Why would anarchists be the first ones to be killed?
Results 1 to 20 of 22
The Anarchist Black Army
I have been reading up on the Black Army (aka Makhnovchina) during the Russian civil war. I first heard of it a while ago whilst talking to a friend about the Anarchist Black Cross. I was interested in it largely because he is a wise source of infomation (he runs a book shop and has spent most of his life reading and traveling, he was there when the Berlin wall came down), and he was telling me how Trotsky was an enemy of the anarchists, and when Lenin came to power the first people to be killed were the Anarchists...
I have alot of anarchist writings, but nothing on the subject of this, and all i can find is one or two websites, on of them being wikipedia (which i tend not to trust 100%). Does anyone know any good books or websites with useful information on this?
Why would anarchists be the first ones to be killed?
Because they were anarchists... The Black Army fought the Red and White Russians.... as i said im not 100% clued up on the subject, i only no what i've talked about really, which is why i want to learn more.... The ones that werent killed, (their bodies dumped in a swamp in Ukraine, i beleive, correct me if im wrong) ended up in jail, which promted the Anarchist Black Cross to support them
Read this:
Alexandre Skirda: Nestor Makhno - Anarchy's Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine 1917-1921
Ak Press published it.
cheers mate, just found this site aswell
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/revukr.htm
seems pretty good so far,
It's ok site. Try to get this book I gave you. You can also check Nestor's writings. I quite admire him and to Russian/Ukrainian anarchists.
Yea i will do, i cant beleive i've never heard of him till recently. He was as much a revolutionary as Goldman or Berkman, if not more... from what im reading he seems like our Che Guevara... not that i particularly look up to leaders... but there ya go
He's definitely not like a Che Guevara.
We anarchist do not glorify famous anarchist in the way the "commies" do. Why? Because we don't follow the people, we follow the ideals.
Off course, Nestor was a great revolutionary and a organizer, but he couldn't make all that movement on his own. So If you want to talk about Ukraine it's peoples/proles revolution not Nestor's. That's why I don't like the fact that movement is called Makhnovchina.
I also hate when my fellow anarcho-syndicalists glorify Durruti. He was just a man dedicated to revolution.
You should check out Peter Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement and Voline, The Unknown Revolution. The second book doesnt deal exclusively with the Makhnovchina, but with the anarchists in Russia overall. It does however, include a section on Makhno (around 150-200 pages). Both Arshinov and Voline were part of the Makhnovchina and probably has a pretty good grasp of what was going on, the organizational problems they faced and so on. Ive only read Arshinovs book, and I can really recommend it. I think both of them can be found on AK Press.
Also, trying to determine who is more revolutionary is just silly. We all simply do what we can, under the circumstances we live in. Goldman tried to educate the workers and agitated tirelessly, which is just as revolutionary as leading an insurrectionary army against, well, pretty much everyone.
Can you cite some sources for this other than one of your friends. Everything I've read about "Lenin [i.e., the Russian workers] coming to power" would tend to suggest that it was supported by the vast majority of anarchists. While it is true that anarchists found it hard to work after about 1918, this was sometimes for legitimate reasons and I seriously doubt that many of them were "killed". Those who were were hardly "the first to go".
http://www.struggle.ws/rbr/rbr4_serge.html
The enemies within?
By 1920 opinions were rampant and divided about the Soviets. The Mensheviks were outright opponents, the Left Social-Revolutionaries first boycotted them and then collaborated with them. The anarchists were divided into pro-soviet and anti-soviet. Serge called all the people outside the party view of the time "dissidents of the revolution" who were "right on many points".[16] But the dissidents had a fundamental point which had to be admitted, which was above all the right of the people of Russia "for freedom of expression and the restoration of liberty in the soviets."[17] The Soviets of 1917 had been the workers' councils which had been composed of the workers and soldiers' delegates who wished to disband the bad old society and bring about the dawn of a new age of freedom for mankind. But with the suppression of all opposition to the viewpoints of the Bolsheviks, Serge writes "In practice they (the soviets) represented nothing but the local Party Committees."[18] The Party at this time had been practically invaded, according to Serge, by careerists, mercenary elements who came over in swarms to the side with power. Bureaucratisation was rampant. It comes as no surprise that the Party that would bring about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was now full of little dictators who "possessed no initiative".[19] After all, the nature of their politics was to have a small number of people making decisions for the majority.
