~corti-nico/ubuntu/vivid/anarchism/fix1426015 : revision 5

1

<html>

2

<head>

3

<title>Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?</title>

4

</head>

5

<H1>Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?

6

</H1>

7

8

The key Leninist defence of the actions of the Bolsheviks in the

9

Russian revolution is that they had no other choice. Complaints

10

against the Bolshevik attacks on the gains of the revolution and

11

the pro-revolutionary Left in Russia are met with a mantra

12

involving the white terror, the primitive state of Russia and

13

the reactionary peasantry, the invading imperialist armies (although

14

the actual number can, and does, vary depending on who you are

15

talking to) and other such "forces of nature" which we are to believe

16

could only be met by a centralised authoritarian regime that would

17

flinch at nothing in order to survive.

18

19

However, this is not the case. This is for three reasons.

20

21

Firstly, there is the slight problem that many of the attacks

22

on the revolution (disbanding soviets, undermining the factory

23

committees, repressing socialists and anarchists, and so on)

24

started before the start of the civil war. As such, its

25

difficult to blame the degeneration of the revolution on

26

an event which had yet to happen (see <a href="append43.html#app3">

27

section 3</a> of the appendix <a href="append43.html">

28

"What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?"</a> for

29

details).

30

31

Secondly, Leninists like to portray their ideology as "realistic,"

32

that it recognises the problems facing a revolution and can

33

provide the necessary solutions. Some even claim, flying in the

34

face of the facts, that anarchists think the ruling class will

35

just "disappear" (see

36

<a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>

37

) or that we think "full-blown"

38

communism will appear "overnight" (see

39

<a href="secH2.html#sech25">section H.2.5</a>). Only

40

Bolshevism, it is claimed, recognises that civil war is inevitable

41

during a revolution and only it provides the necessary solution,

42

namely a "workers state." Lenin himself argued that "[n]ot a

43

single great revolution in history has escaped civil war. No one

44

who does not live in a shell could imagine that civil war is

45

conceivable without exceptionally complicated circumstances."

46

[Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, p. 81] As such, its

47

incredulous that modern day followers of Lenin blame the

48

degeneration of the Russian Revolution on the very factors

49

(civil war and exceptional circumstances) that they claim to

50

recognise an inevitable!

51

52

Thirdly, and even more embarrassingly for the Leninists, numerous

53

examples exist both from revolutionary Russia at the time and from

54

earlier and later revolutions that suggest far from Bolshevik

55

tactics being the most efficient way of defending the revolution

56

other methods existed which looked to the massive creative energies

57

of the working masses unleashed by the revolution.

58

59

During the Russian Revolution the biggest example of this is

60

found in South-Eastern Ukraine. For much of the Civil War

61

this area operated without a centralised state apparatus of the

62

Bolshevik type and was, instead, based on the anarchist idea of

63

Free Soviets. There "the insurgents raised the black flag of

64

anarchism and set forth on the anti-authoritarian road of the

65

free organisation of the workers." [Arshinov, The History of

66

the Makhnovist Movement, p. 50] The space in which this

67

happened was created by a partisan force that instead of

68

using the "efficiency" of executions for desertion, tsarist

69

officers appointed over the rank and file soldiers' wishes

70

and saluting so loved by the Bolsheviks instead operated as

71

a volunteer army with elected officers and voluntary discipline.

72

This movement was the Makhnovists, named after its leader, the

73

Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno. The Black Flag which floated

74

over the lead wagon of the Insurgent Army was inscribed with the

75

slogans "Liberty or Death" and

76

"The Land to the Peasants, the

77

Factories to the Workers." These slogans summarised what the

78

Makhnovist were fighting for -- a libertarian socialist society.

79

At its height in the autumn of 1919, the Maknovists numbered

80

around 40,000 and its extended area of influence corresponded

81

to nearly one third of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, comprising

82

a population of over seven million.

83

84

It is this that explains the importance of the Makhnovists. As

85

historian Christopher Reed notes, the "Bolsheviks' main claim to

86

legitimacy rested on the argument that they were the only ones

87

capable of preventing a similar disaster [counter-revolution]

88

for the workers and peasants of Russia and that their harsh

89

methods were necessary in the face of a ruthless and unrelenting

90

enemy." However, Reed argues that "the Makhno movement in the

91

Ukraine suggests that there was more than one way to fight against

92

the counter-revolution." [From Tsar to Soviets, pp. 258-9] This

93

is why the Makhnovist movement is so important, why it shows that

94

there was, and is, an alternative to the ideas of Bolshevism. Here

95

we have a mass movement operating in the same "exceptional

96

circumstances" as the Bolsheviks which did not implement the

97

same policies. Indeed, rather than suppress soviet, workplace

98

and military democracy in favour of centralised, top-down party

99

power and modify their political line to justify their

100

implementation of party dictatorship, the Makhnovists did all

101

they could to implement and encourage working-class self-government.

102

103

As such, it is difficult to blame the development of Bolshevik

104

policies towards state-capitalist and party-dictatorship directions

105

on the problems caused during the revolution when the Makhnovists,

106

facing similar conditions, did all they could to protect working-

107

class autonomy and freedom. Indeed, it could be argued that the

108

problems facing the Makhnovists were greater in many ways. The

109

Ukraine probably saw more fighting in the Russian Civil War

110

then any other area. Unlike the Bolsheviks, the Makhnovists lost

111

the centre of their movement and had to re-liberate it. To do so

112

they fought the Austrian and German armies, Ukrainian Nationalists,

113

Bolsheviks and the White Armies of Denikin and then Wrangel. There

114

were smaller skirmishes involving Cossacks returning to the Don and

115

independent "Green" bands. The anarchists fought all these various

116

armies over the four years their movement was in existence. This

117

war was not only bloody but saw constant shifts of fronts, advances

118

and retreats and changes from near conventional war to mobile

119

partisan war. The consequences of this was that no area of the

120

territory was a safe "rear" area for any period of time and so

121

little constructive activity was possible.

122

<a href="append46.html#app4">Section 4</a>

123

presents a summary of the military campaigns of these years.

124

A brief idea of the depth of fighting in these years can be

125

seen by considering the town at the centre of the Makhnovists,

126

Hulyai Pole which changed hands no less then 16 times in the

127

period from 1917-1921.

128

129

Clearly, in terms of conflict (and the resulting disruption

130

caused by it), the Makhnovists did not have the relative peace

131

the Bolsheviks had (who never once lost their main bases of

132

Petrograd or Moscow, although they came close). As such, the

133

problems used to justify the repressive and dictatorial

134

policies of the Bolsheviks also apply to the Makhnovists.

135

Despite this, the activity of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine

136

demonstrated that an alternative to the supposedly necessary

137

methods of the Bolsheviks did exist. Where the Bolsheviks

138

suppressed freedom of speech, assembly and press, the Makhnovists

139

encouraged it. Where the Bolsheviks turned the soviets into

140

mere cyphers of their government and undermined soviet power,

141

the Makhnovists encouraged working-class participation and

142

free soviets. As we discuss in

143

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,

144

the Makhnovists

145

applied their ideas of working class self-management whenever

146

and wherever they could.

147

148

Sadly, the Makhnovist movement is a relatively unknown event

149

during the revolution. There are few non-anarchist accounts of

150

it and the few histories which do mention it often simply slander

151

it. However, as the Cohn-Bendit brothers correctly argue, the

152

movement, "better perhaps than any other movement, shows that

153

the Russian Revolution could have been a great liberating force."

154

Equally, the reason why it has been almost totally ignored (or

155

slandered, when mentioned) by Stalinist and Trotskyist writers

156

is simple: "It shows the Bolsheviks stifling workers and peasants

157

with lies and calumnies, and then crushing them in a bloody massacre."

158

[Daniel and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing

159

Alternative, p. 200]

160

161

This section of our FAQ will indicate the nature and history of this

162

important social movement. As we will prove, "the Makhnovshchina . . .

163

was a true popular movement of peasants and workers, and . . . its

164

essential goal was to establish the freedom of workers by means of

165

revolutionary self-activity on the part of the masses." [Arshinov,

166

The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 209] They achieved this

167

goal in extremely difficult circumstances and resisted all attempts

168

to limit the freedom of the working class, no matter where it came

169

from. As Makhno himself once noted:

170

171

"Our practice in the Ukraine showed clearly that the peasant problem

172

had very different solutions from those imposed by Bolshevism. If our

173

experience had spread to the rest of Russia, a pernicious division

174

between country and city would not have been created. Years of

175

famine would have been avoided and useless struggles between

176

peasant and workers. And what is more important, the revolution

177

would have grown and developed along very different lines . . .

178

We were all fighters and workers. The popular assembly made the

179

decisions. In military life it was the War Committee composed of

180

delegates of all the guerrilla detachments which acted. To sum up,

181

everyone took part in the collective work, to prevent the birth

182

of a managing class which would monopolise power. And we were

183

successful. Because we had succeeded and gave lie to Bolshevik

184

bureaucratic practices, Trotsky, betraying the treaty between

185

the Ukraine and the Bolshevik authorities, sent the Red Army to

186

fight us. Bolshevism triumphed militarily over the Ukraine

187

and at Kronstadt, but revolutionary history will acclaim us one

188

day and condemn the victors as counter-revolutionary grave-diggers

189

of the Russian Revolution." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The

190

People Armed, p. 88-9]

191

</blockquote>

192

Two distinct aspects of the anarchist movement existed in the

193

Ukraine at this time, a political and non-military structure

194

called the Nabat (Alarm) federation which operated through the

195

soviets and collectives and a military command structure usually

196

known after is commander Nestor Makhno as the Makhnovshchina

197

(which means the "Makhno movement") although its proper name was

198

the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine. This section

199

of the FAQ will cover both, although the Makhnovshchina will be

200

the main focus.

201

202

For more information on the Makhnovist movement, consult the

203

following books. Anarchist accounts of the movement can be

204

found in Peter Arshinov's excellent The History of the

205

Makhnovist Movement and Voline's The Unknown Revolution

206

(Voline's work is based on extensive quotes from Arshinov's

207

work, but does contain useful additional material). For

208

non-anarchist accounts, Michael Malet's Nestor Makhno in

209

the Russian Revolution is essential reading as it contains

210

useful information on both the history of the movement, its

211

social basis and political ideas. Malet considers his work as

212

a supplement to Michael Palij's The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno,

213

1918-1921 which is primarily a military account of the movement

214

but which does cover some of its social and political aspects.

215

Unfortunately, both books are rare. Paul Avrich's The Russian

216

Anarchists contains a short account of the movement and his

217

Anarchist Portraits has a chapter on Nestor Makhno. Makhnovist

218

source material is included in Avrich's The Anarchists in the

219

Russian Revolution. Daniel Guerin includes a section on Makhno

220

and the Makhnovist Movement in volume 2 of No Gods, No Masters.

221

As well as extracts from Arshinov's book, it has various

222

manifestos from the movement as well as Makhno's account of

223

his meeting with Lenin. Christopher Read's From Tsar to

224

Soviets has an excellent section on the Makhnovists. Serge

225

Cipko presents an excellent overview of works on the Makhnovists

226

in his "Nestor Makhno: A Mini-Historiography of the Anarchist

227

Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1921" (The Raven, no. 13).

228

Alexander Skirda presents an overview of perestroika soviet

229

accounts of Makhno in his essay "The Rehabilitation of

230

Makhno" (The Raven, no. 8). Skirda's biography Nestor

231

Makhno: Le Cosaque de l'anarchie is by far the best account

232

of the movement available.

233

234

Lastly, a few words on names. There is a large variation on the

235

spelling of names within the source material. For example,

236

Makhno's home town has been translated as Gulyai Pole, Gulyai

237

Polye Huliai-Pole and Hulyai Pole. Similarly, with other place

238

names. The bandit Grigor'ev has been also translated as Hryhor'iv

239

and Hryhoriyiv. We generally take Michael Malet's translations

240

of names as a basis (i.e. we use Hulyai Pole and Hryhoriyiv,

241

for example).

242

243

<a name="app1"><h2>1 Who was Nestor Makhno?</h2>

244

245

The Makhnovist movement was named after Nestor Makhno, a

246

Ukrainian anarchist who played a key role in the movement

247

from the start. Indeed, Makhnoshchina literally means "Makhno

248

movement" and his name is forever linked with the revolution

249

in the South-East of the Ukraine. So who was Makhno?

250

251

Nestor Ivanovich Makhno was born on the 27th of October, 1889

252

in Hulyai Pole, which is situated in Katerynoslav province,

253

in the south east of the Ukraine between the Dnieper River

254

and the Sea of Azov. While it seems to be conventional for

255

many historians to call Hulyai Pole a "village," it was in

256

fact a town with a population of about 30,000 and boasted

257

several factories and schools.

258

259

Makhno was the son of a poor peasant family. His father died

260

when he was ten months old, leaving him and his four brothers

261

in the care of their mother. Due to the extreme poverty of

262

his family, he had to start work as a shepherd at the age

263

of seven. At eight he started to attend the Second Hulyai

264

Pole primary school in winter and worked for local landlords

265

during the summer. He left school when he was twelve and

266

took up full-time employment as a farmhand on the estates

267

of nobles and on the farms of the German colonist kulaks.

268

At the age of seventeen, he started to work in Hulyai Pole

269

itself, first as an apprentice painter, then as an unskilled

270

worker in a local iron foundry and, finally, as a founder in

271

the same establishment.

272

273

It was when he was working in the iron foundry that he became

274

involved in revolutionary politics. In the stormy years following

275

the 1905 revolution, Makhno got involved in revolutionary

276

politics. This decision was based on his experiences of injustice

277

at work and seeing the terror of the Russian regime during the

278

1905 events (in Hulyai Pole there had been no serious disorder,

279

yet the regime sent a detachment of mounted police to suppress

280

gatherings and meetings in the town, terrorising the population

281

by whipping those caught in the streets and beating prisoners

282

with rifle butts). In 1906, Makhno decided to join the anarchist

283

group in Hulyai Pole (which had been formed the previous year

284

and consisted mainly of sons of poorer peasants).

285

286

At the end of 1906 and in 1907, Makhno was arrested and accused of

287

political assassinations, but was released due to lack of evidence.

288

In 1908, due to the denunciation of a police spy within the

289

anarchist group, he was arrested and put in jail. In March, 1910,

290

Makhno and thirteen others were tried by a military court and

291

sentenced to death by hanging. Due to his youth and the efforts

292

of his mother, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment

293

with hard labour. He served his time at the Butyrki prison in

294

Moscow, resisting the prison authorities by every means available

295

to him. Due to this resistance, he spent much of his time in

296

chains or in damp and freezing confinement. This experience

297

ensured that Makhno developed an intense hatred of prisons

298

(later, during the revolution, his first act in entering a

299

town or city was to release all prisoners and destroy the

300

prison).

301

302

It was during his time in Butykri that Makhno met Peter Arshinov,

303

a fellow anarchist prisoner and later activist and historian of

304

the Makhnovist movement. Arshinov was born in 1887 in the Ukrainian

305

industrial town of Katerinoslav. His father was a factory worker

306

and he was a metal worker. Originally a Bolshevik, he had become

307

an anarchist in 1906, taking a leading part in organising factory

308

workers and actions against the regime. In 1907 he was arrested

309

and sentenced to death, escaping to Western Europe. In 1909, he

310

returned to Russia and was again arrested and again escaped. In

311

1910, he was arrested and placed in the Butykri prison where he

312

met Makhno. The two anarchists established a close personal and

313

political friendship, with Arshinov helping Makhno develop and

314

deepen his anarchist ideas.

315

316

On March 2nd, 1917, after eight years and eight months in prison,

317

Makhno was released along with all other political prisoners as

318

a result of the February Revolution. After spending three weeks

319

in Moscow with the Moscow anarchists, Makhno returned to Hulyai

320

Pole. As the only political prisoner who was returned to his

321

family by the revolution, Makhno became very well-respected

322

in his home town. After years of imprisonment, suffering but

323

learning, Makhno was no longer an inexperienced young activist,

324

but a tested anarchist militant with both a powerful will and

325

strong ideas about social conflict and revolutionary politics.

326

Ideas which he immediately set about applying.

327

328

Once home in Hulyai Pole, Makhno immediately devoted himself

329

to revolutionary work. Unsurprisingly, the remaining members

330

of the anarchist group, as well as many peasants, came to

331

visit him. After discussing ideas with them, Makhno proposed

332

beginning organisational work immediately in order to strengthen

333

links between the peasants in Hulyai Pole and its region with

334

the anarchist group. On March 28-29, a Peasant Union was

335

created with Makhno as its chairman. Subsequently, he organised

336

similar unions in other villages and towns in the area. Makhno

337

also played a large part in a successful strike by wood and

338

metal workers at a factory owned by his old boss (this defeat

339

led to the other bosses capitulating to the workers as well).

340

At the same time, peasants refused to pay their rent to the

341

landlords. [Michael Malet, Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil

342

War, p. 4] Regional assemblies of peasants were called, both

343

at Hulyai Pole and elsewhere, and on August 5-7, the provincial

344

congress at Katerinoslav decided to reorganise the Peasant Unions

345

into Soviets of Peasants' and Workers' Deputies.

346

347

In this way, "Makhno and his associates brought socio-political

348

issues into the daily life of the people, who in turn supported

349

his efforts, hoping to expedite the expropriation of large

350

estates." [Michael Palij, The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno,

351

p. 71] In Hulyai Pole, the revolution was moving faster than

352

elsewhere (for example, while the Aleksandrovsk soviet supported

353

the actions of the Provisional Government during the July days

354

in Petrograd, a meeting in Hulyai Pole saluted the rebellious

355

soldiers and workers). Peasants were drawn to Hulyai Pole for

356

advice and help from the neighbouring volosts (administrative

357

districts). The peasantry wanted to seize the land of the large

358

landowners and the kulaks (rich peasants). Makhno presented this

359

demand at the first sessions of the regional Soviet, which were

360

held in Hulyai Pole. In August, Makhno called all the local

361

landlords and rich peasants (kulaks) together and all documents

362

concerning ownership (of land, livestock and equipment) were

363

taken from them. An inventory of this property was taken and

364

reported to the session of the local soviet and then at a

365

regional meeting. It was agreed that all land, livestock and

366

equipment was to be divided equally, the division to include

367

the former owners. This was the core of the agrarian program

368

of the movement, namely the liquidation of the property of the

369

landowners and kulaks. No-one could own more land than they

370

could work with their own labour. All this was in flat defiance

371

to the Provisional Government which was insisting that all such

372

questions be left to the Constituent Assembly. Free communes

373

were also created on ex-landlord estates.

374

375

Unsurprisingly, the implementation of these decisions was

376

delayed because of the opposition of the landlords and

377

kulaks, who organised themselves and appealed to the

378

provisional authorities. When General Kornilov tried

379

to march on Petrograd and take power, the Hulyai Pole soviet

380

took the initiative and formed a local "Committee for the

381

Salvation of the Revolution" headed by Makhno. The real

382

aim was to disarm the potential local enemy -- the landlords,

383

bourgeoisie, and kulaks -- as well as to expropriate their

384

ownership of the people's wealth: the land, factories, plants,

385

printing shops, theatres and so on. On 25 September a volost

386

congress of Soviets and peasant organisations in Hulyai Pole

387

proclaimed the confiscation of the landowners' land and its

388

transformation into social property. Raids on the estates of

389

landlords and rich peasants, including German colonists,

390

began and the expropriation of the expropriators began.

391

392

Makhno's activities came to a halt the following spring when

393

Lenin's government signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This

394

treaty gave sizeable parts of the Russian Empire, including

395

the Ukraine, to Germany and Austria in return for peace. The

396

Treaty also saw the invasion of the Ukraine by large numbers

397

of German and Austrian troops, who conquered the entire

398

country in less than three months. Makhno succeeded in forming

399

several military units, consisting of 1700 men, but could

400

not stop Hulyai Pole being taken. After an anarchist congress

401

at the end of April in Taganrog, it was decided to organise

402

small combat units of five to ten peasants and workers, to

403

collect arms from the enemy and to prepare for a general peasant

404

uprising against the Austro-German troops and, finally, to

405

send a small group to Soviet Russia to see at first hand what

406

was happening there to both the revolution and to the anarchists

407

under Bolshevik rule. Makhno was part of that group.

408

409

By June, Makhno had arrived in Moscow. He immediately visited

410

a number of Russian anarchists (including his old friend Peter

411

Arshinov). The anarchist movement in Moscow was cowed, due to

412

a Cheka raid in April which broke the backbone of the movement,

413

so ending a political threat to the Bolsheviks from the left.

414

To Makhno, coming from an area where freedom of speech and

415

organisation was taken for granted, the low level of activity

416

came as a shock. He regarded Moscow as the capital of the

417

"paper revolution," whose red tape and meaninglessness had

418

affected even the anarchists. Makhno also visited Peter

419

Kropotkin, asking his advice on revolutionary work and the

420

situation in the Ukraine. To Makhno, "Moscow appeared as

421

'the capital of the Paper Revolution,' a vast factory turning

422

out empty resolutions and slogans while one political party,

423

by means of force and fraud, elevated itself into the position

424

of a ruling class." [David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 252]

425

426

While in Moscow, Makhno met with Lenin. This meeting came

427

about by chance. Visiting the Kremlin to obtain a permit

428

for free board and lodging, he met the chairman of the

429

All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets,

430

Jakov M. Sverdlov, who arranged for Makhno to meet Lenin.

431

Lenin asked Makhno, "How did the peasants of your region

432

understand the slogan ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS IN THE

433

VILLAGES?" Makhno states that Lenin "was astonished" at

434

his reply:

435

436

"The peasants understood this slogan in their own way.

437

According to their interpretation, all power, in all

438

areas of life, must be identified with the consciousness

439

and will of the working people. The peasants understand

440

that the soviets of workers and peasants of village, country

441

and district are neither more nor less than the means of

442

revolutionary organisation and economic self-management of

443

working people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and

444

its lackeys, the Right socialists and their coalition

445

government."

446

</blockquote>

447

To this Lenin replied: "Well, then, the peasants of your region

448

are infected with anarchism!" [Nestor Makhno, My Visit to the

449

Kremlin, p. 18] Later in the interview, Lenin stated: "Do the

450

anarchists ever recognise their lack of realism in present-day

451

life? Why, they don't even think of it." Makhno replied:

452

453

"But I must tell you, comrade Lenin, that your assertion that

454

the anarchists don't understand 'the present' realistically,

455

that they have no real connection with it and so forth, is

456

fundamentally mistaken. The anarchist-communists in the

457

Ukraine . . . the anarchist-communists, I say, have already

458

given many proofs that they are firmly planted in 'the present.'

459

The whole struggle of the revolutionary Ukrainian countryside

460

against the Central Rada has been carried out under the

461

ideological guidance of the anarchist-communists and also

462

in part by the Socialist Revolutionaries . . . Your Bolsheviks

463

have scarcely any presence in our villages. Where they have

464

penetrated, their influence is minimal. Almost all the communes

465

or peasant associations in the Ukraine were formed at the

466

instigation of the anarchist-communists. The armed struggle

467

of the working people against the counter-revolution in

468

general and the Austro-German invasion in particular has

469

been undertaken with the ideological and organic guidance

470

of the anarchist-communists exclusively.

471

472

"Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us

473

credit for all this, but these are the facts and you can't

474

dispute them. You know perfectly well, I assume, the

475

effective force and the fighting capacity of the free,

476

revolutionary forces of the Ukraine. It is not without

477

reason that you have evoked the courage with which they

478

have heroically defended the common revolutionary conquests.

479

Among them, at least one half have fought under the anarchist

480

banner. . .

481

482

"All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging

483

that we, the anarchist-communists, don't have our feet on the

484

ground, that our attitude towards 'the present' is deplorable

485

and that we are too fond of dreaming about the future. What I

486

have said to you in the course of this interview cannot be

487

questioned because it is the truth. The account which I have

488

made to you contradicts the conclusions you expressed about

489

us. Everyone can see we are firmly planted in 'the present,'

490

that we are working and searching for the means to bring about

491

the future we desire, and that we are in fact dealing very

492

seriously with this problem."

