

I wonder how you got all that in my little comments, from what I read my comments were completely fine and were certainly not ''cheap stabs'' I said, anarchist mutualism is appealing to petty-bourgeoisie not non-propertied workers, is opposed equally to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as any class dictatorship and thus it is objectively petty-bourgeoisie not proletarian, it IS relevant to the topic. On the question of being sectarian when it comes to ideologies that are undermining prole power, as well as being opposed to dialectical materialism then yes I am a sectarian but that is stretching it as Marxism and anarchism are not even on the same plane since they negate each other, you are comparing apples and oranges or different species of the mammal family. secondly, religious analogies and condescension don't make your arguments more valid they just make you look pompous and an elitist. if my comments are not relevant to this topic then neither are Red Anarchists since I was responding to his comments and neither is Wat Tyler's post of ''You're more than welcome to propose criticisms of tha Makhnovist movement. But we prefer to keep debate constructive". IF you are offended by my criticisms then thats too bad. I stand by everything I said.

[razboz]

Look the fact is that wether agree with anarchist thought or not (you obviously dont but that's not the point) this not the thread to propose your criticism. i blame everyone who picked up your bait as much as you and anyone who comes into thread posted in history discussing and showing footage of the makhnovist revolutionaries (wether you think they are the very scum of the earth or not has nothing to do with it) and debate theory. there is a time and place for theoretical debate and that is not in a thread started simply to share footage of historical events.

I have no beef with anyone who wants to discus the footage shared by wat tyler. if you want to revive the age-old and ultimately sterile debate (flame war) between anarchists and marxist-leninist/stalinist/hoxhaist/etc do so in the appropriate thread in the appropriate forum.

Thank you for keeping the boards as orderly as possible so we can have a decent organised respectful debate, when sucha debate is appropriate and share information so we can all learn a bit more about the past and the present.

and that is all the time i will spend on that topic.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Good stuff. Any idea what the song is?

[gla22]

way to much sectarianism in this thread and forum. Marxists and Anarchists should be allies because our goals are similar in many ways. Let the squabbling begin once we have won.