The search for the enemies within was growing, mainly driven from the top (secretaries) downwards through the Party and exercised by the Cheka. Of the many anarchists in prison at this time, Lenin said they "were not true anarchists nor idealists - just bandits" and anyway "The State is a machine for which we are answerable and we cannot allow its operation to be frustrated."[20] By this stage, the Bolsheviks were determined that this revolution was theirs alone and anyone who held an alternative opinion was labeled against the party - and therefore against the revolution. Any opposition to the will of the party was seen as a threat as the Bolsheviks wrestled for a grip on the monopoly of power. They were hanging onto it by their fingertips and any threat was dealt with in a severe manner. As one party member wrote in an official trade union journal at the time 'Professional'ny Vestnik' "the destruction of newspapers, the annihilation of freedom of agitation for the socialist and democratic parties is inadmissable. The.....violence against strikers, etc. irritated open wounds. There has been too much of this type of memory of the Russian toiling masses and this can lead to an analogy deadly to the Soviet power."[21] The Bolsheviks were holding onto State power irrespective of costs, ideals or lives.
Anarchists were arrested en mass by the Cheka in November 1920, as they prepared for their congress. Serge speaks, at this time, of being horrified at witnessing the rigging of elections so that Lenin's and Zinoviev's 'majority' opinion would win. Lenin said the trade unions should organise autonomously from the state (an improvement from Trotsky's position which said they should be merged) but they must be subordinate to the Party. 'All power to the Party' would have been a much more accurate slogan at this time. Incidents happened all the time in factories. The Party was becoming less and less popular, and strikes were on the increase. This was in the November and December of 1920. The atmosphere was building towards a confrontation between the Party and those who were pro-revolution, but not pro the Bolshevik version they were being served. That confrontation would burst into the open at Kronstadt and Serge was one of the witnesses.
"I have seen capital come, like a vampire, to suck the last drop of blood of the unfortunate pariahs. Then I came back to France where it was reserved for me to see my family suffer atrociously. This was the last drop in the cup of my sorrow. Tired of leading this life of suffering and cowardice I carried this bomb to those who are primarily responsible for social misery". - Auguste Vaillant
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^|____
|Anarchism is comming | '|";,__.
|_..._....._____===|=_|__|....,]|
"(@)'(@)****|(@)*(@)***(@)
this might help
Nestor Makno Archive
Want to learn more? Cant find that book on Communist theory? Check out The Marxist Internet Archive
Ní Neart Go Cur Le Chéile
One revolutionary act a day can change the world
Formerly - Rise As One
a few points...
1
I never meant it like that, i compared him to Che, purely for convenience, not for any real political comparison.
2.
Yes, i can give you quotes from Trotsky that meant the anarchists were meant to go... and quotes from historical documents, and links aswell... And you are a communist, so you will stick to your communist guns... i am an anarchist, and i will stick to my anarchist guns, but anarchy is against the state, so when you have a functioning anarchist community in any state (especial far left or far right) the state is going to destroy it. But putting that aside for now, here are your quotes.
I no it isnt 100% proof of what i said, im still reading through alot of stuff, but here are some links (i no wiki aint the best, but it is easy to read and it is true)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Black_Cross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolut...rmy_of_Ukraine
http://www.nestormakhno.info/
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/revukr.htm
Help yourself to read through what i am
The Russian Anarchists by Paul Avrich
The Bolsheviks and the anarchists had an uneasy alliance in Russia, as is true of many revolutionary struggles. Its not true that the anarchists were the first to go, but once the Bolsheviks consolidated power and defeated the white armies during the civil war the anarchists were dealt with brutally. The Anarchist Black Cross, which was set up after the 1905 revolution (correct me if I'm wrong), was revived during this period in order to aid comrades who were being persecuted by the Bolshevik regime. Basically all of Russia's anarchist community was either imprisoned, executed or (if they were lucky) exiled. Obviously that excludes the traitors who 'converted' to Bolshevism after the October coup and took up posts in the government.
That's a good book....
Words like "assassination" and "execution" are pretty out of place when we are describing a military conflict, which is typically pursued through all violent means by both sides. I expect that Makhno as well "assassinated" Red Army soldiers... except since he was on the Right Side he was merely killing those bent on imposing Bolshevik domination on the Ukraine. Of course, Wikipedia isn't exactly being impartial as its proponents suggest it is here.