493

</blockquote>

494

Lenin replied: "Perhaps I am mistaken." [Makhno, Op. Cit.,

495

pp. 24-5]

496

497

The Bolsheviks helped Makhno to return to the Ukraine. The

498

trip was accomplished with great difficulty. Once Makhno

499

was almost killed. He was arrested by Austro-German troops

500

and was carrying libertarian pamphlets at the time. A

501

Jewish inhabitant of Hulyai Pole, who had know Makhno

502

for some time, succeeded in saving him by paying a

503

considerable sum of money for his liberation. Once back

504

in Hulyai-Pole, he started to organise resistance to the

505

occupying forces of the Austro-Germans and their puppet regime

506

led by Hetman Skoropadsky. With the resistance, the Makhno

507

movement can be said to have arisen (see

508

<a href="append46.html#app3">section 3</a>

509

on way it was named after Makhno). From July 1918 to

510

August 1921, Makhno led the struggle for working class

511

freedom against all oppressors, whether Bolshevik, White

512

or Nationalist. During the course of this struggle, he

513

proved himself to be "a guerrilla leader of quite outstanding

514

ability." [David Footman, Civil War in Russia, p. 245] The

515

military history of this movement is discussed in

516

<a href="append46.html#app4">section 4</a>,

517

while other aspects of the movement are discussed

518

in other sections.

519

520

After the defeat of the Makhnovist movement in 1921, Makhno

521

was exiled in Western Europe. In 1925 he ended up in Paris,

522

where he lived for the rest of his life. While there, he

523

remained active in the anarchist movement, with the pen

524

replacing the sabre (to use Alexander Skirda's colourful

525

expression). Makhno contributed articles to various

526

anarchist journals and in particular to Delo Truda,

527

an anarchist-communist paper started in Paris by Peter

528

Arshinov (many of these articles have been published

529

in the book The Struggle Against the State and Other

530

Essays). He remained active in the anarchist movement

531

to the end.

532

533

In Paris, Makhno met the famous Spanish anarchists

534

Buenaventura Durruti and Francisco Ascaso in 1927. He

535

argued that in Spain "conditions for a revolution with

536

a strong anarchist content are better than in Russia"

537

because not only was there "a proletariat and a peasantry

538

with a revolutionary tradition whose political maturity

539

is shown in its reactions," the Spanish anarchists had

540

"a sense of organisation which we lacked in Russia. It is

541

organisation which assures the success in depth of all

542

revolutions." Makhno recounted the activities of the

543

Hulyai Pole anarchist group and the events in revolutionary

544

Ukraine:

545

546

"Our agrarian commune was at once the economic and political

547

vital centre of our social system. These communities were

548

not based on individual egoism but rested on principles of

549

communal, local and regional solidarity. In the same way

550

that the members of a community felt solidarity among

551

themselves, the communities were federated with each

552

other . . . It is said against our system that in the

553

Ukraine, that it was able to last because it was based

554

only on peasant foundations. It isn't true. Our communities

555

were mixed, agricultural-industrial, and, even, some of them

556

were only industrial. We were all fighters and workers. The

557

popular assembly made the decisions. In military life

558

it was the War Committee composed of delegates of all the

559

guerrilla detachments which acted. To sum up, everyone

560

took part in the collective work, to prevent the birth

561

of a managing class which would monopolise power. And we

562

were successful." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People

563

Armed, p. 88-9]

564

</blockquote>

565

As can be seen from the social revolution in Aragon, Durruti

566

took Makhno's advice seriously (see

567

<a href="secI8.html">section I.8</a> for more

568

on the Spanish Revolution). Unsurprisingly, in 1936 a number

569

of veterans of Makhno's Insurgent Army went to fight in the

570

Durruti column. Sadly, Makhno's death in 1934 prevented his

571

own concluding statement to the two Spaniards: "Makhno has

572

never refused to fight. If I am alive when you start your

573

struggle, I will be with you." [quoted by Paz, Op. Cit.,

574

p. 90]

575

576

Makhno's most famous activity in exile was his association

577

with, and defence of, the Organisational Platform of

578

the Libertarian Communists (known as the "Platform").

579

As discussed in

580

<a href="secJ3.html#secj33">section J.3.3</a>,

581

the Platform was an attempt

582

to analyse what had gone wrong in the Russian Revolution

583

and suggested a much tighter anarchist organisation in

584

future. This idea provoked intense debate after its

585

publication, with the majority of anarchists rejecting

586

it (for Makhno's discussion with Malatesta on this issue,

587

see The Anarchist Revolution published by Freedom Press).

588

This debate often resulted in bitter polemics and left Makhno

589

somewhat isolated as some of his friends, like Voline,

590

opposed the Platform. However, he remained an anarchist

591

to his death in 1934.

592

593

Makhno died on the morning of July 25th and was cremated three

594

days later and his ashes placed in an urn within Pere Lachaise,

595

the cemetery of the Paris Commune. Five hundred Russian, French,

596

Spanish and Italian comrades attended the funeral, at which the

597

French anarchist Benar and Voline spoke (Voline used the occasion

598

to refute Bolshevik allegations of anti-Semitism). Makhno's wife,

599

Halyna, was too overcome to speak.

600

601

So ended the life of one great fighters for working-class freedom.

602

Little wonder Durruti's words to Makhno:

603

604

"We have come to salute you, the symbol of all those revolutionaries

605

who struggled for the realisation of Anarchist ideas in Russia.

606

We also come to pay our respects to the rich experience of the

607

Ukraine." [quoted by Abel Paz, Op. Cit., p. 88]

608

</blockquote>

609

For fuller details of Makhno's life, see the accounts by Peter

610

Arshinov (The History of the Makhnovist Movement), Paul Avrich

611

("Nestor Makhno: The Man and the Myth," in Anarchist Portraits),

612

Michael Palij, (The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno) and Michael Malet

613

(Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution).

614

615

<a name="app2"><h2>2 Why was the movement named after Makhno?</h2>

616

617

Officially, the Makhnovist movement was called the Revolutionary

618

Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine. In practice, it was usually

619

called the "Makhno movement" ("Makhnovshchina"

620

in Russian) or the

621

Makhnovists. Unsurprisingly, Trotsky placed great significance on

622

this:

623

624

"The anti-popular character of the Makhno movement is most clearly

625

revealed in the fact that the army of Hulyai Pole is actually

626

called 'Makhno's Army'. There, armed men are united not around a

627

programme, not around an ideological banner, but around a man."

628

[The Makhno Movement]

629

</blockquote>

630

Ignoring the irony of a self-proclaimed Marxist (and later

631

Leninist and founder of Trotskyism!) making such a comment,

632

we can only indicate why the Makhnovists called themselves

633

by that name:

634

635

"Because, first, in the terrible days of reaction in the

636

Ukraine, we saw in our ranks an unfailing friend and leader,

637

MAKHNO, whose voice of protest against any kind of coercion

638

of the working people rang out in all the Ukraine, calling

639

for a battle against all oppressors, pillagers and political

640

charlatans who betray us; and who is now marching together

641

with us in our common ranks unwavering toward the final

642

goal: liberation of the working people from any kind of

643

oppression." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 272]

644

</blockquote>

645

The two of the anarchists who took part in the movement

646

and later wrote its history concur. Voline argues that

647

the reason why the movement was known as the "Makhnovist

648

movement" was because the "most important role in this

649

work of unification [of the peasant masses] and in the

650

general development of the revolutionary insurrection in

651

the southern Ukraine was performed by the detachment of

652

partisans guided by a peasant native to the region:

653

Nestor Makhno." [The Unknown Revolution, p. 551]

654

"From the first days of the movement," Arshinov notes,

655

"up to its culminating point, when the peasants vanquished

656

the landowners, Makhno played a preponderant and central

657

role to such an extent that the whole insurgent region

658

and the most heroic moments of the struggle are linked

659

to his name. Later, when the insurrection had triumphed

660

completely over the Skoropadsky counter-revolution and

661

the region was threatened by Denikin, Makhno became the

662

rallying point for millions of peasants in several regions."

663

[Op. Cit., p. 50]

664

665

It must be stressed that Nestor Mahkno was not the boss of

666

the Mahknovista. He was not their ruler or general. As such,

667

the fact that the Makhnovists were (unofficially) named after

668

Makhno does not imply that it was his personal fiefdom, nor

669

that those involved followed him as an individual. Rather,

670

the movement was named after him because he was universally

671

respected within it as a leading militant. This fact also

672

explains why Makhno was nicknamed "Batko" (see

673

<a href="append46.html#app3">next section</a>).

674

675

This can be seen from how the movement was organised and was

676

run. As we discuss in <a href="append46.html#app5">section 5</a>,

677

it was organised in a

678

fundamentally democratic way, by means of mass assemblies

679

of insurgents, elected officers, regular insurgent, peasant

680

and worker congresses and an elected "Revolutionary Military

681

Soviet." The driving force in the Makhnovist movement was not,

682

therefore, Makhno but rather the anarchist ideas of

683

self-management. As Trotsky himself was aware, the

684

Makhnovists were influenced by anarchist ideas:

685

686

"Makhno and his companions-in-arms are not non-party people

687

at all. They are all of the Anarchist persuasion, and send

688

out circulars and letters summoning Anarchists to Hulyai Pole

689

so as to organise their own Anarchist power there." [Trotsky,

690

Op. Cit.]

691

</blockquote>

692

As part of this support for anarchist theory, the Makhnovists

693

organised insurgent, peasant and worker conferences to discuss

694

key issues in the revolution and the activities of the Makhno

695

movement itself. Three such conferences had been before Trotsky

696

wrote his diatribe The Makhno Movement on June 2nd, 1919. A

697

fourth one was called for June 15th, which Trotsky promptly

698

banned (on pain of death) on June 4th (see

699

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a> for

700

full details). Unlike the Bolshevik dictatorship, the Makhnovists

701

took every possibility of ensuring the participation of the working

702

people they were fighting for in the revolution. The calling

703

of congresses by the Makhnovists shows clearly that the movement

704

did not, as Trotsky asserted, follow a man, but rather ideas.

705

706

As Voline argued, "the movement would have existed without

707

Makhno, since the living forces, the living masses who

708

created and developed the movement, and who brought Makhno

709

forward merely as their talented military leader, would

710

have existed without Makhno." Ultimately, the term

711

"Makhnovshchina" is used "to describe a unique, completely

712

original and independent revolutionary movement of the working

713

class which gradually becomes conscious of itself and steps

714

out on the broad arena of historical activity." ["preface,"

715

Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 19]

716

717

<a name="app3"><h2>3 Why was Makhno called "Batko"?</h2>

718

719

Nestor Makhno was often called in the movement "Batko",

720

which is Ukrainian for "father." Peter Arshinov explains

721

how and in what circumstances Makhno was given this

722

name:

723

724

"It was . . . in September 1918, that Makhno received

725

the nickname Batko -- general leader of the revolutionary

726

insurrection in the Ukraine. This took place in the

727

following circumstances. Local pomeshchiks [landed gentry]

728

in the major centres, the kulaks [rich peasants], and

729

the German authorities [the Ukraine being occupied by them

730

at the time], decided to eliminate Makhno and his

731

detachment [of partisans] at any cost. The pomeshchiks

732

created a special volunteer detachment consisting of their

733

own sons and those of kulaks for the decisive struggle

734

against Makhno. On the 30th of September this detachment,

735

with the help of the Austro-Germans, corned Makhno in the

736

region of Bol'shaya Mihhailovka, setting up strong military

737

posts on all roads. At this time Makhno found himself with

738

only 30 partisans and one machine gun. He was forced to

739

make a fighting retreat, manoeuvring in the midst of

740

numerous enemy forces. Arriving in the forest of Dibrivki,

741

Makhno found himself in an extremely difficult situation.

742

The paths of retreat were occupied by the enemy. It was

743

impossible for the detachment to break through, and

744

escaping individually was beneath their revolutionary

745

dignity. No-one in the detachment would agree to abandon

746

their leader so as to save himself. After some reflection,

747

two days later, Makhno decided to return to the village

748

of Bol'shaya Mikhailovka (Dibrivki). Leaving the forest

749

the partisans met peasants who came to warn them that

750

there were large enemy forces in Dibrivki and that they

751

should make haste to go elsewhere. This information did

752

not stop Makhno and his partisans . . . [and] they set

753

out for Bol'shaya Mikhailovka. They approached the village

754

guardedly. Makhno himself and a few of his comrades went

755

on reconnaissance and saw a large enemy camp on the

756

church square, dozens of machine guns, hundreds of

757

saddle horses, and groups of cavalry. Peasants informed

758

them that a battalion of Austrians and a special

759

pomeshchik detachment were in the village. Retreat

760

was impossible. Then Makhno, with his usual stubbornness

761

and determination, said to his companions: 'Well, my

762

friends! We should all be ready to die on this spot . . .'

763

The movement was ominous, the men were firm and full of

764

enthusiasm. All 30 saw only one path before them -- the

765

path toward the enemy, who had about a thousand well-armed

766

men, and they all realised that this meant certain death

767

for them. All were moved, but none lost courage.

768

769

"It was at this movement that one of the partisans, Shchus',

770

turned to Makhno and said:

771

772

"'From now on you will be Batko to all of us, and we

773

vow to die with you in the ranks of the insurgents.'

774

775

"Then the whole detachment swore never to abandon the

776

insurgent ranks, and to consider Makhno the general

777

Batko of the entire revolutionary insurrection. Then

778

they prepared to attack. Shchus' with five to seven

779

men was assigned to attack the flank of the enemy.

780

Makhno with the others attacked from the front. With

781

a ferocious 'Hurrah!' the partisans threw themselves

782

headlong against the enemy, smiting the very centre

783

with sabres, rifles and revolvers. The attack had a

784

shattering effect. The enemy, who were expecting nothing

785

of the kind, were bowled over and began to flee in panic,

786

saving themselves in groups and individually, abandoning

787

arms, machine guns and horses. Without leaving them

788

time to come to themselves, to become aware of the

789

number of attacking forces, and to pass to a

790

counter-attack, the insurgents chased them in separate

791

groups, cutting them down in full gallop. A part of

792

the pomeshchik detachment fled to the Volchya River,

793

where they were drowned by peasants who had joined

794

the battle. The enemy's defeat was complete.

795

796

"Local peasants and detachments of revolutionary insurgents

797

came from all directions to triumphantly acclaim the heroes.

798

They unanimously agreed to consider Makhno as Batko of

799

the entire revolutionary insurrection in the Urkaine."

800

[Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 59-60]

801

</blockquote>

802

This was how Makhno acquired the nickname "Batko," which

803

stuck to him thereafter.

804

805

It should be stressed that "Batko" was a nickname and

806

did not signify any form of autocratic or hierarchical

807

position within the movement:

808

809

"During the civil war, it signified the leadership and control

810

of a specific area and its population in both civil and

811

military fields. The central point of the use of the word,

812

rather than 'leader' or 'dictator' is that the leadership

813

is usually based on respect, as in Makhno's case, and

814

always on intimate knowledge of the home territory."

815

[Michael Malet, Op. Cit., p. 17]

816

</blockquote>

817

That this was a nickname can be seen from the fact that

818

"[a]fter 1920 he was usually called 'Malyi' ('Shorty'),

819

a nickname referring to his short stature, which was

820

introduced by chance by one of the insurgents." [Peter

821

Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 226] To attach significance to

822

the fact that the peasants called Makhno "Batko" (as

823

the Bolsheviks did) simply signifies an ignorance of

824

the Makhnovist movement and its social environment.

825

826

<a name="app4"><h2>4 Can you give a short overview of the Makhnovist movement?</h2>

827

828

This section of the FAQ gives a short overview of the Makhnovists

829

from July 1918 (when Makhno returned to the Ukraine) and August

830

1921, when it was finally defeated by Bolshevik armed force.

831

It will be primarily a military history, with the socio-political

832

aspects of the movement discussed in sections

833

<a href="append46.html#app6">6</a> (its theory)

834

and

835

<a href="append46.html#app7">7</a> (its practice). For details of the rise of influence

836

of Makhno after his release from prison in 1917, see

837

<a href="append46.html#app1">section 1</a>.

838

839

The history of the Makhno movement can be broken up into

840

roughly four periods -- from July 1918 to February 1919, then

841

the rest of 1919, then January to October 1920 and, finally,

842

from October 1920 to August 1921. This section will give an

843

overview of each period in turn.

844

845

By the time Makhno arrived back in the Ukraine in July, 1918,

846

opposition to the German-backed Hetman's regime was mounting and

847

was frequently met with brutal repression, including reprisal

848

executions. Makhno was forced to live underground and on the

849

move, secretly meeting with others, with the Austrians always

850

close behind. Voline recounts Makhno's activities at this

851

time:

852

853

"Back in Hulyai Pole, Makhno came to the decision to die or

854

obtain victory for the peasants . . . He did not delay starting

855

his mission openly among the great masses of peasants,

856

speaking at improvised meetings, writing and distributing

857

letters and tracts. By pen and mouth, he called on the peasants

858

for a decisive struggle against the power of Skoropadsky and

859

the landlords. He declared tirelessly that the workers should

860

now take their fates into their own hands and not let their

861

freedom to act be taken from them . . .

862

863

"Besides his appeals, Makhno proceeded immediately to direct

864

action. His first concern was to form a revolutionary military

865

unit, sufficiently strong to guarantee freedom of propaganda

866

and action in the villages and towns and at the same time

867

to begin guerrilla operations. This unit was quickly organised

868

.. . .

869

870

"His first unit undertook two urgent tasks, namely, pursuing

871

energetically the work of propaganda and organisation among

872

the peasants and carrying out a stubborn armed struggle against

873

all their enemies. The guiding principle of this merciless

874

struggle was as follows. No lord who persecuted the peasants,

875

no policeman of the Hetman, no Russian or German officer who

876

was an implacable enemy of the peasants, deserved any pity;

877

he must be destroyed. All who participated in the oppression

878

of the poor peasants and workers, all who sought to suppress

879

their rights, to exploit their labour, should be executed.

880

881

"Within two or three weeks, the unit had already become the

882

terror, not only of the local bourgeoisie, but also of the

883

Austro-German authorities." [The Unknown Revolution, p. 558]

884

</blockquote>

885

The night of 26 September saw Hulyai Pole briefly liberated

886

from Hetman and Austrian troops by the actions of Makhno's

887

troops in association with local people. On the retreat

888

from this Makhno's small band grew when he met the partisan

889

troops headed by Schus. When the Austrians cornered them,

890

they launched a surprise counter attack and routed the

891

opposition. This became known as the battle of Dibrivki

892

and it is from this date, 5 October 1918 that Makhno is

893

given the nickname 'Batko', meaning "father" (see

894

<a href="append46.html#app3">section 3</a>

895

for details). For the next two months already-

896

existing partisan groups sought out and joined the growing

897

army.

898

899

In this period, Makhno, with portable printing equipment, was

900

raiding the occupying garrisons and troop trains in the

901

Southern Ukraine. Normal practice was to execute the

902

officers and free the troops. In this period the moral of

903

the occupying troops had crumbled and revolutionary propaganda

904

had made inroads into many units. This was also affecting the

905

nationalist troops and on 20 November the first nationalist

906

unit defected to the Makhnovists. This encouraged them to

907

return to Hulyai Pole on 27 December and there the

908

insurrectionary Staff was formed, this body was to lead the

909

army in the coming years and consisted initially of four old

910

and trusted friends and three political comrades. The Makhnovist

911

presence allowed the setting up of a local soviet and the

912

re-opening of the anarchist clubs. German forces started

913

pulling back to the major cities and on December 14 the

914

Hetman fled Kiyiv. In the resulting vacuum, the Makhnovists

915

rapidly expanded taking in most of the South East Ukraine

916

and setting up fronts against local whites. The Ukrainian

917

nationalists had taken power in the rest of the Ukraine under

918

Petliura and on the 15th December the Makhnovists agreed to

919

make common cause with them against the Whites. In return

920

for arms and ammunition they allowed the nationalists to

921

mobilise in the Makhnovist area (while engaging in propaganda

922

directed at the mobilised troops on their way by train to

923

Katerynoslav).

924

925

This was a temporary and pragmatic arrangement directed against

926

the greater enemy of the Whites. However, the nationalists were

927

no friends of working-class autonomy. The nationalists banned

928

elections to the Katerynoslav soviet on 6th of December and the

929

provincial soviet at Kharkiv meet with a similar fate on the 22nd.

930

[Malet, Op. Cit., p. 22] At the same time as their agreement

931

with the nationalists, the Makhnovista had set up links with

932

Bolshevik partisans to the south and before dawn on the 26th

933

the Bolshevik and Makhnovista forces launched a joint attack

934

on the nationalists at Katerynoslav. The city was taken but

935

held only briefly when a nationalist attack on the 29th drove

936

out all the insurgent forces with heavy losses. In the south,

937

White reinforcements led to the insurgents being pushed North

938

and losing Hulyai Pole.

939

940

1919 opened with the Makhnovists organising a congress of front-

941

unit delegates to discuss the progress of the struggle. Over

942

forty delegates attended and a committee of five was elected,

943

along with an operational staff to take charge of the southern

944

front and its rear. It was agreed that local soviets were to

945

be supported in every way, with no military violence directed

946

towards them permitted. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 25]

947

948

By the end of January, white reinforcements were landing in the

949

ports of the south. On January 22nd, a worker, peasant and insurgent

950

congress was held at Velyka Mykhailivka. A resolution was passed

951

urging an end to conflict between Makhnovists, Nationalists and

952

Bolsheviks. An alliance was signed between the Makhnovists and

953

the Bolsheviks in early February. This agreement ensured that

954

the Partisan units entered the Red Army as distinct formations,

955

with their internal organisation (including the election of

956

commanders) intact, and the Red Army in the area formed a brigade

957

to be known as "the third Transdnieper Batko Makhno brigade" with

958

Makhno as commander. The Whites were repulsed and Hulyai Pole

959

retaken and the front pushed some distance eastwards.

960

961

Thus the military situation had improved by the time of the

962

second worker, peasant and insurgent congress held at Hulyai

963

Pole on February 12th. This congress set up a "Revolutionary

964

Military Soviet" to co-ordinate civilian affairs and execute

965

its decisions. The congress resolved that "the land belongs

966

to nobody" and should be cultivated without the use of hired

967

labour. It also accepted a resolution opposing anti-Jewish

968

pogroms. Also passed was a resolution which sharply attacked

969

the Bolsheviks, caused by their behaviour since their arrival

970

in the Ukraine. [Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 154-5] A report by the

971

commander of the 2nd Red Army, Skatchco, indicates the nature

972

of this behaviour:

973

974

"Little local Chekas are undertaking a relentless campaign

975

against the Makhnovists, even when they are shedding their

976

blood at the front. They are hunting them down from the rear

977

and persecuting them solely for belonging to the Makhnovist

978

movement . . . It cannot continue like this: the activity of

979

the local Chekas is deliberately ruining the front, reducing

980

all military successes to nothing, and contributing to the

981

creation of a counter-revolution that neither Denikin nor

982

Krasnov [Hetman of the Don Cossacks] could have achieved. . ."

983

[quoted by Alexander Skirda, The Rehabilitation of Makhno,

984

p. 346]

985

</blockquote>

986

Unsurprisingly, the peasants reacted strongly to the

987

Bolshevik regime. Their "agricultural policy and terrorism"

988

ensured that "by the middle of 1919, all peasants, rich and

989

poor, distrusted the Bolsheviks." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 156]

990

In April alone, there were 93 separate armed rebellions

991

against the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine. The "more oppressive

992

the Bolshevik policy, the more the peasants supported Makhno.

993

Consequently, the Bolsheviks began to organise more

994

systematically against the Makhno movement, both as an

995

ideology and as a social movement." [Palij, Op. Cit.,

996

p. 157]

997

998

In mid-March the Red Army attacked eastwards. In the course of

999

this Dybenko, commander of the Trandneiper division, recommended

1000

one of Makhno's commanders for a medal. Then the Makhnovists

1001

attacked the Donbas (east) to relieve the pressure on the Soviet

1002

8th Army caused by a White advance. They took Mariupol following

1003

a White incursion at the beginning of April. A White

1004

counter-offensive resulted in the Red 9th division panicking,

1005

allowing the Whites into Makhno's rear. Red Commander Dybenko

1006

refused orders to come to the Makhnovists aid as he was more

1007

interested in the Crimea (south). [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 31]

1008

1009

This period saw the most sustained freedom for the region around

1010

Hulyai Pole. It had been free of enemy occupation since January,

1011

allowing constructive activity to restart. The inhabitants of

1012

the free region "created new forms of social organisation:

1013

free workers' communes and Soviets." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 574]

1014

The Revolutionary Military Soviet (RMS) called a third

1015

regional worker, peasant and insurgent congresses had on

1016

April 10th to review progress and to look forward. This

1017

was the largest congress to date, with delegates from 72

1018

volosts containing two million people. The Bolshevik military

1019

commander Dybenko tried to ban it. The Makhnovists, needless

1020

to say, ignored him and the RMS made a famous reply to his

1021

arrogance (see <a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>

1022

for more details).

