TheRedAnarchist23

"Disobediency is diferent from oposition, the Kontrrazvedka only executed oposition."

As I remarked earlier, the Makhnovists instituted their own laws in the regions they controlled. Disobedience to these laws was considered an act of opposition, for which there were consequences, including execution. It wasn't just outright opponents of the regime that were executed.

"No, a state can be completely independent of classes, like demonstrated with fascism, nazism and some monarchies."

States are never independent of classes. A fascist state is a bourgeois state and thus serves the purpose of perpetuating the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Monarchies were feudal states that maintained the class supremacy of the landlords.

(Continued):

"You mean the Bolshevik dictatorship, they were defending a state, not a class, they were state police , not proletariat police, since they only did the biding of the state."

A state is an organ of class rule, not an entity independent of classes. In this case, it was a proletarian state, i.e., an organ for proletarian class rule. The Cheka were the secret police for the proletarian state. By defending the state, the Cheka were defending the class rule of the proletariat.

"'The people' is one of my ways of saying proletariat, its like 'the workers'."

If that's how you define "the people," then no, the Black Guards were not defending "the people."

"Can you ask someone to voluntarily execute himself."

That was kind of my point. The Free Territory was not a voluntarist society. There wasn't a choice to either obey the Makhnovists or not. If you chose not to do so, there would be consequences, including execution.

"Now seriously, it did operate on the basis of voluntarism, although in the last days of the Makhnovischina they used a kind of conscription."

Again, not a voluntarist society for obvious reasons stated hitherto.

Conscription was implemented quite early on when conditions necessitated such a policy. In addition to conscription, Makhno also had all top military posts appointed personally, a policy never adopted by the Reds. Although the Black Army (like the Red Army) operated initially on the basis of elected leaders, this was quickly changed when conditions necessitated it.

"They were defending the people from opression."

The Cheka were defending the proletarian dictatorship. By attacking the Cheka, the Black Guards were attacking the proletariat as a class. And who the fuck are "the people"?

"A de jure has been legalized, which means that all persons must obey without question, since there was no de jure givernment the people had the choice to obey or not, after all it was an anarchist regime."

Uh, no. You just admitted that the Makhnovists carried out executions. Obviously the Free Territory did not operate on the basis of voluntarism.

"Well, since all anarchists are socialists it is unbiased. (yep I used your arguments against you)"

And you failed.

"You mean revolutionary actions, the Bolsheviks were the ones who doomed the revolution, they were the real counter-revolutionaries.

If that was true then why did he destroy the Black guards in Moscow, they were not affiliated with the Makhnovischina."

The Black Guards were eventually affiliated with the Black Army. The Black Guards in Moscow were attacking the Cheka.

"Hell yes they were, the Bolsheviks pusued and executed people with diferent tendencies, the Makhnovischina only executed the commanders and officers."

No, the Bolsheviks executed counter-revolutionaries. As did the Makhnovists, and it wasn't limited to just commanders and officers. The Makhnovists esetablished their own laws violation of which often resulted in execution.

"There is a de jure state."

Now proceed to explain to me how a de jure state is more "authoritarian" than a de facto state such as that of the Makhnovists.

Do you only accept historical accounts written by anarchists?