Caj

"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."

That depends, they executed the oficers and commanders of captured armies, and ofered the soldiers a chance to join the army, if they didn't they would be released "in all four directions", they did execute counter-revolutionaries engaged in activity perjudicial to the Makhnovischina.

"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."

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.

"So, to summarize:
Critiques of USSR = Good
Critiques of Free Territory = Bad"

I accept the book Kontrrazvedka to be a good critique of the Makhnovischina, so there goes your argument.

"the Makhnovists weren't any less "authoritarian" than the Bolsheviks even though the former didn't really have de jure leaders."

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


"By this logic, capitalism is libertarian because, unlike previous modes of production, there exists no de jure ruling class."

There is a de jure state.

"Or maybe anarchist sources will be biased too. Ever thought about that?"

The book Kontrrazvedka was writen by an anarchist, and it is a non-biased critique.

"Or maybe Leninist sources will tell you how the Free Territory really was. Sure, Leninist sources may tend to be biased against the Makhnovists, but anarchist sources are bound to be just as biased in favor of them. "

The book Kontrrazvedka was writen by an anarchist, and it is a non-biased critique.

"And Lenin had no problem with anarchists. He wanted to have a state funeral for Kropotkin."

Realy, that must have been why he destroyed the Black guards in Moscow and declared war on the Makhnovischina after the latter helped the Reds in defeating the Whites.

He alowed Kropotkin's state funeral and let the anarchists march with anti-bolshevik messages, that was the last time they ever marched under the USSR.

"You've got to be fucking kidding me. . . . So you only accept historical accounts that confirm your beliefs?"

If you want me to read what Lenin writes about the Soviet Union he will only have good things to say, therefore it is not a critique.

The critiques I know are anarchist views ("it failed because of authoritarian state") and the left-communist views ("it failed because it wasn't international").

"Wonderful. So we've established that the Makhnovists were anything but "libertarian." They were, like the Bolsheviks, "authoritarian."".


Like I said before:

"So, even if true anarchism is not achived we still have a less authoritarian system since there are no de jure rulers, heads of state, and government."

There are many ways to interpret what authoritarian and libertarian mean, for me a libertarian system is one where the least amount of people are opressed, like in direct democracy.

"And, by the way, even most anarchist historians do accept that the Makhnovists were not as "libertarian" as they maintained. Even accounts of the Makhnovist movement written by anarchists openly admit that the Makhnovists carried out summary executions of counter-revolutionaries, for example."

I agree with this

"So you deny all well-documented, historical evidence against the supposed "libertarianism" of the Makhnovists on the grounds that the authors of such historical accounts weren't anarchists? That's fucking ridiculous."

A critic of a libertarian movement made by an authoritarian?
Don't left-comms admit the USSR was a failiure, then anarchists ahould also admit the Ukraine was a failure, I am indecised.

I actually wasn't so much "interested" in Bordiga specifically, but in the midst of a political transition back to marxism. Brosa Luxemburg was nice enough to offer up some suggestions to my reading list however. At the moment I think I will probably begin with a return to the basics (M&E) and eventually move onto Lenin, Kautsky, Trotsky, and Bordiga. I think from there I should have a fairly good idea where I stand ideologically.