1023

1024

It was during this period (late 1918 and early 1919), that

1025

the Nabat anarchist federation was organised. "Anarchist

1026

influence was reported from Aleksandrovsk and other centres,"

1027

notes David Footman, "Anarchists were holding a conference

1028

in Kursk at about the same time and in one of their resolutions

1029

it was stated that 'the Ukrainian Revolution will have great

1030

chances of rapidly becoming Anarchist in its ideas.' The

1031

position called for renewed Bolshevik measures against

1032

the Anarchists. Nabat, the main Anarchist newspaper in the

1033

Ukraine, was suppressed, and its editorial board dispersed

1034

under threat of arrest." [Op. Cit., p. 270] Daniel Guerin

1035

has reproduced two documents from the Nabat federation in

1036

volume II of his No Gods, No Masters.

1037

1038

The anarchist influence in and around Hulyai Pole also worried

1039

the Bolsheviks. They started a slander campaign against the

1040

Makhnovists, to the alarm of Antonov, the overall front commander,

1041

who replied in response to an article in Kharkiv Izvestiya:

1042

1043

"The article is the most perverted fiction and does not in

1044

the least correspond to the existing situation. The insurgents

1045

fighting the whites are on a level with the Red Army men, but

1046

are in a far worse condition for supplies." [quoted by Malet,

1047

Op. Cit., p. 33]

1048

</blockquote>

1049

In a postscript, Antonov added that the press campaign had

1050

certainly helped turn Makhno anti-Soviet (i.e. anti-Bolshevik,

1051

as Makhno supported free soviets).

1052

1053

At the beginning of May, another partisan commander,

1054

Hryhoriyiv, revolted against the Bolsheviks in the

1055

central Ukraine. Hryhoriyiv, like the Makhnovists, had

1056

joined with the Bolsheviks when they had re-entered the

1057

Ukraine, however his social and political background was

1058

totally different. Hryhoriyiv was a former Tsarist officer,

1059

who had commanded numerous troops under the Petliurist

1060

authority and joined the Bolsheviks once that that regime's

1061

armed forces had disintegrated. Arshinov notes that he had

1062

"never been a revolutionary" and that there had been a

1063

"great deal of adventurism in his joining the ranks of

1064

the Petliurists and then the ranks of the Red Army." His

1065

temperament was mixed, consisting of "a certain amount

1066

of sympathy for oppressed peasants, authoritarianism,

1067

the extravagance of a Cossack chieftain, nationalist

1068

sentiments and anti-Semitism." [Op. Cit., p. 110]

1069

1070

Hryhoriyov started his revolt by issuing a Universal, or

1071

declaration to the Ukrainian people, which contained a

1072

virulent attack on the Bolsheviks as well as one explicit

1073

anti-Semitic reference, but without mention of Makhno.

1074

The height of the revolt was his appearance in the

1075

suburbs of Katerynoslav, which he was stopped from

1076

taking. He started a pogrom in Yelyzavethrad which

1077

claimed three thousand victims.

1078

1079

Once the Makhnovists had been informed of this rebellion,

1080

an enlarged staff and RMS meeting was held. A telegram was

1081

sent to the soldiers at the front urging them to hold the

1082

front and another to the Bolsheviks with a similar message.

1083

A few days latter, when more information had been received,

1084

a proclamation was issued against Hyyhoriyiv attacking him

1085

for seeking to impose a new authority on the working class,

1086

for encouraging toiling people to attack each other, and

1087

for inciting pogroms. [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 112 and

1088

pp. 114-7]

1089

1090

While it took a fortnight for Red forces to contain Hryhoriyiv

1091

without trouble, this involved using all available reverses

1092

of all three Ukrainian armies. This left none for Makhno's

1093

hard-pressed forces at the front. In addition, Dybenko withdrew

1094

a front-line regiment from Makhno for use against the revolt

1095

and diverted reinforcements from the Crimea which were

1096

intended for Makhno. Despite this Makhnos forces (now numbering

1097

20,000) were ordered to resume the attack on the whites. This

1098

was due to "unremitting pressure from Moscow to take Taganrog

1099

and Rostov." [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 36] The Makhnovist advance

1100

stopped due to the non-fulfilment of an urgent order for

1101

ammunition.

1102

1103

On the 19th of May, a White counter-attack not only stopped

1104

the advance of the Red Army, it forced the 9th division

1105

(and then the Makhnovists) to retreat. On the 29th, the Whites

1106

launched a further offensive against the northern Donblas,

1107

opening a gap between the 13th and 8th Red Armies. Due

1108

to the gravity of the situation, the RSV summoned a

1109

fourth congress for June 15th. Trotsky not only banned

1110

this congress but took the lead in slandering the

1111

Makhnovists and calling for their elimination (see

1112

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>

1113

for details). As well as "this deliberately

1114

false agitational campaign, the [Bolshevik] blockade of

1115

the region was carried to the limit . . . The provisioning

1116

of shells, cartridges and other indispensable equipment

1117

which was used by daily at the front, ceased completely."

1118

[Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 118] Palij confirms this, noting

1119

that "the supplies of arms and other war material to

1120

Makhno was stopped, thus weakening the Makhno forces

1121

vis-a-vis the Denikin troops." [Op. Cit., p. 175] David

1122

Footman also notes that the Bolshevik "hold-back of supplies

1123

for the Insurgents developed into a blockade of the area.

1124

Makhnovite units at the front ran short of ammunition."

1125

He also mentions that "[i]n the latter part of May the

1126

Cheka sent over two agents to assassinate Makhno."

1127

[Civil War in Russia, p. 271]

1128

1129

Needless to say, Trotsky blamed this White success to the

1130

Makhnovists, arguing it was retreating constantly before

1131

even the slightest attack by the Whites. However, this was

1132

not the case. Analysing these events in July 1919, Antonov

1133

(the commander of the Southern Front before Trotsky replaced

1134

him) wrote:

1135

1136

"Above all, the facts witness that the affirmations about the

1137

weakness of the most contaminated region -- that from Hulyai

1138

Pole to Berdiansk -- are without foundation . . . It is not

1139

because we ourselves have been better organised militarily,

1140

but because those troops were directly defending their native

1141

place . . . Makhno stayed at the front, in spite of the flight

1142

of the neighbouring 9th division, following by the whole of

1143

the 13th army . . . The reasons for the defeat on the

1144

southern front do not rest at all in the existence of

1145

'Ukrainian partisans' . . . above all it must be attributed

1146

to the machinery of the southern front, in not keeping its

1147

fighting spirit and reinforcing its revolutionary discipline."

1148

[quoted by Alexander Skirda, The Rehabilitation of Makhno,

1149

p. 348]

1150

</blockquote>

1151

This, incidentally, tallies with Arshinov's account that

1152

"hordes of Cossacks had overrun the region, not through

1153

the insurrectionary front but from the left flank where

1154

the Red Army was stationed." [Op. Cit., p. 126]

1155

For what it is worth, General Denikin himself concurs with this

1156

account of events, noting that by the 4th of June his

1157

forces "repulsed the routed and demoralised contingents

1158

of the Eight and Thirteenth Soviet Armies . . . The

1159

resistance of the Thirteenth Army being completely

1160

broken." He notes that an attempt by the Fourteenth

1161

Army (which Makhno's troops were part of) to attack on

1162

the flank came to nothing. He only mentions Makhno when

1163

he recounts that "General Shkuro's division routed Makhno

1164

at Hulyai Pole." [The White Armies, p. 272] With

1165

Whites broken through on their flank and with limited

1166

ammunition and other supplies (thanks to the Bolsheviks),

1167

the Makhnovists had no choice but to retreat.

1168

1169

It was around this time that Trotsky, in a public meeting

1170

in Kharkov, "announced that it were better to permit the

1171

Whites to remain in the Ukraine than to suffer Makhno. The

1172

presence of the Whites, he said, would influence the Ukrainian

1173

peasantry in favour of the Soviet Government, whereas Makhno

1174

and his povstantsi, would never make peace with the

1175

Bolsheviki; they would attempt to possess themselves of

1176

some territory and to practise their ideas, which would be

1177

a constant menace to the Communist Government." [Emma Goldman,

1178

My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 63]

1179

1180

Due to this Bolshevik betrayal, the Makhnovist sector was

1181

in very grave danger. At Hulyai Pole, a peasant regiment

1182

was scraped together in 24 hours in an attempt to save the

1183

town. It encountered White Cossacks ten miles away from

1184

the town and was mown down. The Whites entered Hulyai

1185

Pole the next day (June 6th) and gave it a good going over.

1186

On the same day, the Bolsheviks issued an order for Makhno's

1187

arrest. Makhno was warned and put in his resignation, arguing

1188

that it was "an inviolable right of the workers and peasants,

1189

a right won by the revolution, to call congresses on their

1190

own account, to discuss their affairs." Combined with the

1191

"hostile attitude" of the Bolshevik authorities towards him,

1192

which would lead "unavoidably to the creation of a special

1193

internal front," Makhno believed it was his duty to do

1194

what he could to avert it, and so he left his post. [quoted

1195

by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 129] While Makhno escaped, his

1196

staff was not so lucky. Five of them were arrested the

1197

same day and shot as a result of Trotsky's order to ban

1198

the fourth congress.

1199

1200

Leaving his troops in the frontline, Makhno left with a small

1201

cavalry detachment. While leaving the rest under Red command,

1202

Makhno made a secret agreement with his regimental

1203

commanders to await a message from him to leave the Red

1204

Army and join up against with the partisans. On the 9th and

1205

10th of June, Hulyai Pole was retaken by Bolshevik forces,

1206

who took the opportunity to attack and sack the Makhnovist

1207

communes. [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 86f]

1208

1209

After intense fighting, the Whites finally split the Southern

1210

Front into three on June 21st. Needless to say, Trotsky and

1211

the Bolsheviks blamed this on the partisan forces (even

1212

stating that they had "opened the front" to the

1213

Whites). This was nonsense, as noted above.

1214

1215

After leaving the front, Makhno took refuge in the

1216

Chorno-Znamenski forest before continuing the retreat north

1217

and skirmishing with Red Army units. This brought him into

1218

the territory held by Hryhoriyiv and this, in turn, meant

1219

they had to proceed carefully. While the Makhnovists had

1220

made a public denunciation of Hryhoriyiv, Makhno was

1221

approaching the centre of Hryhoriyov's remaining influence.

1222

Surrounded by enemies, Makhno had little choice but to

1223

begin discussions with Hryhoriyiv. This was problematic

1224

to say the least. Hryhoriyiv's revolt had been tinged with

1225

anti-Semitism and had seen at least one major pogrom. Being

1226

faced with Hryhoriyov's anti-Semitism and his proposal for

1227

an alliance with the Whites against the Reds led the

1228

Makhnovists to plot his downfall at a meeting planned

1229

for the 27th July.

1230

1231

This meeting had originally been called to discuss the

1232

current tasks of the insurgents in the Ukraine and was

1233

attended by nearly 20,000 insurgents and local peasants.

1234

Hryhoriyiv spoke first, arguing that the most urgent

1235

task was to chase out the Bolsheviks and that they

1236

should ally themselves with any anti-Red forces available

1237

(a clear reference to the Whites under Denikin). The

1238

Makhnovist Chubenko spoke next, declaring that the

1239

"struggle against the Bolsheviks could be revolutionary

1240

only if it were carried out in the name of the social

1241

revolution. An alliance with the worst enemies of

1242

the people -- with generals -- could only be a

1243

counter-revolutionary and criminal adventure."

1244

Following him, Makhno "demanded before the entire congress"

1245

that Hryhoriyiv "immediately answer for the appalling

1246

pogrom of Jews he had organised in Elisavetgrad in May,

1247

1919, as well as other anti-Semitic actions." [Arshinov,

1248

Op. Cit., p. 136]

1249

1250

Seeing that things were going badly, Hryhoriyiv went

1251

for his revolver, but was shot by a Makhnovist. Makhno

1252

finished him off. Makhnovist guards disarmed the leading

1253

Hryhoriyivists. Then Makhno, Chubenko and others justified

1254

the killing before the mass meeting, which approved the

1255

act passing a resolution that stated that Hryhoriyiv's

1256

death was "an historical and necessary fact, for his

1257

policy, acts and aims were counter-revolutionary and mainly

1258

directed to helping Denikin and other counter-revolutionaries,

1259

as is proved by his Jewish pogroms." [quoted by Malet,

1260

Op. Cit., p. 42] The troops under Hryhoriyiv became part

1261

of the general Insurrectionary Army.

1262

1263

At the end of July, Makhno recalled the troops he had earlier

1264

left in the Red Army and by mid-August the forces met up,

1265

becoming an army of some 15,000. At Mykolaiv, the Red Army units

1266

were defecting to Makhno in large numbers due in part to the

1267

feeling that the Red Army were abandoning the defence of the

1268

Ukraine. This was the start of Denikin's massive push north and

1269

Petliura's push east. By the end of August, Makhno felt strong

1270

enough to go on the offensive against the Whites. Superior

1271

White forces pushed the Makhnovists further and further west,

1272

away from their home region. "Denikin," in Voline's words,

1273

"not only made war on the army as such, but also on the whole

1274

peasant population. In addition to the usual persecutions

1275

and beatings, the villages he occupied were burnt and

1276

wrecked. The greater part of the peasants' dwellings were

1277

looted and wrecked. Hundreds of peasants were shot. The

1278

women maltreated, and nearly all the Jewish women . . .

1279

were raped." This repression "obliged the inhabitants of the

1280

villages threatened by the approach of the Denikinists to

1281

abandon their hearths and flee. Thus the Makhnovist army

1282

was joined and followed in their retreat by thousands of

1283

peaant families in flight from their homes with their

1284

livestock and belongings. It was a veritable migration.

1285

An enormous mass of men, women and children trailed after

1286

the army in its slow retreat towards the west, a retreat

1287

which gradually extended over hundreds of kilometres."

1288

[Op. Cit., p. 607]

1289

1290

Meeting the Nationalists in mid-September, it was agreed on both

1291

sides that fighting would only aid the Whites and so the Makhnovists

1292

entered a non-aggression pact with Petliura. This enabled them to

1293

offload over 1,000 wounded. The Makhnovists continued their

1294

propaganda campaign against the Nationalists, however. By the

1295

24th of September, intelligence reports suggested that White forces

1296

had appeared to the west of their current position (i.e. where

1297

the Nationalists where). The Makhnovists concluded that the only

1298

way this could have happened was if the Nationalists had allowed

1299

the Whites to cross their territory (the Nationalists disputed

1300

this, pointing to the fighting that had started two days before

1301

between them and the Whites).

1302

1303

This meant that the Makhnovists were forced to fight the

1304

numerically superior Whites. After two days of desperate fighting,

1305

the Whites were routed and two regiments were destroyed at the

1306

battle of Peregonovka village. Makhno's forces then conducted an

1307

incredibly rapid advance in three directions helped by their

1308

mobile cart-transported infantry, in three days smashing three

1309

reserve regiments and at the greatest point advancing 235 miles

1310

east. On the 6th October a drive to the south started which took

1311

key White ports and captured a huge quantity of equipment including

1312

600 trucks of British-supplied ammunition and an aeroplane. This

1313

was disastrous for Denikin whose forces had reached the northernmost

1314

point on their advance on Moscow, for these ports were key for his

1315

supply routes. The advance continued, cutting the railway route

1316

and so stopping all shells reaching Denikin's Moscow front.

1317

1318

Denikin was forced to send some of his best troops from the Moscow

1319

front to drive back the Makhnovists and British boats were sent to

1320

towns on the coast where Makhno might retreat through. The key

1321

city of Katerinoslav was taken with the aid of a workers' uprising on

1322

November 9th and held for a month before the advancing Whites and a

1323

typhoid epidemic which was to devastate the Makhnovista ranks by the

1324

end of the year forced them out of the city. In December, the Red Army

1325

advance made possible by Makhno's devastation of Denikin's supply lines

1326

continued.

1327

1328

Thus Voline:

1329

1330

"It is necessary to emphasise here the historic fact that the

1331

honour of having annihilated the Denikinist counter-revolution

1332

in the autumn of 1919, belongs entirely to the Makhnovist

1333

Insurrectionary Army. If the insurgents had not won the decisive

1334

victory of Peregonovka, and had not continued to sap the bases

1335

in Denikin's rear, destroying his supply service for artillery,

1336

food and ammunition, the Whites would probably have entered

1337

Moscow in December 1919 at the latest." [Op. Cit., p. 625]

1338

</blockquote>

1339

In December the Red Army advance made possible by Makhno's

1340

devastation of Denikin's supply lines continued. By early

1341

January the Reds had split White forces into three and their

1342

troops had reached Katerynoslav. The attitude of the Bolsheviks

1343

to the Makhnovists had already been decided. On December

1344

12th, 1919, Trotsky stated that when the two

1345

forces met, the Bolsheviks had "an order . . . from which

1346

we must not retreat one single step." While we discuss this

1347

secret order in more depth in

1348

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>, we will note

1349

here that it gave partisans the option of becoming "fully

1350

subordinate to [Bolshevik] command" or "be subjected to

1351

ruthless punishment." [How the Revolution Armed,

1352

vol. II., pp. 110-1 and p. 442] Another secret order to

1353

the 45th division issued on January 4th instructed them to

1354

"annihilate Makhnovist bands" and "disarm the population."

1355

The 41st was sent "into reserve" to the Hulyai Pole region.

1356

This was "five days before Makhno was outlawed, and shows that

1357

the Bolshevik command had a clear view of Makhno's future,

1358

even if the latter did not." [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 54]

1359

1360

Unaware of this, the Makhnovista put out propaganda leaflets

1361

directed at the Red Army rank and file, appealing to them as

1362

comrades. At Aleksandrovsk on December 5th talks occurred

1363

between a representative of the Makhnovists and the commander

1364

of the 45th division's 1st brigade. These broke down when

1365

Makhno was ordered to the Polish front, which the Makhnovists

1366

refused. On January 9th, Yegorov, commander of the Red Army

1367

southern front, used this pretext to outlaw Makhno. This

1368

outlawing was engineered deliberately by the Bolsheviks:

1369

1370

"The author of the order realised at that time there was no

1371

real war between the Poles and the Bolsheviks at that time

1372

and he also knew that Makhno would not abandon his region

1373

.. . . Uborevich [the author] explained that 'an appropriate

1374

reaction by Makhno to this order would give us the chance

1375

to have accurate grounds for our next steps' . . . [He]

1376

concluded: 'The order is a certain political manoeuvre and,

1377

at the very least, we expect positive results from Makhno's

1378

realisation of this.'" [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 210]

1379

</blockquote>

1380

In addition, war with Poland did not break out until the

1381

end of April, over three months later.

1382

1383

Needless to say, the Makhnovists did realise the political

1384

motivations behind the order. As Arshinov notes, "[s]ending

1385

the insurrectionary army to the Polish front meant

1386

removing from the Ukraine the main nerve centre of the

1387

revolutionary insurrection. This was precisely what the

1388

Bolsheviks wanted: they would then be absolute masters of

1389

the rebellious region, and the Makhnovists were perfectly

1390

aware of this." Moreover, the Makhnovists considered the

1391

move "physically impossible" as "half the men, the entire

1392

staff and the commander himself were in hospital with

1393

typhus." [Op. Cit., p. 163]

1394

1395

This was the signal for nine months of bitter fighting between

1396

the Red Army and the Makhnovists. Military events in this period

1397

are confused, with the Red Army claiming victory again and again,

1398

only for the Makhnovists to appear somewhere else. Hulyai Pole

1399

changed hands on a couple of occasions. The Bolsheviks did not

1400

use local troops in this campaign, due to fear of fraternisation.

1401

In addition, they used "new tactics," and "attacked not only

1402

Makhno's partisans, but also the villages and towns in which

1403

the population was sympathetic toward Makhno. They shot

1404

ordinary soldiers as well as their commanders, destroying

1405

their houses, confiscating their properties and persecuting

1406

their families. Moreover the Bolsheviks conducted mass arrests

1407

of innocent peasants who were suspected of collaborating in

1408

some way with the partisans. It is impossible to determine

1409

the casualties involved." They also set up "Committees of

1410

the Poor" as part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus,

1411

which acted as "informers helping the Bolshevik secret police

1412

in its persecution of the partisans, their families and

1413

supporters, even to the extent of hunting down and executing

1414

wounded partisans." [Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 212-3]

1415

1416

In addition to this suffering, the Bolshevik decision to

1417

attack Makhno rather than push into the Crimea was also to

1418

prolong the civil war by nine more months. The Whites

1419

re-organised themselves under General Wrangel, who began a

1420

limited offensive in June. Indeed, the Bolshevik "policy of

1421

terror and exploitation turned almost all segments of Ukrainian

1422

society against the Bolsheviks, substantially strengthened

1423

the Makhno movement, and consequently facilitated the

1424

advance of the reorganised anti-Bolshevik force of General

1425

Wrangel from the Crimea into South Ukraine, the Makhno

1426

region." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 214]

1427

1428

It was widely believed on the White side that Makhno was ready

1429

to co-operate with them and, desperate for men, Wrangel decided

1430

to appeal to the Makhnovists for an alliance. Their response

1431

was simple and direct, they decided to immediately execute his

1432

delegate and publish both his letter and a response in the

1433

Makhnovist paper "The Road to Freedom." [Malet, Op. Cit.,

1434

p. 60] Of course, this did not stop the Bolsheviks later

1435

claiming such an alliance existed!

1436

1437

Ironically enough, at a general assembly of insurgents, it

1438

was decided that "the destruction of Wrangel" would "eliminate

1439

a threat to the revolution" and so free "all of Russia"

1440

from "the counter-revolutionary barrage." The mass of workers

1441

and peasants "urgently needed an end to all those wars" and

1442

so they proposed "to the Communists that hostilities between

1443

them and the Makhnovists be suspended in order that they

1444

might wipe out Wrangel. In July and August, 1920, telegrams

1445

to this effect were sent to Moscow and Kharkov." There was

1446

no reply and the Bolsheviks "continued their war against the

1447

Makhnovists, and they also continued their previous campaign

1448

of lies and calumnies against them." [Arshinov, Op. Cit.,

1449

p. 176]

1450

1451

In July and August the Makhnovists went on the offensive,

1452

raiding the Bolsheviks in three provinces and attacking the

1453

Red Army infrastructure. Wrangel began another offensive in

1454

September, driving the Red Army back again and again and

1455

threatening the Makhnovist area. Faced with Wrangel's

1456

success, the Bolsheviks started to rethink their position

1457

on Makhno, although on the 24th of September the Bolshevik

1458

commander-in-chief Kamenev was still declaring the need

1459

for "the final liquidation of the Makhno band." [Malet,

1460

Op. Cit., p. 62] A few days later, the Bolsheviks changed

1461

their mind and negotiations began.

1462

1463

So, by October 1920, the success of the Wrangel offensive was

1464

again forcing the Bolsheviks and Makhnovists to put aside

1465

their differences and take on the common enemy. A deal was

1466

reached and on October 2nd, Frunze, the new Red Army commander

1467

of the Southern Front, ordered a cessation of hostilities

1468

against the Makhnovists. A statement from the Soviet of

1469

the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine (Makhnovists)

1470

explained the treaty as necessitated by the White offensive

1471

but also representing a victory over the "high-handed

1472

communists and commissars" in forcing them to recognise

1473

the "free insurrection." [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 64]

1474

1475

The agreement was signed between October 10th and 15th.

1476

It consisted of two parts, a Political and a Military

1477

agreement (see

1478

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>

1479

for full details). The

1480

Political agreement simply gave the Makhnovists and

1481

anarchists the rights they should have had according to the

1482

Soviet Constitution. The Military agreement resulted in

1483

the Makhnovists becoming part of the Red Army, keeping

1484

their established internal structure and, significantly,

1485

stopped them from accepting into their ranks any Red Army

1486

detachments or deserters therefrom. According to

1487

Bolshevik sources, "there was never the slightest

1488

intention on the Bolshevik side of keeping to the

1489

agreement once its military value had passed."