In any case I can provide sources demonstrating that the Makhno army was not based on the working class and was not carrying out a social revolution, and in some ways perhaps was not even "anarchist" looking at how it too resorted to hierarchy and even terror when it found it necessary. You may have read this article already but it's a pretty good starting place and you can follow up on a lot of the sources it cites. Furthermore fighting an insurgent army that has demonstrably risen up against you is a bit far afield from tracking down and murdering all the anarchists in Petrograd after the Winter Palace was seized, which was pretty much what you are suggesting
I would very much like to know exactly how many anarchists were killed by the Bolshevik government- and also why and where they were killed, and under whose authority- the Vee-Cheka, for instance, carried out a lot of executions of political opponents of Soviet power, but the current historical generation argues that it carried out many actions without the approval or even knowledge of the Soviet government. Furthermore you presuppose that this persecution did not have some good reason behind it- Victor Serge, one of your "traitors" for instance demonstrates in Year One of the Russian Revolution that the anarchist organizations were subject to penetration by Tsarists, other pro-Whites and common criminals, because of their refusal to stratify membership or even investigate claims of counter-revolutionary activity carried out in their name. This is something Trotsky talks about as well in his writings on the anarchist movement in Russia.
Most decent books on the Revolution will mention the cooperation of the Bolsheviks and anarchists in 1917; factory committees pop up in economic works; Makhno will get a mention in works concerned with the Civil War; etc. I'd advise you to start with such general histories (I can obviously provide suggestions if you want) before going into specifics. I'd also very strongly advise you not to read (at least not to begin with) specifically 'anarchist' or 'Marxist' works or first hand accounts written by the likes of Serge, Goldman, or Trotsky. These all have their uses, however limited, but are very much comprised by their ideological leanings
The idea that 'communists stick to communist history' while 'anarchists stick to anarchist history' is one that I reject entirely
A good work. Obviously very biased*, and dated, but Avrich is not blind to the failings of various anarchist policies. Even when he makes fundamental misinterpretations of Marxism (such as the belief that Lenin in 1917 had suddenly embraced syndicalism) it works when you consider that these were the opinions of anarchists at the time. Nonetheless he does temper this with historical hindsight (which you're not going to get from Arshinov or Voline) and, as always, I'd advise people to read the historians first and participants later
A good test is that while Avrich is certainly not as critical as he could be, he does not give credit to the likes of the nonsense that has plagued some posts this thread. For example, his sketch of the breakdown in anarchist/Bolshevik relations (and particularly the role of continuing anarchist violence in this) is somewhat brief but still rubbishes the idea that anarchists were "the first people to be killed". Like I said, by no means an impartial work (it should definitely be read as part of a balanced diet) but worth reading
AFAIK he doesn't devote much space to Makhno though, placing him in the wider context of Russian anarchism, so if the Insurrectionary Army is your primary focus then you may want to look elsewhere
*A particular gripe would be the constant overstating of anarchist influence while being somewhat coy about their numbers. Its not until the very end of the book that he admits that it was never a mass movement. His characterisation of the factory committees as inherently syndicalist bodies is also very unconvincing and has been directly contradicted by more recent works
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
I hesitate to post this since it would also be biased in a direction opposed to many of the anarchists here, but still it is relevant to the topic and may be informational in some way. If you are interested in a Marxist point of view on Makhno, then go to marxist.com and search for makhno. The title of the article is 'Who was Makhno and what did he stand for?'. Sorry, I can't yet post a link on these forums.
Get this. Jurko recommended it to me and I bought it. It is really good.
"Direct Action is a notion of such clarity, of such self-evident transparency, that merely to speak the words defines and explains them. It means that the working class, in constant rebellion against the existing state of affairs, expects nothing from outside people, powers or forces, but rather creates its own conditions of struggle and looks to itself for its means of action. It means that, against the existing society which recognises only the citizen, rises the producer. And that that producer, having grasped that any social grouping models itself upon its system of production, intends to attack directly the capitalist mode of production in order to transform it, by eliminating the employer and thereby achieving sovereignty in the workshop – the essential condition for the enjoyment of real freedom.” Emile Pouget
