Not the black army as a whole, but several generals in it were involved in progroms. Makhno straight up shot one of his lieutenants for it.
By the way, you do realise that the notion that the Black Army was involved in pogroms is a complete fabrication right?
It doesn't make sense to support the crushing of Kronstadt either, so you should be banned.
But they were not, in fact, defending the socialist revolution, because they were killing those who were responsible for the revolution. None of the people supposedly being "fascist saboteurs," were actually guilty. They were very often officials elected in the soviets at the point of the revolution. It doesn't matter what contemporary idealistic views on the purges were. Unless you think the U.S.S.R. was a socialist state which was threatened by old bolsheviks turned fascist terrorists, it doesn't make sense to support the purges.
so you're justifying violence to defend what you perceive a socialist revolution, then why wouldn't Stalinists have the right to justify violence (purges) to defend what they perceive as a socialist revolution?
I might of been ranting, but I don't really think it was ironic.
"They killed the white army and anybody who opposed the workers revolution, including Makhno and the sailors at Kronstadt, who more or less were going to let the white army invade through the bay they were supposed to be guarding. Makhno killed tons of people as well, including his second in command, who led pogroms. Thus Makhno is an authoritarian by your logic. The anarcho syndicallists in spain also killed tons of people. So what's your point?" Was this somewhat ironic?