1490

[David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 296]

1491

1492

Even before the agreement came into effect, the Makhnovists

1493

were fighting alongside the Bolsheviks and between October

1494

4 and 17, Hulyai Pole was retaken by the Aleksandrovsk group,

1495

which included 10,000 Makhnovista. On October 22, Aleksandrovsk

1496

was taken with 4,000 white prisoners and from then to early

1497

November the Makhnovists cut through Wrangel's rear, hoping to

1498

cut off his retreat by seizing the Crimean passes. The Whites

1499

fought a skilful rearguard which together with the new White

1500

fortifications on the peninsula held up the advance. But by

1501

the 11th, his hold in the Crimea gone, Wrangel had no choice

1502

but to order a general retreat to the ports and an evacuation.

1503

Even the Bolsheviks had to acknowledge that the "Makhnovist

1504

units fulfilled their military tasks with no less heroism

1505

than the Red Army units." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 69]

1506

1507

On hearing this success on 16th November, the reaction of the

1508

Makhnovista still at Hulyai Pole was cynical but realistic:

1509

"It's the end of the agreement. I'll bet you anything that

1510

the Bolsheviks will be on us within the week." [quoted by

1511

Malet, Op. Cit., p. 70] They were not wrong. Already Frunze,

1512

the Red Army commander, had ordered two entire cavalry armies

1513

to concentrate near Hulyai Pole at the same time as he ordered

1514

the Makhnovist forces to the Caucasus Front! By 24th November

1515

Frunze was preparing for the treachery to come, in Order 00149

1516

(which was not sent to the Makhnovist units) saying if they

1517

had not departed to the Caucasus front by the 26th "the Red

1518

regiments of the front, who have now finished with Wrangel,

1519

will start speaking a different language to these Makhnovist

1520

youths." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 71]

1521

1522

Of course this treachery went right to the top, just before the

1523

26th "deadline" (which Makhno, not having seen the orders,

1524

was unaware of), Lenin urged Rakovski, head of the Ukrainian

1525

government to "[k]eep a close watch on all anarchists and

1526

prepare documents of a criminal nature as soon as possible,

1527

on the basis of which charges can be preferred against them."

1528

[quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 71] Indeed, it later appeared

1529

the treachery had been prepared from at least 14th or 16th

1530

November, as prisoners captured later stated they had

1531

received undated anti-Makhnovist proclamations on that

1532

date. [Malet, Ibid.]

1533

1534

At 3am on the 26th the attacks on the Makhnovists started.

1535

Alongside this one of the Makhnovist commanders was lured

1536

to a meeting by the Bolsheviks, seized and shot. Some

1537

Makhnovist forces managed to break through the encircling

1538

Bolsheviks but only after taking heavy losses -- of the

1539

2,000-4,000 cavalry at Simferopol, only 250 escaped. By the

1540

1st December, Rakovsi reported the imminent demise of the

1541

Makhnovists to the Kharkiv soviet only to have to eat his

1542

words when Makhno routed the 42nd division on the 6th,

1543

retaking Hulyai Pole and 6,000 prisoners, of whom 2,000

1544

joined his forces. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 72] Simultaneously

1545

with the attack on the Makhnovists, the Bolsheviks rounded

1546

up all known anarchists in the Ukraine (many of whom were

1547

in Kharkiv waiting for a legally organised Nabat conference

1548

to begin).

1549

1550

In the resulting struggle between the two forces,

1551

as Palij notes, the "support of the population was a

1552

significant advantage to Makhno, for they supplied

1553

the partisans with needed material, including horses

1554

and food, while the Red troops operated among a foreign

1555

and hostile people." The Bolsheviks found that the peasants

1556

not only refused to supply them with goods, they also

1557

refused to answer their questions or, at best, gave

1558

answers which were vague and confusing. "In contrast

1559

to the Bolsheviks, Makhno partisans received detailed,

1560

accurate information from the population at all times."

1561

[Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 236-7]

1562

1563

Frunze brought in extra forces and ordered both the

1564

"annihilation of the Makhnovists" and total disarming of

1565

the region. Plagued by desertions, it was also ordered that

1566

all Makhnovist prisoners were to be shot, to discourage

1567

the local population and Red Army soldiers thinking of

1568

joining them. There is also evidence of unrest in the

1569

Azov fleet, with acts of sabotage being carried out by

1570

sailors to prevent their weapons being used against the

1571

Makhnovists. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 73] While it was common

1572

practice for the Bolsheviks to shoot all Makhnovist prisoners,

1573

the "existence of roundup detachments at the end of 1920,

1574

whose task was to re-collect prisoners freed by the Makhnovists"

1575

shows that the Makhnovists did not reciprocate in kind.

1576

[Malet Op. Cit., p. 129]

1577

1578

At the end of 1920, the Makhnovists had ten to fifteen

1579

thousand troops and the "growing strength of the Makhno

1580

army and its successes caused serious concern in the

1581

Bolshevik regime, so it was decided to increase the

1582

number of troops opposing Makhno." [Palij, Op. Cit.,

1583

p. 237] All the pressure exerted by the Bolsheviks was

1584

paying off. Although Makhno repeatedly broke through

1585

numerous mass encirclements and picked up deserters from

1586

the Red Army, his forces were being eroded by the far

1587

greater numbers employed against them. In addition,

1588

"the Red command worked out new plans to fight Makhno

1589

by stationing whole regiments, primarily cavalry, in

1590

the occupied villages, to terrorise the peasants and

1591

prevent them from supporting Makhno. . . Also the

1592

Cheka punitive units were constantly trailing the

1593

partisans, executing Makhno's sympathisers and the

1594

partisans' families." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 238] In

1595

spite of the difficult conditions, Makhno was still

1596

able to attract some Red Army soldiers and even whole

1597

units to his side. For example, "when the partisans

1598

were fighting Budenny's Fourth Cavalry Division, their

1599

First Brigade, commanded by Maslak, joined Makhno."

1600

[Palij, Op. Cit., p. 239]

1601

1602

Makhno was forced to leave his home areas of operations

1603

and flee east, then west again. By early January his

1604

forces had fought 24 battles in 24 days. This pattern

1605

continued throughout March and April into May. In June, the

1606

Bolsheviks changed their strategy to one of predicting where

1607

Makhno was heading and garrisoning troops in that area. In

1608

one battle on 15 June, Frunze himself was almost captured.

1609

Despite this, the insurgents were very weak and their

1610

peasant base was exhausted by years of war and civil war.

1611

In the most sympathetic areas, Red Army troops were garrisoned

1612

on the peasants. Thus Palij:

1613

1614

"[T]hrough combat losses, hardship, and sickness, the

1615

number of Makhno partisans was diminishing and they

1616

were cut off from their main sources of recruits and

1617

supplies. The Ukrainian peasants were tried of the endless

1618

terror caused by successive occupation of village after

1619

village by the Red troops and the Cheka. The continuous

1620

fighting and requisitions were leaving the peasants

1621

with little food and horses for the partisans. They could

1622

not live in a state of permanent revolution. Moreover,

1623

there was extreme drought and consequently a bad harvest

1624

in Ukraine, especially in the region of the Makhno movement."

1625

[Op. Cit., pp. 240-1]

1626

</blockquote>

1627

The state terrorism and the summer drought caused Makhno

1628

to give up the struggle in mid-August and instead fight

1629

his way to the Dniester with the last of his forces and

1630

cross into Romania on August 26. Some of his forces

1631

which stayed behind were still active for a short time.

1632

In November 1921 the Cheka seized 20 machine guns and

1633

2,833 rifles in the new Zaporizhya province alone.

1634

1635

For more details of the history of the movement, Michael

1636

Malet's Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution is

1637

an excellent summary. Michael Palij's The Anarchism of

1638

Nestor Makhno is also worth consulting, as are the

1639

anarchist histories of Voline and Arshinov.

1640

1641

<a name="app5"><h2>5 How were the Makhnovists organised?</h2>

1642

1643

Being influenced by anarchist ideas, the Makhnovists were

1644

organised along libertarian lines. This meant that in both

1645

civilian and military areas, self-management was practised.

1646

This section discusses the military organisation, while

1647

the next discusses the social aspect of the movement.

1648

1649

By practising self-management, the Makhnovists offered a

1650

completely different model of military organisation to that

1651

of both the Red Army and traditional military forces. While

1652

the army structure changed depending on its circumstances,

1653

the core ideas remained. These were as follows:

1654

1655

"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according

1656

to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the

1657

electoral principle, and self-discipline.

1658

1659

"Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed

1660

only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their

1661

own free will.

1662

1663

"The electoral principle meant that the commanders of

1664

all units of the army, including the staff, as well as

1665

all the men who held other positions in the army, were

1666

either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit

1667

in question or by the whole army.

1668

1669

"Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline

1670

were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved

1671

by general assemblies of the various units; once approved,

1672

they were rigorously observed on the individual responsibility

1673

of each insurgent and each commander." [Op. Cit., p. 96]

1674

</blockquote>

1675

Voline paints a similar picture. He also notes that the

1676

electoral principle was sometimes violated and commanders

1677

appointed "in urgent situations by the commander himself,"

1678

although such people had to be "accepted without reservation"

1679

by "the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole

1680

army." [Op. Cit., p. 584]

1681

1682

Thus the Makhnovist army, bar some deviation provoked

1683

by circumstances, was a fundamentally democratic organisation.

1684

The guerrillas elected the officers of their detachments, and,

1685

at mass assemblies and congresses, decided policy and discipline

1686

for the army. In the words of historian Michael Palij:

1687

1688

"As the Makhno army gradually grew, it assumed a more

1689

regular army organisation. Each tactical unit was

1690

composed of three subordinate units: a division consisted

1691

of three brigades; a brigade, of three regiments; a

1692

regiment, of three battalions. Theoretically commanders

1693

were elected; in practice, however, the top commanders

1694

were usually carefully selected by Makhno from among his

1695

close friends. As a rule, they were all equal and if

1696

several units fought together the top commanders

1697

commanded jointly. The army was nominally headed by

1698

a Revolutionary Military Council of about ten to

1699

twenty members . . . Like the commanders, the council

1700

members were elected, but some were appointed by Makhno

1701

.. . . There also was an elected cultural section in the

1702

army. Its aim was to conduct political and ideological

1703

propaganda among the partisans and peasants." [Palij,

1704

Op. Cit., pp. 108-9]

1705

</blockquote>

1706

The Revolutionary Military Council was elected and directly

1707

accountable to the regional workers, peasants and insurgent

1708

congresses. It was designed to co-ordinate the local

1709

soviets and execute the decisions of the regional congresses.

1710

1711

Hence Voline:

1712

1713

"This council embraced the whole free region. It was supposed

1714

to carry out all the economic, political, social and military

1715

decisions made at the congress. It was thus, in a certain

1716

sense, the supreme executive of the whole movement. But it

1717

was not at all an authoritarian organ. Only strictly

1718

executive functions were assigned to it. It confined itself

1719

to carrying out the instructions and decisions of the

1720

congress. At any moment, it could be dissolved by the

1721

congress and cease to exist." [Op. Cit., p. 577]

1722

</blockquote>

1723

As such, when Palij notes that this council "had no decisive

1724

voice in the army's actions," he misses the point of the

1725

council. [Palij, Ibid.] It did not determine the military

1726

affairs of the army, but rather the interaction of the

1727

military and civilians and made sure that the decisions of

1728

congresses were executed. Thus the whole army was nominally

1729

under the control of the regional congresses of workers,

1730

peasants and insurgents. At these congresses, delegates of

1731

the toiling people decided upon the policy to be pursued by

1732

the Makhnovist Army. The Revolutionary Military Soviet existed

1733

to oversee that decisions were implemented, not to determine

1734

the military activities of the troops.

1735

1736

It should also be noted that women not only supported the

1737

Makhnovists, they also "fought alongside the men." [Arshinov,

1738

Op. Cit., p. 145] However, "the participation of women in

1739

the movement (by all accounts, quite substantial)" needs

1740

"further investigation." [Serge Cipko, "Nestor Makhno: A

1741

Mini-Historiography of the Anarchist Revolution in Ukraine,

1742

1917-1921," pp. 57-75, The Raven, no. 13, p. 75]

1743

1744

At its height, the army was made up of infantry, cavalry,

1745

artillery, machine-gun units, and special branches, including

1746

an intelligence service. As the success of partisan warfare

1747

depends upon mobility, the army gradually mounted its

1748

infantry in light carts (called "tachanka") during 1918-19.

1749

As Michael Malet notes, this was a "novel tactic" and Makhno

1750

"could be described as the inventor of the motorised division

1751

before the car came into general use." [Op. Cit., p. 85] The

1752

tachanka was used to transport as many troops as possible,

1753

giving the Makhnovists mobile infantry which could keep up

1754

with the cavalry. In addition, a machine-gun was sometimes

1755

mounted in the rear (in autumn 1919, the 1st machine-gun

1756

regiment consisted of 120 guns, all mounted on tachanki).

1757

1758

For the most part the Makhnovist army was a volunteer army,

1759

unlike all others operating in the Russian Civil War. However,

1760

at times of crisis attempts were made to mobilise troops.

1761

For example, the Second regional congress agreed that a

1762

"general voluntary and equalitarian mobilisation" should

1763

take place. This meant that this appeal, "sanctioned by the

1764

moral authority of the congress, emphasised the need for

1765

fresh troops in the insurrectionary army, no-one was compelled

1766

to enlist." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 577] The Congress itself

1767

passed a resolution after a long and passionate debate that

1768

stated it "rejected 'compulsory' mobilisation, opting for

1769

an 'obligatory' one; that is, each peasant who is able to

1770

carry arms, should recognise his obligation to enlist in

1771

the ranks of the partisans and to defend the interests of

1772

the entire toiling people of Ukraine." [quoted by Palij,

1773

Op. Cit., p. 155] There were far more volunteers than

1774

arms, the opposite of what occurred to both the Reds

1775

and Whites during the Civil War. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 106]

1776

1777

The third Congress decided to conduct a voluntary mobilisation

1778

all those born between 1889 and 1898. This congress told them

1779

to assemble at certain points, organise themselves and elect

1780

their officers. Another mobilisation decided at the Aleksandrovsk

1781

congress never took place. How far the Makhnovists were forced

1782

to conscript troops is still a matter of debate. Paul Avrich,

1783

for example, states that "voluntary mobilisation" in reality

1784

"meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were

1785

required to serve." [Op. Cit., p. 114] On the other side,

1786

surviving leaflets from 1920 "are in the nature of appeals

1787

to join up, not instructions." [Malet,Op. Cit., p. 105]

1788

Trotsky, ironically, noted that "Makhno does not have

1789

general mobilisations, and indeed these would be impossible,

1790

as he lacks the necessary apparatus." [quoted by Malet,

1791

Op. Cit., p. 106] It is probably right to say that the

1792

Congresses desired that every able-bodied man join the

1793

Makhnovist army, but they simply did not have the means

1794

to enforce that desire and that the Makhnovists tried their

1795

best to avoid conscription by appealing to the peasants'

1796

revolutionary conscience, with some success.

1797

1798

As well as the military organisation, there was also an

1799

explicitly anarchist federation operating in the Ukraine

1800

at the same time. The first conference to organise a

1801

"Confederation of Anarchist Organisations of the Ukraine"

1802

was held between November 12th to 16th, 1918. The new

1803

federation was named "Nabat" (Alarm) and had a six-person

1804

Secretariat. Kharkiv was chosen as its headquarters, while

1805

it had groups in other major Ukrainian cities (including

1806

Kyiv, Odessa and Katerynoslav). The final organisation of

1807

the Nabat was accomplished at a conference held in April

1808

2-7, 1919. The federation aimed to form a "united anarchism"

1809

and guaranteed a substantial degree of autonomy for every

1810

participating group and individual. A number of newspapers

1811

appeared in a Ukrainian towns and cities (mostly entitled

1812

Nabat), as did leaflets and pamphlets. There was a main

1813

weekly paper (called Nabat) which was concerned largely

1814

with anarchist theory. This completed the Makhnovist

1815

papers Road to Freedom (which was often daily, sometimes

1816

weekly and dealt with libertarian ideas, everyday problems

1817

and information on partisan activities) and The Makhnovist

1818

Voice (which dealt primarily with the interests, problems,

1819

and tasks of the Makhnovist movement and its army). The

1820

Nabat organisation was also published a pamphlet dealing

1821

with the Makhnovist movement's problems, the economic

1822

organisation of the region, the free soviets, the social

1823

basis of the society that was to be built, and the

1824

problem of defence.

1825

1826

Unsurprisingly, the Nabat federation and the Makhnovists

1827

worked together closely, with Nabat members worked in

1828

the army (particularly its cultural section). Some of

1829

its members were also elected to the Makhnovist Revolutionary

1830

Military Soviet. It should be noted that the Nabat federation

1831

gained a number of experienced anarchists from Soviet Russia,

1832

who fled to the Ukraine to escape Bolshevik repression. The

1833

Nabat shared the fortunes of the Makhno movement. It carried

1834

on its work freely as long as the region was controlled by

1835

the Makhnovist Army, but when Bolshevik or White forces

1836

prevailed, the anarchists were forced underground. The

1837

movement was finally crushed in November 1920, when the

1838

Bolsheviks betrayed the Makhnovists.

1839

1840

As can be seen, the Makhnovists implemented to a large degree

1841

the anarchist idea of self-managed, horizontally federated

1842

associations (when possible, of course). Both the two major

1843

organisational layers to the Makhnovist structure (the army

1844

and the congresses) were federated horizontally and the "top"

1845

structure was essentially a mass peasant, worker and guerrilla

1846

decision-making coalition. In other words, the masses took

1847

decisions at the "top" level that the Revolutionary Military

1848

Soviet and the Makhnovist army were bound to follow. The army

1849

was answerable to the local Soviets and to the congresses of

1850

soviets and, as we discuss in

1851

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>, the Makhnovists

1852

called working-people and insurgent congresses whenever they

1853

could.

1854

1855

The Makhnovist movement was, fundamentally, a working class

1856

movement. It was "one of the very few revolutionary movements

1857

to be led and controlled throughout by members of 'the toiling

1858

masses.'" [David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 245] It applied its

1859

principles of working class autonomy and self-organisation

1860

as far as it could. Unlike the Red Army, it was predominantly

1861

organised from the bottom up, rejecting the use of Tsarist

1862

officers, appointed commanders, and other "top-down" ways of

1863

the Red Army (see

1864

<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>

1865

for further discussion of

1866

the differences between the two forces).

1867

1868

The Makhnovist army was not by any means a perfect model

1869

of anarchist military organisation. However, compared to

1870

the Red Army, its violations of principle are small and

1871

hardly detract from their accomplishment of applying

1872

anarchist ideas in often extremely difficult circumstances.

1873

1874

<a name="app6"><h2>6 Did the Makhnovists have a constructive social programme?</h2>

1875

1876

Yes, they did. The Makhnovists spent a great deal of energy and

1877

effort in developing, propagating and explaining their ideas on

1878

how a free society should be created and run. As Michael Malet

1879

noted, the "leading Makhnovists had definite ideas about the ideal

1880

form of social organisation." [Nestor Makhno in the Russian

1881

Civil War, p. 107] Moreover, as we discuss in the

1882

<a href="append46.html#app7">next section</a>,

1883

they also successfully applied these ideas when and where they

1884

could.

1885

1886

So what was their social programme? Being anarchists, it comprised

1887

two parts, namely political and economic aspects. The Makhnovists

1888

aimed for a true social revolution in which the working classes

1889

(both urban and rural) could actively manage their own affairs and

1890

society. As such, their social programme reflected the fact

1891

that oppression has its roots in both political and economic power

1892

and so aimed at eliminating both the state and private property.

1893

As the core of their social ideas was the simple principle of

1894

working-class autonomy, the idea that the liberation of

1895

working-class people must be the task of the working-class

1896

people themselves. This vision is at the heart of anarchism

1897

and was expressed most elegantly by Makhno:

1898

1899

"Conquer or die -- such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian

1900

peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we will

1901

not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years,

1902

the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters;

1903

we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our own

1904

hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and

1905

our own conception of the truth." [quoted by Peter Arshinov,

1906

The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 58]

1907

</blockquote>

1908

As such, the Makhnovists were extremely hostile to the idea

1909

of state power, recognising it simply as a means by which the

1910

majority are ruled by the few. Equally, they were opposed to

1911

wage slavery (to private or state bosses), recognising that as

1912

long as the workers do not manage their own work, they can

1913

never be free. As they put it, their goals could only be

1914

achieved by an "implacable revolution and consistent struggle

1915

against all lies, arbitrariness and coercion, wherever they

1916

come from, a struggle to the death, a struggle for free

1917

speech, for the righteous cause, a struggle with weapons

1918

in hand. Only through the abolition of all rulers, through

1919

the destruction of the whole foundation of their lies, in

1920

state affairs as well as in political and economic affairs.

1921

And only through the social revolution can the genuine

1922

Worker-Peasant soviet system be realised and can we arrive

1923

at SOCIALISM." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 273]

1924

They, like other anarchists and the Kronstadt rebels, termed

1925

this programme of working class self-management the "third

1926

revolution."

1927

1928

We will discuss the political aspect of the Makhnovist programme

1929

first, then its economic one. However, the Maknovists considered

1930

(correctly) that both aspects could not be separated. As they

1931

put it: "We will not lay down our arms until we have wiped out

1932

once and for all every political and economic oppression and

1933

until genuine equality and brotherhood is established in the

1934

land." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 281] We split the

1935

aspects simply to aid the presentation of their ideas.

1936

1937

At the core of their ideas was what they termed the "Free

1938

Soviet System" (or "free soviets" for short). It was this

1939

system which would allow the working class to create and run

1940

a new society. As they put it:

1941

1942

"[The] Makhnovists realise that the working people are no

1943

longer a flock of sheep to be ordered about by anyone. We

1944

consider the working people capable of building, on their

1945

own and without parties, commissars or generals, their own

1946

FREE SOVIET SYSTEM, in which those who are elected to the

1947

Soviet will not, as now [under the Bolsheviks], command

1948

and order us, but on the contrary, will be only the

1949

executors of the decisions made in our own workers'

1950

gatherings and conferences." [contained in Peter Arshinov,

1951

Op. Cit., pp. 280-1]

1952

</blockquote>

1953

Thus the key idea advocated by the leading Makhnovista for

1954

social organisation and decision-making was the "free toilers'

1955

soviet of peasant and worker organisations." This meant they

1956

were to be independent of all central authority and composed

1957

of those who worked, and not political parties. They were to

1958

federate on a local, then regional and then national level,

1959

and power within the federation was to be horizontal and not

1960

vertical. [Michael Malet, Op. Cit., p. 107] Such a system

1961

was in opposition to the Bolshevik practice of Soviets defined

1962

and dominated by political parties with a vertical decision-

1963

making structure that reached its highest point in the Bolshevik

1964

Central Committee.

1965

1966

Thus, for the Makhnovists, the soviet system would be a "bottom-up"

1967

system, one designed not to empower a few party leaders at the

1968

centre but rather a means by which working people could manage

1969

their own affairs. As the put it, the "soviet system is not the

1970

power of the social-democratic Communist-Bolsheviks who now

1971

call themselves a soviet power; rather it is the supreme form

1972

of non-authoritarian anti-state socialism, which expresses itself

1973

in the organisation of a free, happy and independent system of

1974

social life for the working people." This would be based on the

1975

"principles of solidarity, friendship and equality." This

1976

meant that in the Makhnovist system of free soviets, the

1977

"working people themselves must freely choose their own soviets,

1978

which will carry out the will and desires of the working

1979

people themselvs, that is to say, ADMINISTRATIVE, not ruling

1980

soviets." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 272-3]

1981

1982

As David Footman summarises, Makhno's "ultimate aims were

1983

simple. All instruments of government were to be destroyed.

1984

All political parties were to be opposed, as all of them

1985

were working for some or other form of new government in

1986

which the party members would assume the role of a ruling

1987

class. All social and economic affairs were to be settled

1988

in friendly discussion between freely elected representatives

1989

of the toiling masses." [Op. Cit., p. 247]

1990

1991

Hence the Makhnovist social organisation was a federation of

1992

self-managed workers' and peasants' councils (soviets), which

1993

would "be only the executors of the decisions made in our

1994

workers' gatherings and conferences." [contained in Arshinov,

1995

Op. Cit., p. 281] In other words, an anarchist system based

1996

on mass assemblies and decision-making from the bottom up.

1997

1998

Economically, as is to be expected, the Makhnovists opposed

1999

private property, capitalism and wage-slavery. Their economic

2000

ideas were summarised in a Makhnovist declaration as follows:

2001

2002

"The lands of the service gentry, of the monasteries, of the

2003

princes and other enemies of the toiling masses, with all

2004

their livestock and goods, are passed on to the use of those

2005

peasants who support themselves solely through their own

2006

labour. This transfer will be carried out in an orderly

2007

fashion determined in common at peasant assemblies, which

2008

must remember in this matter not only each of their own

2009

personal interests, but also bear in mind the common

2010

interest of all the oppressed, working peasantry.

2011

2012

"Factories, workshops, mines and other tools and means of

2013

production become the property of the working class as a

2014

whole, which will run all enterprises themselves, through

2015

their trade unions, getting production under way and striving

2016

to tie together all industry in the country in a single,

2017

unitary organisation." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit.,

2018

p. 266]

2019

</blockquote>

2020

They continually stressed that the "land, the factories, the

2021

workshops, the mines, the railroads and the other wealth of

2022

the people must belong to the working people themselves,

2023

to those who work in them, that is to say, they must be

2024

socialised." This meant a system of use-rights, as "the

2025

land, the mines, the factories, the workshops, the

2026

railroads, and so on, will belong neither to individuals

2027

nor to the government, but solely to those who work with

2028

them." [Op. Cit., p. 273 and p. 281]

2029

2030

In industry, such a system clearly implied a system of

2031

worker's self-management within a system of federated

2032

factory committees or union branches. On the land, it

2033

meant the end of landlordism, with peasants being entitled

2034

to as much land and equipment as they could cultivate

2035

without the use of hired labour. As a Makhnovist congress

2036

in 1919 resolved:

2037

2038

"The land question should be decided on a Ukraine-wide

2039

scale at an all-Ukrainian congress of peasants on the

2040

following basis: in the interests of socialism and the

2041

struggle against the bourgeoisie, all land should be

2042

transferred to the hands of the toiling peasants. According

2043

to the principle that 'the land belongs to nobody' and

2044

can be used only by those who care about it, who cultivate

2045

it, the land should be transferred to the toiling peasantry

2046

of Ukraine for their use without pay according to the norm

2047

of equal distribution." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 155]

2048

</blockquote>

2049

In addition to advocating the abolition of private property

2050

in land and the end of wage labour by distributing land to

2051

those who worked it, the Makhnovists also supported the

2052

forming of "free" or "working" communes. Like their policy

2053

of land distribution, it also aimed to benefit the poorer

2054

peasants and rural wage labourers. The "free commune" was

2055

a voluntary association of rural workers who took over an

2056

expropriated estate and managed the land in common. The

2057

commune was managed by a general meeting of all its members

2058

and based on the liberty, equality and solidarity of its members.

2059

2060

Clearly, in terms of their economic policies, the Makhnovists

2061

proposed a clear and viable alternative to both rural and

2062

urban capitalism, namely workers' self-management. Industry

2063

and land would be socialised, with the actual management of

2064

production resting in the hands of the workers themselves

2065

and co-ordinated by federated workers' organisations. On the

2066

land, they proposed the creation of voluntary communes which

2067

would enable the benefits of co-operative labour to be applied.

2068

Like their political ideas, their economic ideas were designed

2069

to ensure the freedom of working people and the end of hierarchy

2070

in all aspects of society.

2071

2072

In summary, the Makhnovist had a constructive social ideas which

2073

aimed to ensure the total economic and political emancipation of

2074

the working people. Their vision of a free society was based on

2075

a federation of free, self-managed soviets, the socialisation of

2076

the means of life and workers' self-management of production by

2077

a federation of labour unions or factory committees. As the

2078

black flags they carried into battle read, "liberty or death"

2079

and "the land to the peasants, the factories to the workers."

2080

2081

<a name="app7"><h2>7 Did they apply their ideas in practice?</h2>

2082

2083

Yes, the Makhnovists consistently applied their political and social

2084

ideas when they had the opportunity to do so. Unlike the Bolsheviks,

2085

who quickly turned away from their stated aims of soviet democracy

2086

and workers' control in favour of dictatorship by the Bolshevik party,

2087

the Makhnovists did all in their power to encourage, create and defend

2088

working-class freedom and self-management (see

2089

<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a> for

2090

further discussion). In the words of historian Christopher Reed:

2091

2092

"there can be no question that the anarchists did everything

2093

they could to free the peasants and workers and give them the

2094

opportunity to develop their own forms of collective control

2095

over land and factories . . . [T]he Ukrainian anarchists fought

2096

under the slogan of land to the peasants, factories to the

2097

workers and power to the soviets. Wherever they had influence

2098

they supported the setting up of communes and soviets. They

2099

introduced safeguards intended to protect direct self-government

2100

from organised interference . . . They conducted relentless

2101

class war against landlords, officers, factory owners and the

2102

commercial classes could expect short shrift from Makhno and

2103

his men, especially if they had taken up arms against the

2104

people or, like the Whites . . ., had been responsible for

2105

looting, pogroms and vicious reprisals against unarmed peasants

2106

on a colossal scale." [From Tsar to Soviets, p. 263]

2107

</blockquote>

2108

As we discussed in the

2109

<a href="append46.html#app6">last section</a>, the core ideas which

2110

inspired the Makhnovists were working-class self-determination

2111

and self-management. They aimed at the creation of a "free

2112

soviet system" and the end of capitalism by rural and industrial

2113

self-management. It is to the credit of the Makhnovists that

2114

they applied these ideas in practice rather than talking about

2115

high principles and doing the exact opposite.

2116

2117

In practice, of course, the war left little room for much

2118

construction work. As Voline pointed out, one of the key

2119

disadvantages of the movement was the "almost continual

2120

necessity of fighting and defending itself against all

2121

kinds of enemies, without being able to concentrate on

2122

peaceful and truly positive works." [The Unknown Revolution,

2123

p. 571] However, in the disruption of the Civil War the

2124

Makhnovists applied their ideas when and where they could.

2125

2126

Within the army, as we discussed in

2127

<a href="append46.html#app5">section 5</a>, the

2128

insurgent troops elected their own commanders and had

2129

regular mass assemblies to discuss policy and the agreed

2130

norms of conduct within it. In civilian matters, the

2131

Makhnovists from the start encouraged working-class

2132

self-organisation and self-government. By late 1917,

2133

in the area around Hulyai Pole "the toiling masses

2134

proceeded . . . to consolidate their revolution. The

2135

little factories functioned . . . under the control of

2136

the workers. The estates were split up . . . among the

2137

peasants . . . a certain number of agricultural communes

2138

were formed." [David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 248]

2139

2140

The aim of the Makhnovists was to "transfer all the lands

2141

owned by the gentry, monasteries, and the state into the

2142

hands of peasants or to organise, if they wished, peasant

2143

communes." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 70] This policy was

2144

introduced from the start, and by the autumn of 1917, all

2145

land, equipment and livestock around Hulyai Pole had been

2146

expropriated from the gentry and kulaks and placed in the

2147

hands of working peasants. Land reform had been achieved

2148

by the direct action of the peasantry.

2149

2150

However, "many of the peasants understood that the task

2151

was not finished, that it was not enough to appropriate

2152

a plot of land and be content with it. From the hardships

2153

of their lives they learned that enemies were watching

2154

from all sides, and that they must stick together. In

2155

several places there were attempts to organise social

2156

life communally." [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 86]

2157

2158

In line with social anarchist theory, the Makhnovists

2159

also tried to introduce collective forms of farming. These

2160

experiments in collective working and living were called

2161

"free communes." Despite the difficult military situation

2162

communes were established, principally near Hulyai Pole, in

2163

the autumn of 1917. This activity was resumed in February to

2164

March of 1918. They re-appeared in early 1919, once the threat

2165

of counter-revolution had been (temporarily) defeated.

2166

2167

There were four of these communes within five miles of Hulyai

2168

Pole itself and many more further afield. According to Makhno,

2169

these agricultural communes "were in most cases organised by

2170

peasants, though sometimes their composition was a mixture

2171

of peasants and workmen [sic!]. Their organisation was based

2172

on equality and solidarity of the members. All members of

2173

these communes -- both men and women -- applied themselves

2174

willingly to their tasks, whether in the field or the household."

2175

Unlike many communes, people were given the personal space

2176

they desired, so "any members of the commune who wanted

2177

to cook separately for themselves and their children, or

2178

to take food from the communal kitchens and eat it in their

2179

own quarters, met with no objection from the other members."

2180

The management of each commune "was conducted by a general

2181

meeting of all its members." In addition, the communes

2182

decided to introducing anarchist schooling based on the

2183

ideas of Franciso Ferrer (see

2184

<a href="secJ5.html#secj513">section J.5.13</a> for details).

2185

Makhno himself worked on one for two days a week for a

2186

period. [Makhno, quoted by Paul Avrich, Anarchists in

2187

the Russian Revolution, pp. 131]

2188

2189

They were set up on the former estates of landlords, and

2190

consisted of around 10 families or 100 to 300 people and

2191

although each had peasant anarchist members not all the

2192

members were anarchists. Makhno worked on Commune No. 1,

2193

which was on the estate of former landlord Klassen. When

2194

re-founded in 1919 this commune was named after Rosa

2195

Luxemburg, the Marxist revolutionary who had recently

2196

been murdered in the German revolution. It was a success,

2197

for by the spring sowing it had grown from nine families

2198

to 285 members working 340 acres of land. The communes

2199

represented a way that poor and middle peasants could

2200

pool resources to work estates that they could not have

2201

worked otherwise and, as Michael Malet points out, "they

2202

were organised from the bottom up, not the top down."

2203

[Op. Cit., p. 121]

2204

2205

However, as Makhno himself acknowledged, while the "majority

2206

of the toiling population saw in the organisation of rural

2207

communes the healthy germ of a new social life" which

2208

could provide a "model of a free and communal form of

2209

life," the "mass of people did not go over to it." They

2210

cited as their reasons "the advance of the German and

2211

Austrian armies, their own lack of organisation, and their

2212

inability to defend this order against the new 'revolutionary'

2213

[Bolshevik] and counter-revolutionary authorities. For

2214

this reason the toiling population of the district limited

2215

their revolutionary activity to supporting in every way

2216

those bold springs." [Makhno, quoted by Avrich, Op. Cit.,

2217

p. 132] Given that the communes were finally destroyed

2218

by White and Red forces in June 1919, their caution

2219

was justified. After this, peace did not return long

2220

enough for the experiment to be restarted.

2221

2222

As Michael Malet argues:

2223

2224

"Very few peasant movements in history have been able to

2225

show in practice the sort of society and type of landholding

2226

they would like to see. The Makhnovist movement is proof

2227

that peasant revolutionaries can put forward positive,

2228

practical ideas." [Op. Cit., p. 121]

2229

</blockquote>

2230

The Makhnovist experiments, it should be noted, have strong

2231

similarities to the rural revolution during the Spanish

2232

Revolution of 1936 (see sections

2233

<a href="secI8.html#seci85">I.8.5</a> and

2234

<a href="secI8.html#seci86">I.8.6</a> for more

2235

details).

2236

2237

As well as implementing their economic ideas on workers'

2238

self-management, land reform and free communes, the

2239

Makhnovists also organised regional congresses as well

2240

as local soviets. Most of the activity happened in and

2241

around Hulyai Pole, the focal point of the movement.This

2242

was in accord with their vision of a "free soviet system."

2243

Needless to say, the congresses could only be called

2244

during periods of relative calm (i.e. the Makhnovist

2245

home area was not occupied by hostile forces) and so

2246

congresses of insurgents, peasants and workers were

2247

called in early 1919 and another in October of that

2248

year. The actual dates of the regional congresses were:

2249

2250

23 January 1919 at Velyka Mykhailivka

2251

2252

12 February 1919 at Hulyai Pole

2253

2254

10 April 1919 at Hulyai Pole

2255

2256

20 October 1919 at Aleksandrovsk

2257

</blockquote>

2258

A congress for the fifteenth of June 1919 never met because

2259

Trotsky unilaterally banned it, under pain of death to

2260

anyone even discussing it, never mind calling for it

2261

or attending as a delegate. Unlike the third congress,

2262

which ignored a similar ban by Dybenko, the fourth congress

2263

could not go ahead due to the treacherous attack by the

2264

Red Army that preceded it. Four Makhnovist commanders were

2265

executed by the Red Army for advertising this congress.

2266

Another congress planned for Aleksandrovsk in November

2267

1920 was also prevented by Bolshevik betrayal, namely the

2268

attack after Wrangel had been defeated. [Malet, Op. Cit.,

2269

p. 108] See

2270

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a> for further details.

2271

2272

The reason for these regional congresses was simple, to

2273

co-ordinate the revolution. "It was indispensable," Arshinov

2274

notes, "to establish institutions which unified first a

2275

district composed of various villages, and then the

2276

districts and departments which composed the liberated

2277

region. It was indispensable to find general solutions for

2278

problems common to the entire region. It was indispensable

2279

to create organs suitable for these tasks. And the peasants

2280

did not fail to create them. These organs were the regional

2281

congresses of peasants and workers." [Op. Cit., pp. 87-8]

2282

These congresses "were composed of delegates of peasants,

2283

workers and of the insurgent army, and were intended to

2284

clarify and record the decisions of the toiling masses and to

2285

be regarded as the supreme authority for the liberated area."

2286

[David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 266]

2287

2288

The first congress, which was the smallest, discussed the

2289

strengthening of the front, the adoption of a common

2290

nomenclature for popular organisations (soviets and the

2291

like) and to send a delegation to convince the draftees

2292

in the Nationalist forces to return home. It was also

2293

decided to organise a second congress. The second congress

2294

was larger, having 245 delegates from 350 districts. This

2295

congress "was strongly anti-Bolshevik and favoured a

2296

democratic socio-political way of life." [Palij, Op. Cit.,

2297

p. 153] One delegate made the issue clear:

2298

2299

"No party has a right to usurp governmental power into

2300

its own hands . . . We want life, all problems, to be

2301

decided locally, not by order from any authority above;

2302

and all peasants and workers should decide their own

2303

fate, while those elected should only carry out the

2304

toilers' wish." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 154]

2305

</blockquote>

2306

A general resolution was passed, which acknowledged the

2307

fact that the Bolshevik party was "demanding a monopoly of

2308

the Revolution." It also stated:

2309

2310

"With deep regret the Congress must also declare that

2311

apart from external enemies a perhaps even greater danger,

2312

arising from its internal shortcomings, threatens the

2313

Revolution of the Russian and Ukrainian peasants and

2314

workers. The Soviet Governments of Russia and of the

2315

Ukraine, by their orders and decrees, are making efforts

2316

to deprive local soviets of peasants and workers'

2317

deputies of their freedom and autonomy." [quoted by

2318

Footman, Op. Cit., p. 267]

2319

</blockquote>

2320

As noted in

2321

<a href="append46.html#app5">section 5</a>,

2322

the congress also decided to

2323

issue an "obligatory" mobilisation to gather troops for

2324

the Army. It also accepted a resolution on land reform,

2325

stating that the land "belongs to nobody" and could be

2326

used by anyone as long as they did not use wage labour

2327

(see

2328

<a href="append46.html#app6">section 6</a>

2329

for the full resolution). The

2330

congress accepted a resolution against plunder,

2331

violence, and anti-Jewish pogroms, recognising it as

2332

an attempt by the Tsarist government to "turn the

2333

attention of all toiling people away from the real

2334

reason for their poverty," namely the Tsarist regime's

2335

oppression. [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 155]

2336

2337

The second congress also elected the Revolutionary Military

2338

Soviet of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents, which had "no

2339

powers to initiate policy but designed merely to implement

2340

the decisions of the periodic congresses." [Footman, Op. Cit.,

2341

p. 267]

2342

2343

The third congress was the largest and most representative,

2344

with delegates from 72 volosts (in which two million

2345

people lived). This congress aimed to "clarify the

2346

situation and to consider the prospects for the future

2347

of the region." It decided to conduct a voluntary

2348

mobilisation of men to fight the Whites and "rejected,

2349

with the approval of both rich and poor peasants, the

2350

Bolshevik expropriations." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 158]

2351

Toward the end of the congress, it received a telegram

2352

from the Bolshevik commander Dybenko calling it

2353

"counter-revolutionary," its organisers "outlaws"

2354

and dissolving it by his order. The congress immediately

2355

voted an indignant resolution in rely. This corrected

2356

Dybenko's factual mistakes on who called it, informed

2357

him why it was called, gave him a history lesson on

2358

the Makhnovist region and asked him:

2359

2360

"Can there exist laws made by a few people who call

2361

themselves revolutionaries which permit them to

2362

outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary

2363

than they are themselves? . . .

2364

2365

"Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should

2366

come to the country to establish laws of violence,

2367

to subjugate a people who have just overthrown all

2368

lawmakers and all laws?

2369

2370

"Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary

2371

has the right to apply the most severe penalties to a

2372

revolutionary mass, of which he calls himself the

2373

defender, simply because this mass has taken the good

2374

things which the revolution promised them, freedom

2375

and equality, without his permission?

2376

2377

"Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be

2378

silent when such a revolutionary takes away the

2379

freedom which they have just conquered?

2380

2381

"Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of

2382

a delegate because he believes he ought to carry out

2383

the mandate given him by the revolutionary mass

2384

which elected him?

2385

2386

"Whose interests should the revolutionary defend;

2387

those of the Party or those of the people who set

2388

the revolution in motion with their blood?" [quoted

2389

by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 103]

2390

</blockquote>

2391

As we discuss in

2392

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>,

2393

Trotsky's order to

2394

ban the fourth congress indicates that such laws

2395

do exist, with the "entire peasant and labouring

2396

population are declared guilty of high treason

2397

if they dare participate in their own free congress."

2398

[Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 123]

2399

2400

The last congress was held between 20th and 26th of October

2401

in Aleksandrovsk. One delegate was to be elected per 3000

2402

people and one delegate per military unit. This gave 270

2403

mostly peasant delegates. Only 18 were workers, of which 6

2404

were Mensheviks, who walked out after Makhno called them

2405

"lapdogs of the bourgeoisie" during the discussion on

2406

"free socio-economic organisations"! [Malet, Op. Cit.,

2407

p. 109] The congress passed a number of resolutions,

2408

concentrating on the care of the wounded and the poorest

2409

part of the population, a voluntary mobilisation, voluntary

2410

peasant contributions to feed the army and forced levies on

2411

the bourgeoisie.

2412

2413

According to Voline, the chairman, Makhnovist ideas were

2414

freely discussed:

2415

2416

"The idea of free Soviets, genuinely functioning in the

2417

interests of the working population; the question of

2418

direct relationships between peasants and city workers,

2419

based on mutual exchange of the products of their

2420

labour; the launching of a libertarian and egalitarian

2421

social organisation in the cities and the country; all

2422

these question were seriously and closely studied by

2423

the delegates themselves, with the assistance and

2424

co-operation of qualified comrades." [Op. Cit., p. 640]

2425

</blockquote>

2426

He notes that the congress "decided that the workers,

2427

without any authority, would organise their economic,

2428

political and administrative life for themselves, by

2429

means of their own abilities, and through their own

2430

direct organs, united on a federative basis." [Op. Cit.,

2431

p. 641]

2432

2433

It is significant to note that the congress also discussed

2434

the activities of the Makhnovists within the city itself.

2435

One delegate raised the issue of the activities of the

2436

Kontrrazvedka, the Makhnovist "counter-intelligence"

2437

section. As noted in

2438

<a href="append46.html#app5">section 5</a>,

2439

the Makhnovists,

2440

like all the armies in the Russian Civil War, had its

2441

intelligence service. It combined a number of functions,

2442

such as military reconnaissance, arrest and holding of

2443

prisoners, counter-insurgency ("Originally it had a

2444

punitive function, but because of improper treatment

2445

of prisoners of war, it was deprived of its punitive

2446

function." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 300]). The delegate

2447

stated that this "counter-espionage service" was

2448

engaged in "arbitrary acts and uncontrolled actions

2449

Bolshevik Cheka." [quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 643]

2450

Immediately a commission of several delegates was

2451

created to investigate the situation. Voline argues

2452

that "[s]uch an initiative on the part of workers'

2453

delegates would not have been possible under the

2454

Bolshevik regime. It was by activity of this kind that

2455

the congress gave a preview of the way in which a

2456

society should function from the beginning if it

2457

is based on a desire for progress and self-realisation."

2458

[Voline, Ibid.] Sadly, the commission could not

2459

complete its work due to the city being evacuated

2460

soon after the congress.

2461

2462

Another incident shows that under the Makhnovists the

2463

civilian population was in control. A delegate noted

2464

that Klein, the Makhnovist military commander in the

2465

city, had become publicly and riotously drunk after

2466

issuing proclamations against drunkenness. Klein was

2467

called before the congress, which accepted his apology

2468

and his request to be sent to the front, away from

2469

the boredom of desk work which had driven him to drink!

2470

This, according to Voline, showed that the workers and

2471

their congress were the masters and the army its servant.

2472

[Voline, Op. Cit., pp. 645-7]

2473

2474

Outside of the congresses the work of local Soviets was to be

2475

co-ordinated through the Revolutionary Military Soviet (RMS), the

2476

first RMS was set up by the 2nd congress and consisted of one

2477

delegate for each of the 32 volsts the Makhnovista had liberated.

2478

The RMS was to be answerable to the congresses and limited to

2479

implementing their decisions but the difficult military situation

2480

meant this seldom happened. When it did (the 3rd Congress) the

2481

Congress had no problems with its actions in the previous period.

2482

After the Aleksandrovsk congress, the RMS consisted of 22 delegates

2483

including three known Bolsheviks and four known Makhnovists, the

2484

Bolsheviks considered the remaining delegates "anarchists or

2485

anarchist sympathisers".

2486

2487

The military chaos of 1920 saw the RMS dissolved and replaced by

2488

the Soviet of Revolutionary Insurgents of the Ukraine, which

2489

consisted of seven members elected by the insurgent army. Its

2490

secretary was a left Socialist Revolutionary. The RMS in addition

2491

to making decisions between Congresses carried out propaganda work

2492

including the editing of the Makhnovist paper "The Road to Freedom"

2493

and collected and distributed money.

2494

2495

Lastly, we must discuss what happened when the Makhnovists

2496

applied their ideas in any cities they liberated as this

2497

gives a clear idea of the way they applied their ideas in

2498

practice. Anarchist participant Yossif the Emigrant

2499

stated that it was "Makhno's custom upon taking a city

2500

or town to call the people together and announce to

2501

them that henceforth they are free to organise their

2502

lives as they think best for themselves. He always proclaims

2503

complete freedom of speech and press; he does not fill

2504

the prisons or begin executions, as the Communists do."

2505

He stressed it was "the expression of the toilers themselves"

2506

and "the first great mass movement that by its own efforts

2507

seeks to free itself from government and establish economic

2508

self-determination. In that sense it is thoroughly

2509

Anarchistic." [Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth,

2510

pp. 193-5]

2511

2512

Arshinov paints a similar picture:

2513

2514

"As soon as they entered a city, they declared that they

2515

did not represent any kind of authority, that their armed

2516

forces obliged no one to any sort of obligation and had

2517

no other aim than to protect the freedom of the working

2518

people. The freedom of the peasants and the workers,

2519

said the Makhnovists, resides in the peasants and workers

2520

themselves and may not be restricted. In all fields of

2521

their lives it is up to the workers and peasants themselves

2522

to construct whatever they consider necessary. As for the

2523

Makhnovists -- they can only assist them with advice, by

2524

putting at their disposal the intellectual or military

2525

forces they need, but under no circumstances can the

2526

Makhnovists prescribe for them in any manner." [Arshinov,

2527

Op. Cit., p. 148]

2528

</blockquote>

2529

In addition, the Makhnovists "fully applied the revolutionary

2530

principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press,

2531

and of political association. In all cities and towns

2532

occupied by the Makhnovists, they began by lifting all

2533

the prohibitions and repealing all the restrictions

2534

imposed on the press and on political organisations by

2535

one or another power." Indeed, the "only restriction that

2536

the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the

2537

Bolsheviks, the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other

2538

statists was a prohibition on the formation of those

2539

'revolutionary committees' which sought to impose a

2540

dictatorship over the people." They also took the

2541

opportunity to destroy every prison they got their

2542

hands on, believing that free people "have no use

2543

for prisons" which are "always built only to subjugate

2544

the people, the workers and peasants." [Op. Cit., p. 153,

2545

p. 154 and p. 153]

2546

2547

The Makhnovists encouraged self-management. Looking

2548

at Aleksandrovsk:

2549

2550

"They immediately invited the working population to

2551

participate in a general conference of the workers

2552

of the city. When the conference met, a detailed

2553

report was given on the military situation in the

2554

region and it was proposed that the workers organise

2555

the life of the city and the functioning of the factories

2556

with their own forces and their own organisations, basing

2557

themselves on the principles of labour and equality. The

2558

workers enthusiastically acclaimed all these suggestions;

2559

but they hesitated to carry them out, troubled by their

2560

novelty, and troubled mainly by the nearness of the

2561

front, which made them fear that the situation of the

2562

town was uncertain and unstable. The first conference was

2563

followed by a second. The problems of organising life

2564

according to principles of self-management by workers

2565

were examined and discussed with animation by the masses

2566

of workers, who all welcomed these ideas with the greatest

2567

enthusiasm, but who only with difficulty succeeded in

2568

giving them concrete forms. Railroad workers took the first

2569

step in this direction. They formed a committee charged

2570

with organising the railway network of the region . . .

2571

From this point, the proletariat of Aleksandrovsk began

2572

to turn systematically to the problem of creating organs

2573

of self-management." [Op. Cit., p. 149]

2574

</blockquote>

2575

Unfortunately, the Makhnovists occupied only two cities

2576

(Alexandrovsk for four weeks and Katerinoslav for two

2577

periods of one and five weeks respectively). As a rule

2578

the Makhnovist rank and file had little or no

2579

experience of life in the cities and this placed severe

2580

limits on their ability to understand the specific problems

2581

of the workers there. In addition, the cities did not

2582

have a large anarchist movement, meaning that the Mensheviks

2583

and Bolsheviks had more support then they did. Both parties

2584

were, at best, neutral to the Makhnovists and anarchists,

2585

so making it likely that they would influence the city

2586

workers against the movement. As Voline noted, the

2587

"absence of a vigorous organised workers' movement which

2588

could support the peasant insurgents" was a disadvantage.

2589

[Op. Cit., p. 571]

2590

2591

There were minor successes in both cities. In Alexandrovsk,

2592

some trains were got running and a few factories reopened.

2593

In Katerinoslav (where the city was under a state of siege

2594

and constant bombardment by the Whites), the tobacco workers

2595

won a collective agreement that had long been refused and

2596

the bakers set themselves to preparing the socialisation of

2597

their industry and drawing up plans to feed both the army

2598

and the civilian population. Unsurprisingly, the bakers

2599

had long been under anarcho-syndicalist influence. [Malet,

2600

Op. Cit., p. 124]

2601

2602

Clearly, whenever they could, the Makhnovists practised their

2603

stated goals of working-class self-management and supported

2604

the organisational structures to ensure the control of and

2605

participation in the social revolution by the toiling masses.

2606

Equally, when they liberated towns and cities they did not

2607

impose their own power upon the working-class population but

2608

rather urged it to organise itself by setting up soviets,

2609

unions and other forms of working-class power. They urged

2610

workers to organise self-management of industry. True to the

2611

anarchist vision of a free society, they advocated and practised

2612

freedom of assembly, speech and organisation. In the words

2613

of historian Christopher Reed:

2614

2615

"Makhno's Insurgent Army . . . was the quintessence of a

2616

self-administered, people's revolutionary army. It arose

2617

from the peasants, it was composed of peasants, it handed

2618

power to the peasants. It encouraged the growth of communes,

2619

co-operatives and soviets but distrusted all permanent

2620

elites attempting to take hold within them. It would be

2621

foolish to think that Makhno was supported by every

2622

peasant or that he and his followers could not, on

2623

occasions, direct their cruelty towards dissidents within

2624

their own ranks, but, on the whole, the movement perhaps

2625

erred on the side of being too self-effacing, of handing

2626

too much authority to the population at key moments."

2627

[From Tsar to Soviets, p. 260]

2628

</blockquote>

2629

As such, Makhnovist practice matched its theory. This can

2630

be said of few social movements and it is to their credit

2631

that this is the case.

2632

2633

<a name="app8"><h2>8 Weren't the Makhnovists just Kulaks?</h2>

2634

2635

According to Trotsky (and, of course, repeated by his followers),

2636

"Makhno created a cavalry of peasants who supplied their

2637

own horses. These were not the downtrodden village poor whom

2638

the October revolution first awakened, but the strong and

2639

well-fed peasants who were afraid of losing what they had.

2640

The anarchist ideas of Makhno (ignoring of the state,

2641

non-recognition of the central power) corresponded to the

2642

spirit of this kulak cavalry as nothing else could." He

2643

argued that the Makhnovist struggle was not the anarchist

2644

struggle against the state and capitalism, but rather "a

2645

struggle of the infuriated petty property owner against the

2646

proletarian dictatorship." The Makhno movement, he stressed,

2647

was just an example of the "convulsions of the peasant petty

2648

bourgeoisie which desired, of course, to liberate itself from

2649

capital but at the same time did not consent to subordinate

2650

itself to the dictatorship of the proletariat." [Lenin and

2651

Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 80, p. 89 and pp. 89-90]

2652

2653

Unfortunately for those who use this kind of argument against

2654

the Makhnovists, it fails to stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

2655

Ignoring the sophistry of equating the Bolshevik party's

2656

dictatorship with the "dictatorship of the proletariat,"

2657

we can easily refute Trotsky's somewhat spurious argument

2658

concerning the background of the Makhnovists.

2659

2660

Firstly, however, we should clarify what is meant by the term

2661

"kulak." According to one set of Trotskyist editors, it was

2662

"popularly used to refer to well-to-do peasants who owned land

2663

and hired poor peasants to work it." ["glossary," Lenin

2664

and Trotsky,

2665

Kronstadt, p. 146] The term itself derives from the Russian

2666

for "fist," with appropriate overtones of grasping and meanness.

2667

In other words, a rural small-scale capitalist (employer of wage

2668

labour and often the renter of land and loaner of money as well)

2669

rather than a well-off peasant as such. Trotsky, however, muddies

2670

the water considerably by talking about the "peasant petty

2671

bourgeoisie" as well. Given that a peasant is "petty" (i.e.

2672

petit) bourgeois (i.e. own and use their own means of production),

2673

Trotsky is blurring the lines between rural capitalist (kulak)

2674

and the middle peasantry, as occurred so often under Bolshevik

2675

rule.

2676

2677

Secondly, we could just point to the eyewitness accounts of

2678

the anarchists Arshinov and Voline. Both stress that the

2679

Makhno movement was a mass revolutionary movement of the

2680

peasant and working poor in the Southern Ukraine. Arshinov

2681

states that after Denikin's troops had been broken in 1919,

2682

the Makhnovists "literally swept through villages, towns

2683

and cities like an enormous broom" and the "returned

2684

pomeshchiks [landlords], the kulaks , the police,

2685

the priests" were destroyed, so refuting the "the myth

2686

spread by the Bolsheviks about the so-called kulak

2687

character of the Makhnovshchina." Ironically, he states

2688

that "wherever the Makhnovist movement developed, the

2689

kulaks sought the protection of the Soviet authorities,

2690

and found it there." [Op. Cit., p. 145] Yossif the Emigrant,

2691

another anarchist active in the movement, told anarchist

2692

Alexander Berkman that while there was a "kulak" element

2693

within it, "the great majority are not of that type."

2694

[quoted by Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth, p. 187] According

2695

to Gallina Makhno (Makhno's wife), when entering a town

2696

or village it was "always Makhno's practice to compel

2697

the rich peasants, the kulaki , to give up their surplus

2698

wealth, which was then divided among the poor, Makhno keeping

2699

a share for his army. Then he would call a meeting of the

2700

villagers, address them on the purposes of the povstantsi

2701

[partisan] movement, and distribute his literature." [Emma

2702

Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 149]

2703

2704

However, this would be replying to Trotsky's assertions

2705

with testimony which was obviously pro-Makhnovist. As such,

2706

we need to do more than this, we need to refute Trotsky's

2707

assertions in depth, drawing on as many non-anarchist

2708

sources and facts as possible.

2709

2710

The key to refuting Trotsky's argument that the Makhnovists

2711

were just kulaks is to understand the nature of rural life

2712

before and during 1917. Michael Malet estimates that in 1917,

2713

the peasantry could be divided into three broad categories.

2714

About 40 percent could no longer make a living off their land

2715

or had none, another 40 per cent who could make ends meet,

2716

except in a bad year, and 20 per cent who were relatively

2717

well off, with a fraction at the very top who were very well

2718

off. [Op. Cit., p. 117] Assuming that "kulak" simply meant

2719

"rich" or "well-off" peasant, then Trotsky is arguing that

2720

the Makhnovist movement represented and was based on this

2721

top 20 per cent. However, if we take the term "kulak" to

2722

mean "small rural capitalist" (i.e. employer of wage labour)

2723

then this figure would be substantially smaller as few within

2724

this group would employ hired labour or rent land. In fact,

2725

the percentage of peasant households in Russia employing

2726

permanent wage-labour was 3.3% in 1917, falling to 1% in

2727

1920. [Teodor Shanin, The Awkward Class, p. 171]

2728

2729

In 1917, the peasants all across the Russian Empire took

2730

back the land stolen by the landlords. This lead to two

2731

developments. Firstly, there was a "powerful levelling

2732

effect" in rural life. [Shanin, Op. Cit., p. 159] Secondly,

2733

the peasants would only support those who supported their

2734

aspirations for land reform (which was why the Bolsheviks

2735

effectively stole the Socialist-Revolutionary land policy

2736

in 1917). The Ukraine was no different. In 1917 the class

2737

structure in the countryside changed when the Hulyai Pole

2738

peasants were amongst the first to seize the landlords'

2739

land. In August 1917 Makhno assembled all the landed gentry

2740

("pomeshchiks") of the region "and made them give him

2741

all the documents relating to lands and buildings." After

2742

making an exact inventory of all this property and

2743

presenting a report to the local and then district

2744

congress of soviets, he "proceeded to equalise the rights

2745

of the pomeshchiks and kulaks with those of the poor

2746

peasant labourers in regard to the use of the land . . .

2747

the congress decided to let the pomeshchiks and kulaks

2748

have a share of the land, as well as tools and livestock,

2749

equal to that of the labourers." Several other peasant

2750

congresses nearby followed this example and adopted the

2751

same measure. [Peter Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

2752

2753

Most of this land, tools and livestock was distributed to poor

2754

peasants, the rest was used to set up voluntary communes where

2755

the peasants themselves (and not the state) self-managed the

2756

land. Thus the peasants' "economic conditions in the region of

2757

the Makhno movement were greatly improved at the expense of

2758

the landlords, the church, monasteries, and the richest

2759

peasants." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 214] This redistribution was

2760

based on the principle that every peasant was entitled to as

2761

much land as their family could cultivate without the use of

2762

hired labour. The abolition of wage labour in the countryside

2763

was also the method the anarchists were to use in Spain to

2764

divide up the land some 20 years later.

2765

2766

We should also note that the Makhnovist policy of land reform

2767

based on the abolition of wage labour was, as we noted in

2768

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,

2769

the position agreed at the second regional congress called

2770

in 1919. The Makhnovists specifically argued with regards to

2771

the kulaks:

2772

2773

"We are sure that . . . the kulak elements of the village will

2774

be pushed to one side by the very course of events. The toiling

2775

peasantry will itself turn effortlessly on the kulaks, first by

2776

adopting the kulak's surplus land for general use, then naturally

2777

drawing the kulak elements into the social organisation." [cited

2778

by Michael Malet, Op. Cit., pp. 118-9]

2779

</blockquote>

2780

As such, when Trotsky talks about the "downtrodden village poor

2781

whom the October revolution first awakened," he is wrong. In the

2782

area around Hulyai Pole it was not the October revolution which

2783

"first awakened" them into action, it was the activities of

2784

Makhno and the anarchists during the summer and autumn of 1917

2785

which had done that (or, more correctly, it was their activities

2786

which aided this process as the poor peasants and landless workers

2787

needed no encouragement to expropriate the landlords).

2788

2789

Needless to say, this land redistribution reinforced Makhno's

2790

popularity with the people and was essential for the army's

2791

later popularity and its ability to depend on the peasants for

2792

support. However, the landlords and richer kulaks did not

2793

appreciate it and, unsurprisingly, tried to crush the movement

2794

when they could. Once the Austro-Germans invaded, the local

2795

rich took the opportunity to roll back the social revolution

2796

and the local pomeshchiks and kulaks formed a "special

2797

volunteer detachment" to fight Makhno once he had returned

2798

from exile in July 1918. [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 59]

2799

2800

This system of land reform did not seek to divide the village.

2801

Indeed, the Makhnovist approach is sometimes called the "united

2802

village" theory. Rather than provoke unnecessary and damaging

2803

conflict behind the frontlines, land reform would be placed

2804

in the hands of the village community, which would ensure that

2805

even the kulaks would have a fair stake in the post-revolutionary

2806

society as everyone would have as much land as they could till

2807

without using hired labour. The Bolshevik policy, as we will see,

2808

aimed at artificially imposing "class conflict" upon the villages

2809

from without and was a disaster as it was totally alien to the

2810

actual socio-economic situation. Unsurprisingly, peasant

2811

communities as a whole rose up against the Bolsheviks all

2812

across Russia.

2813

2814

As such, the claim that the Makhnovists were simply "kulaks"

2815

is false as it fails to, firstly, acknowledge the actual

2816

pre-revolutionary composition of the peasantry and, secondly,

2817

to understand the social-revolution that had happened in

2818

the region of Hulyai Pole in 1917 and, thirdly, totally ignores

2819

the actual Makhnovist position on land reform. As Michael Malet

2820

argues, the Bolsheviks "totally misconstrued the nature of the

2821

Makhno movement. It was not a movement of kulaks, but of the

2822

broad mass of the peasants, especially the poor and middle

2823

peasants." [Op. Cit., p. 122]

2824

2825

This was sometimes acknowledged by Bolsheviks themselves.

2826

IAkovlev acknowledged in 1920 that in 1919 Makhno "was a

2827

real peasant idol, an expression of all peasant spontaneity

2828

against . . . Communists in the cities and simultaneously

2829

against city capitalists and landowners. In the Makhno movement

2830

it is difficult to distinguish where the poor peasant begins

2831

[and] the 'kulak' ends. It was a spontaneous peasant movement

2832

.. . . In the village we had no foothold, there was not one

2833

element with which we could join that would be our ally in

2834

the struggle against the bandits [sic!]." [quoted by Palij,

2835

Op. Cit., p. 157]

2836

2837

According to a Soviet author present at the Makhnovist regional

2838

congresses on January 23 and February 12: "In 1919 when I asked

2839

the chairman of the two Congresses (a Jewish farmer) whether

2840

the 'kulaks' were allowed to participate in the Congress, he

2841

angrily responded: 'When will you finally stop talking about

2842

kulaks? Now we have no kulaks among us: everybody is tilling

2843

as much land as he wishes and as much as he can.'" [quoted

2844

by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 293]

2845

2846

According to Christian Rakovskii, the Bolshevik ruler of

2847

Ukraine, "three-fourths of the membership of the [partisan]

2848

bands were poor peasants." He presented a highly original

2849

and inventive explanation of this fact by arguing that "rich

2850

peasants stayed in the village and paid poor ones to fight.

2851

Poor peasants were the hired army of the kulaks." [Vladimir

2852

N. Brovkin, Behind the Front the Lines of the Civil War,

2853

p. 112 and p. 328]

2854

2855

Even Trotsky (himself the son of a rich peasant!) let the cat

2856

out of the bag in 1919:

2857

2858

"The liquidation of Makhno does not mean the end of the

2859

Makhnovschyna, which has its roots in the ignorant popular

2860

masses." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 122]

2861

</blockquote>

2862

Ultimately, all sources (including Bolshevik ones) accept that

2863

in the autumn of 1919 (at the very least) Makhno's support was

2864

overwhelming and came from all sections of the population.

2865

2866

Even ignoring the fact there was a social revolution and the

2867

eye-witness Bolshevik accounts (including Trotsky's!) which

2868

contradict Trotsky's assertions, Trotsky can be faulted for

2869

other reasons.

2870

2871

The most important issue is simply that the Makhnovist movement

2872

could not have survived four years if (at best) 20 per cent of

2873

the population supported it. As Christopher Reed notes, when

2874

the Makhnovists were "in retreat they would abandon their weapons

2875

and merge with the local population. The fact that they were able

2876

to succeed shows how closely they were linked with the ordinary

2877

peasants because such tactics made Makhno's men very vulnerable

2878

to informers. There were very few examples of betrayal." [Op. Cit.,

2879

p. 260] If Makhno's social base was as weak as claimed there

2880

would have been no need for the Bolsheviks to enter into alliances

2881

with him, particularly in the autumn of 1920 when the Makhnovists

2882

held no significant liberated area. Even after the defeat of

2883

Wrangel and the subsequent Bolshevik betrayal and repression,

2884

Makhno's mass base allowed him to remain active for months.

2885

Indeed, it was only when the peasants themselves had become

2886

exhausted in 1921 due to worsening economic conditions and

2887

state repression, were the Makhnovists finally forced into

2888

exile.

2889

2890

In the attempt to "eradicate his influence in the countryside" the

2891

Bolsheviks "by weight of numbers and consistent ruthlessness they

2892

achieved a partial success." This was achieved by state terrorism:

2893

2894

"On the occupation of a village by the Red Army the Cheka would

2895

hunt out and hang all active Makhnovist supporters; an amenable

2896

Soviet would be set up; officials would be appointed or imported

2897

to organise the poor peasants . . . and three or four Red militia

2898

men left as armed support for the new village bosses." [David

2899

Footman, Op. Cit., p. 292]

2900

</blockquote>

2901

Moreover, in these "military operations the Bolsheviks shot all

2902

prisoners. The Makhnovists shot all captured officers unless the

2903

Red rank and file strongly interceded for them. The rank and file

2904

were usually sent home, though a number volunteered for service

2905

with the Insurgents. Red Army reports complain of poor morale . . .

2906

The Reds used a number of Lettish and Chinese troops to decrease

2907

the risk of fraternisation." [Footman, Op. Cit., p. 293] If the

2908

Makhnovists were made up of kulaks, why would the Bolsheviks

2909

fear fraternisation? Equally, if the Makhnovists

2910

were "kulaks" then how could they have such an impact on

2911

Red Army troops (who were mostly poor peasants)? After all,

2912

Trotsky had been complaining that "Makhnovism" had been

2913

infecting nearby Red Army troops and in August 1919 was

2914

arguing that it was "still a poison which has infected

2915

backward units in the Ukrainian army." In December 1919,

2916

he noted that "disintegration takes place in unstable

2917

units of our army when they came into contact with

2918

Makhno's forces." It seems unlikely that a movement

2919

made up of "kulaks" could have such an impact. Moreover,

2920

as Trotsky noted, not all Makhnovists were anarchists,

2921

"some of them wrongly regard themselves as Communists."

2922

Again, why would people who regarded themselves as

2923

Communists join a movement of "kulaks"? [How the

2924

Revolution Armed, vol. II, p. 367, p. 110 and p. 137]

2925

2926

In addition, it seems highly unlikely (to say the least!) that a

2927

movement which is alleged to be either made up of or supported

2928

by the kulaks could have had a land policy which emphasised and

2929

implemented an equal share for the poorest peasantry, not just

2930

of land but also of live and dead stock as well as opposing the

2931

hiring of labour. This fact is reinforced when we look at the

2932

peasant reaction to the Bolshevik (and, presumably, anti-kulak

2933

and pro-"downtrodden village poor") land policy. Simply put,

2934

their policies resulted in massive peasant unrest directed

2935

against the Bolsheviks.

2936

2937

The Bolshevik land decrees of the 5th and 11th of February,

2938

1919, stated that large landlord holdings would become

2939

state farms and all stock was to be taken over by the

2940

Ministry of Agriculture, with only between one third and

2941

one half of the land being reserved for poor peasants.

2942

This was "largely irrelevant, since the peasantry had

2943

expected, and in some cases already controlled, all

2944

of it. To them, the government was taking away their

2945

land, and not seizing it from the landlords, then keeping

2946

some of it and handing the rest over to its rightful

2947

owners." [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 134] Thus the land was

2948

to expropriated by the state, not by the peasants.

2949

The result of this policy soon became clear:

2950

2951

"The Bolsheviks expropriation policy was countervailed by

2952

the peasants' resistance based upon their assumption that

2953

'the land belongs to nobody . . . it can be used only by

2954

those who care about it, who cultivate it.' Thus the

2955

peasants maintained that all the property of the former

2956

landlords was now by right their own. This attitude was

2957

shared not only by the rich and middle peasants but also

2958

the poor and landless, for they all wished to be independent

2959

farmers. The poorer the areas, the more dissatisfied were

2960

the peasants with the Bolshevik decrees.

2961

2962

"Thus Communist agricultural policy and terrorism brought

2963

about a strong reaction against the new Bolshevik regime.

2964

By the middle of 1919, all peasants, rich and poor,

2965

distrusted the Bolsheviks." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 156]

2966

</blockquote>

2967

The Bolshevik inspired Poor Peasant Committees were

2968

"associated with this disastrous policy, were discredited,

2969

and their reintroduction would need the aid of troops."

2970

[Malet, Op. Cit., p. 135] The Makhnovists, in contrast,

2971

did not impose themselves onto the villages, nor did they

2972

attempt to tell the peasants what to do and how to divide

2973

the land. Rather they advocated the formation of Free Soviets

2974

through which these decisions could be made. This, along

2975

with their support for land reform, helped win them mass

2976

support.

2977

2978

After evacuating the Ukraine in mid-1919 due to the success

2979

of Denikin's counter-revolution, the Ukrainian Communists

2980

took time to mull over what had happened. The Central

2981

Committee's November 1919 resolution on the Ukraine

2982

"gave top priority to the middle peasant -- so often and

2983

so conveniently lumped in together with the kulak and

2984

dealt with accordingly -- the transfer of landlord land

2985

to the poor peasants with only minimum exceptions for

2986

state farms." These points were the basis of the new

2987

Ukrainian land law of 5th of February, 1920. [Malet,

2988

Op. Cit., p. 135] This new law reflected long standing

2989

Makhnovist theory and practice. Therefore, the changing

2990

nature of Bolshevik land policy in the Ukraine indicates

2991

that Trotsky's claims are false. The very fact that the

2992

Bolsheviks had to adjust their policies in line with

2993

Makhnovist theory indicates that the later appealed to

2994

the middle and poor peasants.

2995

2996

Equally, it seems strange that the "kulaks" who apparently

2997

dominated the movement should have let themselves be led

2998

by poor peasants and workers. Voline presents a list of

2999

some of the participants of the movement and the vast

3000

majority are either peasants or workers. [Op. Cit.,

3001

pp. 688-91] As historian Michael Palij notes, "[a]lmost

3002

to a man, they [the Makhnovist leadership] were of poor

3003

peasant origin, with little formal education." [Op. Cit.,

3004

p. 254] Exceptions to the general rule were usually

3005

workers. Most were Anarchists or Socialist-Revolutionaries.

3006

[Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 254-62]

3007

3008

Of course, it can be argued that the leadership of a

3009

movement need not come from the class which it claims to

3010

lead. The leadership of the Bolsheviks, for example, had

3011

very few actual proletarians within it. However, it seems

3012

unlikely that a class would select as its leaders members

3013

of the population it oppressed! Equally, it seems as unlikely

3014

that poor peasants and workers would let themselves lead a

3015

movement of kulaks, whose aims would be alien to theirs.

3016

After all, poor peasants would seek land reform while kulaks

3017

would view this as a threat to their social position. As

3018

can be seen from the Makhnovist land policy, they argued

3019

for (and implemented) radical land reform, placing the land

3020

into the hands of peasants who worked the land without hiring

3021

labour (see <a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>)

3022

3023

As regards Trotsky's argument that the Makhnovists had to be

3024

kulaks because they originally formed a cavalry unit, it is

3025

easy to refute. Makhno himself was the son of poor peasants,

3026

an agricultural labourer and a worker in a factory. He was

3027

able to ride a horse, so why could other poor peasants not do

3028

so? Ultimately, it simply shows that Trotsky knew very little

3029

of Ukrainian peasant life and society.

3030

3031

Given that the Bolshevik government was meant to be a "worker-peasant"

3032

power, it seems strange that Trotsky dismisses the concerns of the

3033

peasantry so. He should have remembered that peasant uprisings

3034

against the Bolshevik government occurred constantly under the

3035

Bolsheviks, forcing them (eventually) to, first, recognise the

3036

false nature of their peasant policies in 1919 and, second, to

3037

introduce the NEP in 1921. As such, it seems somewhat ironic for

3038

Trotsky to attack the Makhnovists for not following flawed Bolshevik

3039

ideology as regards the peasantry!

3040

3041

The Bolsheviks, as Marxists, saw the peasants as "petit bourgeoisie"

3042

and uninterested in the revolution except as a means to grab their

3043

own plot of land. Their idea of land collectivisation was limited to

3044

state ownership. The initial Bolshevik land strategy can be summed up

3045

as mobilising the poor peasantry against the rest on the one hand and

3046

mobilising the city worker against the peasants (through forced grain

3047

confiscation on the other). The lack of knowledge of peasant life

3048

was the basis of this policy, which was abandoned in 1919 when it

3049

was soon proven to be totally wrong. Rather than see wealth extremes

3050

rise, the 1917 revolution saw a general levelling.

3051

3052

As regards the peasantry, here as elsewhere the Bolsheviks claimed

3053

their strategy was the objectively necessary (only possible) one

3054

in the circumstances. And here again the Makhnovists demonstrate

3055

this to be false, as the Bolsheviks themselves acknowledged in

3056

practice by changing their agricultural policies and bringing

3057

them closer to the Makhnovist position.

3058

3059

Clearly, both factually and logically, Trotsky's arguments

3060

are false. Ultimately, like most Bolsheviks, Trotsky uses

3061

the term "kulak" as a meaningless term of abuse, with no

3062

relation to the actual class structure of peasant life. It

3063

simply means a peasant opposed to the Bolsheviks rather than

3064

an actual social strata. Essentially, he is using the standard

3065

Leninist technique of specifying a person's class (or ideas)

3066

based on whether they subscribe to (or simply follow without

3067

question) Leninist ideology (see

3068

<a href="secH2.html#sech212">section H.2.12</a> for further

3069

discussion of this). This explains why the Makhnovists went

3070

from being heroic revolutionaries to kulak bandits (and back

3071

again!) depending on whether their activity coincided with

3072

the needs of Bolshevik power or not. Expediency is not a sound

3073

base to build a critique, particularly one based simply on

3074

assertions like Trotsky's.

3075

3076

<a name="app9"><h2>9 Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists?</h2>

3077

3078

No, they were not. Anyone who claims that the Mahnovist

3079

movement was anti-Semitic or conducted pogroms against

3080

Jews simply shows ignorance or a desire to deceive. As

3081

we will show, the Makhnovists were both theoretically

3082

and practically opposed to anti-Semitism and progroms.

3083

3084

Unsurprisingly, many Leninists slander the Makhnovists on

3085

this score. Trotsky, for example, asserted in 1937 that

3086

Makhno's followers expressed "a militant anti-Semitism."

3087

[Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 80] Needless to say, the

3088

Trotskyist editors of the book in question did not indicate

3089

that Trotsky was wrong in the accusation. In this way a

3090

slander goes unchecked and becomes "accepted" as being

3091

true. As the charge of "militant anti-Semitism" is a

3092

serious one, so it is essential that we (unlike Trotsky)

3093

provide evidence to refute it.

3094

3095

To do so we will present a chronological overview of the

3096

evidence against it. This will, to some degree, result in

3097

some duplication as well as lengthy quotations, however

3098

it is unavoidable. We are sorry to labour this point,

3099

but this allegation is sadly commonplace and it is

3100

essential to refute it fully.

3101

3102

Unsurprisingly, Arshinov's 1923 account of the movement takes

3103

on the allegations that the Makhnovists were anti-Semitic. He

3104

presents extensive evidence to show that the Makhnovists opposed

3105

anti-Semitism and pogroms. It is worth quoting him at length:

3106

3107

"In the Russian press as well as abroad, the Makhnovshchina was

3108

often pictured as a very restricted guerrilla movement, foreign

3109

to ideas of brotherhood and international solidarity, and even

3110

tainted with anti-Semitism. Nothing could be more criminal than

3111

such slanders. In order to shed light on this question, we will

3112

cite here certain documented facts which relate to this subject.

3113

3114

"An important role was played in the Makhnovist army by

3115

revolutionaries of Jewish origin, many of whom had been

3116

sentenced to forced labour for participation in the 1905

3117

revolution, or else had been obliged to emigrate to Western

3118

Europe or America. Among others, we can mention:

3119

3120

"Kogan -- vice-president of the central organ of the

3121

movement, the Regional Revolutionary Military Council of

3122

Hulyai Pole. Kogan was a worker who, for reasons of principle,

3123

had left his factory well before the revolution of 1917, and

3124

had gone to do agricultural work in a poor Jewish agricultural

3125

colony. Wounded at the battle of Peregonovka, near Uman, against

3126

the Denikinists, he was seized by them at the hospital at Uman

3127

where he was being treated, and, according to witnesses, the

3128

Denikinists killed him with sabres.

3129

3130

"L. Zin'kovsky (Zadov) -- head of the army's counter espionage

3131

section, and later commander of a special cavalry regiment. A

3132

worker who before the 1917 revolution was condemned to ten years

3133

of forced labour for political activities. One of the most active

3134

militants of the revolutionary insurrection.

3135

3136

"Elena Keller -- secretary of the army's cultural and

3137

educational section. A worker who took part in the syndicalist

3138

movement in America. One of the organisers of the 'Nabat'

3139

Confederation.

3140

3141

"Iosif Emigrant (Gotman) -- Member of the army's cultural and

3142

educational section. A worker who took an active part in the

3143

Ukrainian anarchist movement. One of the organisers of the 'Nabat'

3144

Confederation, and later a member of its secretariat.

3145

3146

"Ya. Alyi (Sukhovol'sky) -- worker, and member of the army's

3147

cultural and educational section. In the Tsarist period he was

3148

condemned to forced labor for political activity. One of the

3149

organisers of the 'Nabat' Confederation and a member of its

3150

secretariat.

3151

3152

"We could add many more names to the long list of Jewish

3153

revolutionaries who took part in different areas of the Makhnovist

3154

movement, but we will not do this, because it would endanger their

3155

security.

3156

3157

"At the heart of the revolutionary insurrection, the Jewish working

3158

population was among brothers. The Jewish agricultural colonies

3159

scattered throughout the districts of Mariupol, Berdyansk,

3160

Aleksandrovsk and elsewhere, actively participated in the regional

3161

assemblies of peasants, workers and insurgents; they sent delegates

3162

there, and also to the regional Revolutionary Military Council.

3163

3164

"Following certain anti-Semitic incidents which occurred in the

3165

region in February, 1919, Makhno proposed to all the Jewish colonies

3166

that they organise their self-defence and he furnished the necessary

3167

guns and ammunition to all these colonies. At the same time Makhno

3168

organised a series of meetings in the region where he appealed to the

3169

masses to struggle against anti-Semitism.

3170

3171

"The Jewish working population, in turn, expressed profound

3172

solidarity and revolutionary brotherhood toward the revolutionary

3173

insurrection. In answer to the call made by the Revolutionary

3174

Military Council to furnish voluntary combatants to the Makhnovist

3175

insurgent army, the Jewish colonies sent from their midst a large

3176

number of volunteers.

3177

3178

"In the army of the Makhnovist insurgents there was an exclusively

3179

Jewish artillery battery which was covered by an infantry detachment,

3180

also made up of Jews. This battery, commanded by the Jewish insurgent

3181

Shneider, heroically defended Hulyai Pole from Denikin's troops in

3182

June, 1919, and the entire battery perished there, down to the last

3183

man and the last shell.

3184

3185

"In the extremely rapid succession of events after the uprising of

3186

1918-19, there were obviously individuals who were hostile to Jews,

3187

but these individuals were not the products of the insurrection; they

3188

were products of Russian life. These individuals did not have any

3189

importance in the movement as a whole. If people of this type took

3190

part in acts directed against Jews, they were quickly and severely

3191

punished by the revolutionary insurgents.

3192

3193

"We described earlier the speed and determination with which the

3194

Makhnovists executed Hryhoriyiv and his staff, and we mentioned

3195

that one of the main reasons for this execution was their

3196

participation in pogroms of Jews.

3197

3198

"We can mention other events of this nature with which we are

3199

familiar.

3200

3201

"On May 12, 1919, several Jewish families - 20 people in all -

3202

were killed in the Jewish agricultural colony of Gor'kaya, near

3203

Aleksandrovsk. The Makhnovist staff immediately set up a special

3204

commission to investigate this event. This commission discovered that

3205

the murders had been committed by seven peasants of the neighbouring

3206

village of Uspenovka. These peasants were not part of the

3207

insurrectionary army. However, the Makhnovists felt it was impossible

3208

to leave this crime unpunished, and they shot the murderers. It was

3209

later established that this event and other attempts of this nature

3210

had been carried out at the instigation of Denikin's agents, who had

3211

managed to infiltrate the region and had sought by these means to

3212

prepare an atmosphere favourable for the entry of Denikin's troops

3213

into the Ukraine.

3214

3215

"On May 4th or 5th, 1919, Makhno and a few commanders hurriedly

3216

left the front and went to Hulyai Pole, where they were awaited by

3217

the Extraordinary Plenipotentiary of the Republic, L. Kamenev, who

3218

had arrived from Khar'kov with other representatives of the Soviet

3219

government. At the Verkhnii Tokmak station, Makhno saw a poster with

3220

the words: 'Death to Jews, Save the Revolution, Long Live Batko

3221

Makhno.'

3222

3223

"'Who put up that poster?' Makhno asked.

3224

3225

"He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom

3226

Makhno knew personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle

3227

against Denikin's troops, a person who was in general decent. He

3228

presented himself immediately and was shot on the spot.

3229

3230

"Makhno continued the journey to Hulyai Pole. During the rest of

3231

the day and during his negotiations with the Plenipotentiary of the

3232

Republic, he could not free himself from the influence of this event.

3233

He realised that the insurgent had been cruelly dealt with, but he

3234

also knew that in conditions of war and in view of Denikin's advance,

3235

such posters could represent an enormous danger for the Jewish

3236

population and for the entire revolution if one did not oppose them

3237

quickly and resolutely.

3238

3239

"When the insurrectionary army retreated toward Uman in the summer

3240

of 1919, there were several cases when insurgents plundered Jewish

3241

homes. When the insurrectionary army examined these cases, it was

3242

learned that one group of four or five men was involved in all

3243

these incidents -- men who had earlier belonged to Hryhoriyiv's

3244

detachments and who had been incorporated into the Makhnovist

3245

army after Hryhoriyiv was shot. This group was disarmed and

3246

discharged immediately. Following this, all the combatants who

3247

had served under Hryhoriyiv were discharged from the Makhnovist

3248

army as an unreliable element whose re-education was not possible

3249

in view of the unfavorable conditions and the lack of time. Thus

3250

we see how the Makhnovists viewed anti-Semitism. Outbursts of

3251

anti-Semitism in various parts of the Ukraine had no relation

3252

to the Makhnovshchina.

3253

3254

"Wherever the Jewish population was in contact with the

3255

Makhnovists, it found in them its best protectors against

3256

anti-Semitic incidents. The Jewish population of Hulyai Pole,

3257

Aleksandrovsk, Berdyansk, Mariupol, as well as all the Jewish

3258

agricultural colonies scattered throughout the Donets region, can

3259

themselves corroborate the fact that they always found the

3260

Makhnovists to be true revolutionary friends, and that due to the

3261

severe and decisive measures of the Makhno visits, the anti-Semitic

3262

leanings of the counter-revolutionary forces in this region were

3263

promptly squashed.

3264

3265

"Anti-Semitism exists in Russia as well as in many other countries.

3266

In Russia, and to some extent in the Ukraine, it is not a result of

3267

the revolutionary epoch or of the insurrectionary movement, but is on

3268

the contrary a vestige of the past. The Makhnovists always fought it

3269

resolutely in words as well as deeds. During the entire period of the

3270

movement, they issued numerous publications calling on the masses to

3271

struggle against this evil. It can firmly be stated that in the

3272

struggle against anti-Semitism in the Ukraine and beyond its borders,

3273

their accomplishment was enormous." [Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 211-215]

3274

</blockquote>

3275

Arshinov then goes on to quote an appeal published by Makhnovists

3276

together with anarchists referring to an anti-Semitic incident

3277

which took place in the spring of 1919. It is called WORKERS,

3278

PEASANTS AND INSURGENTS FOR THE OPPRESSED, AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS

3279

3280

"During the painful days of reaction, when the situation

3281

of the Ukrainian peasants was especially difficult and

3282

seemed hopeless, you were the first to rise as fearless and

3283

unconquerable fighters for the great cause of the liberation

3284

of the working masses. . . This was the most beautiful and

3285

joyful moment in the history of our revolution. You marched

3286

against the enemy with weapons in your hands as conscious

3287

revolutionaries, guided by the great idea of freedom and

3288

equality. . . But harmful and criminal elements succeeded

3289

in insinuating themselves into your ranks. And the

3290

revolutionary songs, songs of brotherhood and of the

3291

approaching liberation of the workers, began to be disrupted

3292

by the harrowing cries of poor Jews who were being tormented

3293

to death. . . On the clear and splendid foundation of the

3294

revolution appeared indelible dark blots caused by the

3295

parched blood of poor Jewish martyrs who now, as before,

3296

continue to be innocent victims of the criminal reaction,

3297

of the class struggle . . . Shameful acts are being carried

3298

out. Anti-Semitic pogroms are taking place.

3299

3300

"Peasants, workers and insurgents! You know that the workers

3301

of all nationalities -- Russians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Armenians,

3302

etc. -- are equally imprisoned in the abyss of poverty. You know

3303

that thousands of Jewish girls, daughters of the people, are sold

3304

and dishonoured by capital, the same as women of other nationalities.

3305

You know how many honest and valiant revolutionary Jewish fighters

3306

have given their lives for freedom in Russia during our whole

3307

liberation movement. . . The revolution and the honour of workers

3308

obliges all of us to declare as loudly as possible that we make war

3309

on the same enemies: on capital and authority, which oppress all

3310

workers equally, whether they be Russian, Polish, Jewish, etc. We

3311

must proclaim everywhere that our enemies are exploiters and

3312

oppressors of various nationalities: the Russian manufacturer,

3313

the German iron magnate, the Jewish banker, the Polish aristocrat

3314

.. . . The bourgeoisie of all countries and all nationalities is

3315

united in a bitter struggle against the revolution, against the

3316

labouring masses of the whole world and of all nationalities.

3317

3318

"Peasants, workers and insurgents! At this moment when the

3319

international enemy -- the bourgeoisie of all countries --

3320

hurries to the Russian revolution to create nationalist hatred

3321

among the mass of workers in order to distort the revolution and

3322

to shake the very foundation of our class struggle - the solidarity

3323

and unity of all workers -- you must move against conscious and

3324

unconscious counter-revolutionaries who endanger the emancipation

3325

of the working people from capital and authority. Your revolutionary

3326

duty is to stifle all nationalist persecution by dealing ruthlessly

3327

with all instigators of anti-Semitic pogroms.

3328

3329

"The path toward the emancipation of the workers can be reached by

3330

the union of all the workers of the world." [quoted by Arshinov,

3331

Op. Cit., 215-7]

3332

</blockquote>

3333

Arshinov also quotes an order issued by Makhno to "all

3334

revolutionary insurgents without exception" which states,

3335

in part, that the "goal of our revolutionary army, and

3336

of every insurgent participating in it, is an honourable

3337

struggle for the full liberation of the Ukrainian workers

3338

from all oppression." This was "why every insurgent should

3339

constantly keep in mind that there is no place among

3340

us for those who, under the cover of the revolutionary

3341

insurrection, seek to satisfy their desires for personal

3342

profit, violence and plunder at the expense of the peaceful

3343

Jewish population." [quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 217-8]

3344

3345

Unsurprisingly, as an anarchist, Makhno presents a class

3346

analysis of the problem of racism, arguing as follows:

3347

3348

"Every revolutionary insurgent should remember that his

3349

personal enemies as well as the enemies of all the people

3350

are the rich bourgeoisie, regardless of whether they be

3351

Russian, or Jewish, or Ukrainian. The enemies of the

3352

working people are also those who protect the unjust

3353

bourgeois regime, i.e., the Soviet Commissars, the

3354

members of repressive expeditionary corps, the Extraordinary

3355

Commissions which go through the cities and villages

3356

torturing the working people who refuse to submit to

3357

their arbitrary dictatorship. Every insurgent should

3358

arrest and send to the army staff all representatives

3359

of such expeditionary corps, Extraordinary Commissions

3360

and other institutions which oppress and subjugate the

3361

people; if they resist, they should be shot on the spot.

3362

As for any violence done to peaceful workers of whatever

3363

nationality - such acts are unworthy of any revolutionary

3364

insurgent, and the perpetrator of such acts will be punished

3365

by death." [quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 218]

3366

</blockquote>

3367

It should also be noted that the chairmen of three Makhnovist

3368

regional congresses were Jewish. The first and second congresses

3369

had a Jewish chairman [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 293], while Voline

3370

was the chair for the fourth one held at Aleksandrovsk.

3371

Similarly, one of the heads of the army's counter-espionage

3372

section was Jewish. [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 212] Little wonder

3373

both Arshinov and Voline stress that an important role was

3374

played by Jews within the movement.

3375

3376

The Jewish American anarchists Alexander Berkman and Emma

3377

Goldman were also in Russia and the Ukraine during the

3378

revolution. Between 1920 and 1921, they were in contact

3379

with anarchists involved with the Makhnovists and were

3380

concerned to verify what they had heard about the movement

3381

from Bolshevik and other sources. Berkman recounts meeting

3382

the Jewish anarchist Yossif the Emigrant (shot by the

3383

Bolsheviks in late 1920). Yossif stated that "Nestor

3384

is merciless toward those guilty of Jew-baiting. Most

3385

of you have read his numerous proclamations against

3386

pogroms, and you know how severely he punishes such

3387

things." He stressed that any stories of atrocities and

3388

pogroms committed by the Makhnovists were "lies wilfully

3389

spread by the Bolsheviks" who "hate Nestor worse than

3390

they do Wrangel." For Yossif, "Makhno represents the

3391

real spirit of October." [quoted by Berkman, Op. Cit.,

3392

pp. 187-9] He also notes that Gallina Makhno, Nestor's

3393

wife, would "slightly raise her voice in indignation

3394

when reports of Jew-baiting by povstantsi [partisans]

3395

were mentioned. These stories were deliberately spread

3396

by the Bolsheviki, she averred. No-one could be more

3397

severe in punishing such excesses than Nestor. Some of

3398

his best comrades are Jews; there are a number of them

3399

in the Revolutionary Soviet and in other branches of

3400

the army. Few men are so loved and respected by the

3401

povstantsi as Yossif the Emigrant, who is a Jew, and

3402

Makhno's best friend." [Berkman, Op. Cit., pp. 238-9]

3403

Both Goldman and Berkman became friends with Makhno

3404

during his exile in Paris.

3405

3406

After his exile, Makhno himself spent time refuting

3407

allegations of anti-Semitism. Two articles on this

3408

subject are contained in The Struggle Against the

3409

State and other Essays, a collection of Makhno's

3410

exile writings. In the article "The Makhnovshchina

3411

and Anti-Semitism" he recounts various examples of

3412

the "uncompromising line on the anti-Semitism of

3413

pogromists" which the Makhnovists took "throughout

3414

its entire existence." This was "because it was

3415

a genuinely revolutionary toilers' movement in the

3416

Ukraine." He stressed that "[a]t no time did the

3417

movement make it its business to carry out pogroms

3418

against Jews nor did it ever encourage any." [The

3419

Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, p. 38

3420

and p. 34] He wrote another article (called "To the

3421

Jews of All Countries"):

3422

3423

"In my first 'Appeal to Jews, published in the French

3424

libertarian newspaper, Le Libertaire, I asked Jews in

3425

general, which is to say the bourgeois and the socialist

3426

ones as well as the 'anarchist' ones like Yanovsky, who

3427

have all spoken of me as a pogromist against Jews and

3428

labelled as anti-Semitic the liberation movement of the

3429

Ukrainian peasants and workers of which I was the leader,

3430

to detail to me the specific facts instead of blathering

3431

vacuously away: just where and just when did I or the

3432

aforementioned movement perpetrate such acts? . . .

3433

Thus far, no such evidence advanced by Jews has come to

3434

my attention. The only thing that has appeared thus far

3435

in the press generally, certain Jewish anarchist organs

3436

included, regarding myself and the insurgent movement I

3437

led, has been the product of the most shameless lies and

3438

of the vulgarity of certain political mavericks and their

3439

hirelings." [Op. Cit., p. 28]

3440

</blockquote>

3441

It should be noted that Yanovsky, editor of the Yiddish language

3442

anarchist paper Freie Arbeiter Stimme later admitted that

3443

Makhno was right. Yanovsky originally believed the charges of

3444

anti-Semitism made against Makhno, going so far as ignoring

3445

Makhno's appeal to him out of hand. However, by the time of

3446

Makhno's death in 1934, Yanovsky had learned the truth:

3447

3448

"So strongly biased was I against him [Makhno] at that time I did

3449

not think it necessary to find out whether my serious accusation

3450

was founded on any real facts during the period of his great

3451

fight for real freedom in Russia. Now I know that my accusations

3452

of anti-Semitism against Makhno were built entirely on the lies

3453

of the Bolsheviks and to the rest of their crimes must be added

3454

this great crime of killing his greatness and the purity of

3455

this fighter for freedom."

3456

</blockquote>

3457

Due to this, he could not forgive himself for "so misjudg[ing]

3458

a man merely on the basis of calumny by his bitter enemies who

3459

more than once shamefully betrayed him, and against whom he

3460

fought so heroically." He also notes that it had "become

3461

known to me that a great many Jewish comrades were heart and

3462

soul with Makhno and the whole Makhno movement. Amongst them

3463

was one whom I knew well personally, Joseph Zutman of Detroit,

3464

and I know that he would not have had anything to do with

3465

persons, or a movement, which possessed the slightest leaning

3466

towards anti-Semitism." ["appendix," My Visit to the Kremlin,

3467

pp. 36-7]

3468

3469

However, by far the best source to refute claims of anti-Semitism

3470

the work of the Jewish anarchist Voline. He summarises the

3471

extensive evidence against such claims:

3472

3473

"We could cover dozens of pages with extensive and irrefutable

3474

proofs of the falseness of these assertions. We could mention

3475

articles and proclamations by Makhno and the Council of

3476

Revolutionary Insurgents denouncing anti-Semitism. We could

3477

tell of spontaneous acts by Makhno himself and other insurgents

3478

against the slightest manifestation of the anti-Semitic spirit

3479

on the part of a few isolated and misguided unfortunates in

3480

the army and the population. . . One of the reasons for the

3481

execution of Grigoriev by the Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism

3482

and the immense pogrom he organised at Elizabethgrad . . .

3483

3484

"We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do not

3485

find it necessary . . . and will content ourselves with

3486

mentioning briefly the following essential facts:

3487

3488

"1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was

3489

played by revolutionists of Jewish origin.

3490

3491

"2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission

3492

were Jewish.

3493

3494

"3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the

3495

army, there was a battery composed entirely of Jewish

3496

artillery men and a Jewish infantry unit.

3497

3498

"4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers

3499

to the Insurrectionary Army.

3500

3501

"5. In general the Jewish population, which was very numerous

3502

in the Ukraine, took an active part in all the activities of

3503

the movement. The Jewish agricultural colonies which were

3504

scattered throughout the districts of Mariupol, Berdiansk,

3505

Alexandrovsk, etc., participated in the regional assemblies

3506

of workers, peasants and partisans; they sent their delegates

3507

to the regional Revolutionary Military Council.

3508

3509

"6. Rich and reactionary Jews certainly had to suffer from

3510

the Makhnovist army, not as Jews, but just in the same way

3511

as non-Jewish counter-revolutionaries." [The Unknown

3512

Revolution, pp. 967-8]

3513

</blockquote>

3514

However, it could be claimed that these accounts are from

3515

anarchists and so are biased. Ignoring the question of why

3516

so many Jewish anarchists should defend Makhno if he was, in

3517

fact, a pogromist or anti-Semite, we can turn to non-anarchist

3518

sources for confirmation of the fact that Makhno and the

3519

Makhnovist movement were not anti-Semites.

3520

3521

First, we turn to Voline, who quotes the eminent Jewish

3522

writer and historian M. Tcherikover about the question

3523

of the Makhnovists and anti-Semitism. Tcherikover had, for

3524

a number of years, had specialised in research on the

3525

persecutions of the Jews in Russia. The Jewish historian

3526

states "with certainty that, on the whole, the behaviour of

3527

Makhno's army cannot be compared with that of the other armies

3528

which were operating in Russian during the events 1917-21.

3529

Two facts I can certify absolutely explicitly.

3530

3531

"1. It is undeniable that, of all these armies, including

3532

the Red Army, the Makhnovists behaved best with regard

3533

the civil population in general and the Jewish population

3534

in particular. I have numerous testimonies to this. The

3535

proportion of justified complaints against the Makhnovist

3536

army, in comparison with the others, is negligible.

3537

3538

"2. Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have been organised by

3539

Makhno himself. That is a slander or an error. Nothing of the

3540

sort occurred. As for the Makhnovist Army, I have had hints

3541

and precise denunciations on this subject. But, up to the

3542

present, every time I have tried to check the facts, I have

3543

been obliged to declare that on the day in question no

3544

Makhnovist unit could have been at the place indicated, the

3545

whole army being far away from there. Upon examining the

3546

evidence closely, I established this fact, every time, with

3547

absolute certainty, at the place and on the date of the

3548

pogrom, no Makhnovist unit was operating or even located

3549

in the vicinity. Not once have I been able to prove the

3550

existence of a Makhnovist unit at the place a pogrom

3551

against the Jews took place. Consequently, the pogroms

3552

in question could not have been the work of the Makhnovists."

3553

[quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 699]

3554

3555

This conclusion is confirmed by later historians. Paul

3556

Avrich notes that "[c]harges of Jew-baiting and of

3557

anti-Jewish pogroms have come from every quarter, left,

3558

right, and centre. Without exception, however, they are

3559

based on hearsay, rumour, or intentional slander, and

3560

remain undocumented and unproved." He adds that the

3561

"Soviet propaganda machine was at particular pains to

3562

malign Makhno as a bandit and pogromist." Wishing to

3563

verify the conclusions of Tcherikover proved by Voline,

3564

Avrich examined several hundred photographs in the

3565

Tcherikover Collection, housed in the YIVO Library in

3566

New York and depicting anti-Jewish atrocities in the

3567

Ukraine during the Civil War. He found that "only one

3568

[was] labelled as being the work of the Makhnovists,

3569

though even here neither Makhno himself nor any of his

3570

recognisable subordinates are to be seen, nor is there

3571

any indication that Makhno had authorised the raid or,

3572

indeed, that the band involved was in fact affiliated

3573

with his Insurgent Army." Avrich then states that

3574

"there is evidence that Makhno did all in his power

3575

to counteract anti-Semitic tendencies among his

3576

followers" and that "a considerable number of Jews took

3577

part in the Makhnovist movement." He also points out

3578

that the Jewish anarchists Alexander Berkman, Emma

3579

Goldman, Sholem Schwartzbard, Voline, Senya Fleshin,

3580

and Mollie Steimer did not criticise Makhno as an

3581

anti-Semite, they also "defended him against the

3582

campaign of slander that persisted from all sides."

3583

[Anarchist Portraits, pp. 122-3] It should be noted

3584

that Schwartzbard assassinated the Nationalist leader

3585

Petliura in 1926 because he considered him responsible

3586

for pogroms conducted by Nationalist troops during the

3587

civil war. He shot Petliura the day after he, Makhno

3588

and Berkman had seen him at a Russian restaurant in

3589

Paris. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 189]

3590

3591

Michael Malet, in his account of the Makhnovists, states

3592

that "there is overwhelming evidence that Makhno himself

3593

was not anti-Semitic." [Op. Cit., p. 168] He indicates

3594

that in the period January to September 1919, the Central

3595

Committee of Zionist Organisations in Russia listed the

3596

Nationalists as creating 15,000 victims of pogroms, then

3597

the Denikinists with 9,500 followed by Hryhoriyiv,

3598

Sokolovsky, Struk, Yatsenko and Soviet troops (500

3599

victims). Makhno is not mentioned. Of the pogroms listed,

3600

almost all took place on the western Ukraine, where the

3601

local otamany (warlords) and the Nationalists were strong.

3602

Very few took place where Makhno's influence predominated,

3603

the nearest being in Katerinoslav town and Kherson province;

3604

none in the provinces of Katerinoslav or Tavria. It should

3605

also be noted that the period of January to June of that

3606

year was one of stability within the Makhnovist region,

3607

so allowing them the space to apply their ideas. Malet

3608

summarises:

3609

3610

"Even granted the lower level of Jewish involvement in

3611

left-bank trade, the almost total lack of anti-Semitic

3612

manifestations would show that Makhno's appeals, at a

3613

time when anti-Semitism was fast becoming fashionable,

3614

did not go unheeded by the population. There were a

3615

number of Jewish colonies in the south-east Ukraine."

3616

[Op. Cit., p. 169]

3617

</blockquote>

3618

Unsurprisingly, Malet notes that apart from certain

3619

personal considerations (such as his friendship with

3620

a number of Jews, including Voline and Yossif the

3621

Emigrant), "the basis of Makhno's hostility to

3622

anti-Semitism was his anarchism. Anarchism has always

3623

been an international creed, explicitly condemning

3624

all forms of racial hatred as incompatible with the

3625

freedom of individuals and the society of equals."

3626

And like other serious historians, he points to "the

3627

continual participation in the movement of both

3628

intellectual Jews from outside, and Jews from the

3629

local colonies" as "further proof . . . of the low

3630

level of anti-Semitism within the Makhnovshchina."

3631

[Op. Cit., p. 171 and pp. 171-2]

3632

3633

Anarchist Serge Cipko summarises the literature by

3634

stating that the "scholarly literature that discusses

3635

Makhno's relationships with the Jewish population

3636

is of the same opinion [that the Makhnovists were

3637

not anti-Semitic] and concur that unlike the Whites,

3638

Bolsheviks and other competing groups in Ukraine

3639

during the Revolution, the Makhnovists did not engage

3640

in pogroms." ["Nestor Makhno: A Mini-Historiography of

3641

the Anarchist Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1921," pp. 57-75,

3642

The Raven, no. 13, p. 62]

3643

3644

Historian Christopher Reed concurs, noting that "Makhno

3645

actively opposed anti-Semitism . . . Not surprisingly,

3646

many Jews held prominent positions in the Insurgent

3647

movement and Jewish farmers and villagers staunchly

3648

supported Makhno in the face of the unrestrained

3649

anti-Semitism of Ukrainian nationalists like Grigoriev

3650

and of the Great Russian chauvinists like the Whites."

3651

[Op. Cit., pp. 263-4] Arthur E. Adams states that

3652

"Makhno protected Jews and in fact had many serving

3653

on his own staff." [Bolsheviks in the Urkaine, p. 402]

3654

3655

We apologise again for labouring this point, but the lie

3656

that Makhno and the Makhnovists were anti-Semitic is

3657

relatively commonplace and needs to be refuted. As noted,

3658

Trotskyists repeat Trotsky's false assertions without

3659

correction. Other repeat the lie from other sources.

3660

It was essential, therefore, to spend time making the

3661

facts available and to nail the lie of Makhnovist anti-

3662

Semitism once and for all!

3663

3664

<a name="app10"><h2>10 Did the Makhnovists hate the city and city workers?</h2>

3665

3666

For some reason the Makhnovists have been portrayed as being

3667

against the city and even history as such. This assertion is

3668

false, although sometimes made. For example, historian Bruce

3669

Lincoln states that Makhno "had studied the anarchist writings

3670

of Bakunin, whose condemnation of cities and large-scale

3671

industries fit so well with the anti-urban, anti-industrial

3672

feelings of the Ukrainian peasants, and his program was

3673

precisely the sort that struck responsive chords in peasant

3674

hearts." [Red Victory, p. 325] Lincoln fails to present

3675

any evidence for this claim. This is unsurprising as it is

3676

doubtful that Makhno read such condemnations in Bakunin as

3677

they do not, in fact, exist. Similarly, the Makhnovist

3678

"program" (like anarchism in general) was not "anti-urban"

3679

or "anti-industrial."

3680

3681

However, Lincoln's inventions are mild compared to Trotsky's.

3682

According to Trotsky, "the followers of Makhno" were marked by

3683

"hatred for the city and the city worker." He later gives some

3684

more concrete examples of this "hostility to the city" which,

3685

as with the general peasant revolt, also "nourished the movement

3686

of Makhno, who seized and looted trains marked for the factories,

3687

the plants, and the Red Army; tore up railway tracks, shot

3688

Communists, etc." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 80 and

3689

p. 89]

3690

3691

Unsurprisingly, Trotsky simply shows his ignorance of the

3692

Makhno movement by these statements. To refute Trotsky's

3693

claim we can simply point to how the Makhnovists acted

3694

once they occupied a city. As we discuss in

3695

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,

3696

the first thing the Makhnovists did was to call a conference

3697

of workers and urge them to organise their own affairs

3698

directly, using their own class organs of self-management

3699

(soviets, unions, etc.). Hardly the activity of a group of

3700

people who allegedly "hated" city workers!

3701

3702

We can also point to the fact that the Makhnovists arranged

3703

direct exchanges of goods between the towns and country. In early

3704

1918, for example, corn was shipped directly to a Moscow factory

3705

in return for textiles (without state interference). In 1919, 1500

3706

tons of grain (and a small amount of coal) was sent by train to

3707

Petrograd and Moscow where the commander of the train was to

3708

exchange it again for textiles. The initiative in both cases

3709

came from the Hulyai Pole peasants. Again, hardly the work of

3710

city-hating peasants.

3711

3712

Peter Arshinov indicates the underlying theory behind the

3713

Makhnovists as regards the relations between city and

3714

country:

3715

3716

"The Makhnovshchina . . . understands that the victory and

3717

consolidation of the revolution . . . cannot be realised

3718

without a close alliance between the working classes of

3719

the cities and those of the countryside. The peasants

3720

understand that without urban workers and powerful

3721

industrial enterprises they will be deprived of most

3722

of the benefits which the social revolution makes possible.

3723

Furthermore, they consider the urban workers to be their

3724

brothers, members of the same family of workers.

3725

3726

"There can be no doubt that, at the moment of the victory

3727

of the social revolution, the peasants will give their

3728

entire support to the workers. This will be voluntary and

3729

truly revolutionary support given directly to the urban

3730

proletariat. In the present-day situation [under the

3731

Bolsheviks], the bread taken by force from the peasants

3732

nourishes mainly the enormous governmental machine. The

3733

peasants see and understand perfectly that this expensive

3734

bureaucratic machine is not in any way needed by them or

3735

by the workers, and that in relation to the workers it

3736

plays the same role as that of a prison administration

3737

toward the inmates. This is why the peasants do not have

3738

the slightest desire to give their bread voluntarily to

3739

the State. This is why they are so hostile in their

3740

relations with the contemporary tax collectors -- the

3741

commissars and the various supply organs of the State.

3742

3743

"But the peasants always try to enter into direct relations

3744

with the urban workers. The question was raised more than

3745

once at peasant congresses, and the peasants always resolved

3746

it in a revolutionary and positive manner." [Op. Cit.,

3747

p. 258]

3748

</blockquote>

3749

Simply put, Trotsky misinterprets hostility to the repressive

3750

policies of the Bolshevik dictatorship with hostility to the

3751

city.

3752

3753

Moreover, ignoring the actual relationships of the Makhnovists

3754

with the city workers, we can fault Trotsky's arguments without

3755

resource to such minor things as facts. This is because every one

3756

of his "examples" of "hatred for the city and the city worker"

3757

can be explained by more common sense arguments.

3758

3759

As regards the destruction of trains and railway tracks,

3760

a far simpler and more plausible explanation can be found

3761

than Trotsky's "hostility to the city." This is the fact

3762

that a civil war was taking place. Both the Reds and Whites

3763

used armoured trains to move troops and as bases of operations.

3764

To destroy the means by which your enemy attacks you is

3765

common sense! Equally, in the chaotic times of the war,

3766

resources were often in low supply and in order to survive

3767

the Makhnovists had to "loot" trains (needless to say, Trotsky

3768

does not explain how the Makhnovists knew the trains were

3769

"marked for the factories."). It should be noted that the

3770

Bolsheviks "looted" the countryside, can we surmise that

3771

the Bolsheviks simply expressed "hostility to the village"?

3772

3773

As regards the shooting of Communists, a far simpler and more

3774

plausible explanation also exists. Rather than show "hostility

3775

to the city," it shows "hostility" to the Communist Party,

3776

its policies and its authoritarian ideas. Given that the

3777

Bolsheviks had betrayed the Makhnovists on

3778

three occasions

3779

(see

3780

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>) and attacked them, "hostility" to

3781

Communists seems a sensible position to take! Equally, the

3782

first Bolshevik attack on the Makhnovists occurred in

3783

mid-1919, when the Bolsheviks began justifying their party

3784

dictatorship as essential for the success of the revolution.

3785

The other two occurred in 1920, when the Bolsheviks were announcing

3786

to the whole world at the Communist International (to quote

3787

Zinoviev) that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the

3788

same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party." [Proceedings

3789

and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, p. 152]

3790

Given this, perhaps the fact that the Makhnovists shot Communists

3791

can be explained in terms of defence against

3792

Bolshevik betrayal and opposition to the dictatorship of the

3793

Communist Party rather than "hostility to the city." Needless to

3794

say, the Communists shot Makhnovists and anarchists. What does

3795

that suggest a "hostility" to by the Bolsheviks? Working-class

3796

autonomy and freedom?

3797

3798

Clearly, Trotsky was clutching at straws in his smearing of

3799

the Makhnovist movement as haters of the city worker. The

3800

"hostility" Trotsky speaks of can be far more easily explained

3801

in terms of the necessities imposed upon the Makhnovists by

3802

the civil war and the betrayals of the Bolsheviks. As such,

3803

it would be fairer to state that the Makhnovists showed

3804

"hostility" or "hatred" to the city or city workers only if

3805

you equate both with the Bolshevik party dictatorship. In

3806

other words, the Makhnovists showed "hostility" to the new

3807

ruling class of the Communist Party hierarchy.

3808

3809

All this does not mean that there were not misunderstandings

3810

between the Makhno movement, a predominantly rural movement,

3811

and the workers in the cities. Far from it. Equally, it can

3812

be said that the Makhnovists did not understand the workings

3813

of an urban economy and society as well as they understood

3814

their own. However, they made no attempt to impose their

3815

world-view on the city workers (unlike the Bolsheviks, who

3816

did so on both urban and rural workers). However, ignorance of

3817

the city and its resulting misunderstandings do not constitute

3818

"hostility" or "hatred."

3819

3820

Moreover, where these misunderstandings developed show that the

3821

claims that the Makhnovists hated the city workers are simply

3822

false. Simply put, the misunderstanding occurred when the

3823

Makhnovists had liberated cities from the Whites. As we

3824

discussed in

3825

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>, the first thing the Makhnovists

3826

did was to call a conference of workers' delegates to discuss

3827

the current situation and to urge them to form soviets, unions

3828

and co-operatives in order to manage their own affairs. This

3829

hardly shows "hatred" of the city worker. In contrast, the

3830

first thing the Bolsheviks did in taking a city was to

3831

form a "revolutionary committee" to govern the town and

3832

implement Bolshevik policy.

3833

3834

This, needless to say, shows a distinct "hostility" to the

3835

city workers on the part of the Bolsheviks. Equally, the

3836

Bolshevik advocacy of party dictatorship to overcome the

3837

"wavering" of the working class. In the words of Trotsky

3838

himself (in 1921):

3839

3840

"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous

3841

slogans, making a fetish of democratic principles!

3842

They place the workers' right to elect representatives

3843

above the Party, as if the party were not entitled

3844

to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship

3845

temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers'

3846

democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the

3847

awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party.

3848

which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless

3849

of temporary wavering even in the working classes. This

3850

awareness is for us the indispensable element. The

3851

dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment

3852

on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

3853

[quoted by Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p. 209]

3854

</blockquote>

3855

Opposing workers' democracy because working people could

3856

make decisions that the party thought were wrong shows a

3857

deep "hostility" to the real city workers and their

3858

liberty and equality. Equally, Bolshevik repression of

3859

workers' strikes, freedom of speech, assembly, organisation

3860

and self-determination shows far more "hostility" to the

3861

city worker than a few Makhnovist misunderstandings!

3862

3863

All in all, any claim that the Makhnovists "hated" city

3864

workers is simply false. While some Makhnovists may not

3865

have liked the city nor really understood the complexities

3866

of an urban economy, they did recognise the importance of

3867

encouraging working-class autonomy and self-organisation

3868

within them and building links between the rural and urban

3869

toilers. While the lack of a large-scale anarcho-syndicalist

3870

movement hindered any positive construction, the Makhnovists

3871

at least tried to promote urban self-management. Given

3872

Bolshevik authoritarianism and its various rationalisations, it

3873

would be fairer to say that it was the Bolsheviks who expressed

3874

"hostility" to the city workers by imposing their dictatorship

3875

upon them rather than supporting working-class self-management

3876

as the Makhnovists did!

3877

3878

<a name="app11"><h2>11 Were the Makhnovists nationalists?</h2>

3879

3880

Some books on the Makhnovist movement try to present the

3881

Makhnovists as being Ukrainian nationalists. A few discuss

3882

the matter in order, perhaps, to increase the respectability

3883

of the Makhnovist movement by associating it with a more

3884

"serious" and "respectable" political theory than anarchism,

3885

namely "Nationalism." Those who seriously investigate the

3886

issue come to the same conclusion, namely that neither

3887

Makhno nor the Makhnovist movement was nationalist (see,

3888

for example, Frank Sysyn's essay Nestor Makhno and the

3889

Ukrainian Revolution which discusses this issue).

3890

3891

Therefore, any claims that the Makhnovists were nationalists

3892

are incorrect. The Makhnovist movement was first and foremost

3893

an internationalist movement of working people. This is to be

3894

expected as anarchists have long argued that nationalism is a

3895

cross-class movement which aims to maintain the existing class

3896

system but without foreign domination (see

3897

<a href="secD6.html">section D.6</a> for

3898

details). As such, the Makhnovists were well aware that

3899

nationalism could not solve the social question and would

3900

simply replace a Russian ruling class and state with a

3901

Ukrainian one.

3902

3903

This meant that the aims of the Makhnovists went further

3904

than simply national liberation or self-determination.

3905

Anarchists, rather, aim for working-class self-liberation

3906

and self-determination, both as individuals and as groups,

3907

as well as politically, economically and socially. To quote

3908

Makhno's wire to Lenin in December 1918, the Makhnovist

3909

"aims are known and clear to all. They are fighting against

3910

the authority of all political governments and for liberty

3911

and independence of the working people." [quoted by Palij,

3912

Op. Cit., p. 80]

3913

3914

From this class and anti-hierarchical perspective, it is

3915

not unsurprising that the Makhnovists were not nationalists.

3916

They did not seek Ukrainian independence but rather working-

3917

class autonomy. This, of necessity, meant they opposed all

3918

those who aimed to govern and/or exploit the working class.

3919

Hence Arshinov:

3920

3921

"Composed of the poorest peasants, who were united by the

3922

fact that they all worked with their own hands, the Makhnovist

3923

movement was founded on the deep feeling of fraternity which

3924

characterises only the most oppressed. During its entire history

3925

it did not for an instant appeal to national sentiments. The

3926

whole struggle of the Makhnovists against the Bolsheviks was

3927

conducted solely in the name of the rights and interests of

3928

the workers. Denikin's troops, the Austro-Germans, Petliura,

3929

the French troops in Berdyansk, Wrangel -- were all treated by

3930

the Makhnovists as enemies of the workers. Each one of these

3931

invasions represented for them essentially a threat to the

3932

workers, and the Makhnovists had no interest in the national

3933

flag under which they marched." [Op. Cit., p. 210]

3934

</blockquote>

3935

He stressed that "national prejudices had no place in the

3936

Makhnovshchina. There was also no place in the movement

3937

for religious prejudices . . . Among modern social movements,

3938

the Makhnovshchina was one of the few in which an individual had

3939

absolutely no interest in his own or his neighbour's religion or

3940

nationality, in which he respected only the labour and the

3941

freedom of the worker." [Op. Cit., p. 211]

3942

3943

The Makhnovists made their position on nationalism clear

3944

in the 'Declaration' published by the Revolutionary Military

3945

Council of the army in October, 1919:

3946

3947

"When speaking of Ukrainian independence, we do not mean national

3948

independence in Petliura's sense but the social independence of

3949

workers and peasants. We declare that Ukrainian, and all other,

3950

working people have the right to self-determination not as an

3951

'independent nation' but as 'independent workers'" [quoted by

3952

Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 210]

3953

</blockquote>

3954

In other words, the Makhnovists "declared, that in their

3955

option Petlurovtchina [the Petliura movement, Petliura

3956

being the leader of the Nationalists] was a bourgeois

3957

nationalist movement whose road was entirely different from

3958

that of the revolutionary peasants, that the Ukraine should

3959

be organised on a basis of free labour and the independence

3960

of the peasants and the workers . . . and that nothing but

3961

struggle was possible between the Makhnovitchina , the

3962

movement of the workers, and the Petlurovtchina , the

3963

movement of the bourgeoisie." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 572]

3964

3965

This does not mean that anarchists are indifferent to

3966

cultural and national domination and oppression. Far from

3967

it! As we discussed in sections

3968

<a href="secD6.html">D.6</a> and

3969

<a href="secD7.html">D.7</a>, anarchists

3970

are against foreign domination and cultural imperialism,

3971

believing that every community or national group has the

3972

right to be itself and develop as it sees fit. This means

3973

that anarchists seek to transform national liberation

3974

struggles into human liberation struggles, turning any

3975

struggle against foreign oppression and domination into

3976

a struggle against all forms of oppression and domination.

3977

3978

This means that the Makhnovists, like anarchists in general,

3979

seek to encourage local culture and language while opposed

3980

nationalism. As Frank Sysyn argues, it "would be a mistake

3981

. . . to label the Makhnivtsi as 'anti-Ukrainian.' Although

3982

they opposed the political goals of most 'svidomi ukraintsi'

3983

(nationally conscious Ukrainians), they accepted the existence

3984

of a Ukrainian nation and used the terms 'Ukraine' and

3985

'Ukrainian.'" [Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian Revolution,

3986

p. 288] It should be noted that opponents of Ukrainian

3987

independence generally called it the "south of Russia" or

3988

"Little Russia."

3989

3990

Thus an opposition to nationalism did not imply a rejection

3991

or blindness to foreign domination and free cultural expression.

3992

On the question of the language to be taught in schools, the

3993

Cultural-Educational Section of the Makhnovist Insurgent Army

3994

wrote the following in October, 1919:

3995

3996

"The cultural-educational section of the Makhnovist army

3997

constantly receives questions from school teachers asking

3998

about the language in which instruction should be given in

3999

the schools, now that Denikin's troops have been expelled.

4000

4001

"The revolutionary insurgents, holding to the principles of

4002

true socialism, cannot in any field or by any measure do

4003

violence to the natural desires and needs of the Ukrainian

4004

people. This is why the question of the language to be

4005

taught in the schools cannot be solved by our army, but can

4006

only be decided by the people themselves, by parents, teachers

4007

and students

4008

4009

"It goes without saying that all the orders of Denikin's

4010

so-called 'Special Bureau' as well as General Mai-Maevsky's

4011

order No. 22, which forbids the use of the mother tongue

4012

in the schools, are null and void, having been forcibly

4013

imposed on the schools.

4014

4015

"In the interest of the greatest intellectual development

4016

of the people, the language of instruction should be that

4017

toward which the local population naturally tends, and

4018

this is why the population, the students, the teachers

4019

and the parents, and not authorities or the army, should

4020

freely and independently resolve this question." [quoted by

4021

Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 210-1]

4022

</blockquote>

4023

They also printed a Ukrainian version of their paper ("The

4024

Road to Freedom").

4025

4026

Clearly their opposition to Ukrainian nationalism did not

4027

mean that the Makhnovists were indifferent to imperialism

4028

and foreign political or cultural domination. This explains

4029

why Makhno criticised his enemies for anti-Ukrainian actions

4030

and language. Michael Malet summarises, for the Makhnovists

4031

"Ukrainian culture was welcome, but political nationalism

4032

was highly suspect." [Op. Cit., p. 143]

4033

4034

Given anarchist support for federal organisation from below

4035

upwards, working-class self-determination and autonomy, plus

4036

a healthy respect for local culture, it is easy to see why

4037

some historians have fostered a nationalist perspective onto

4038

the Makhnovists where none existed. This means that when

4039

they agitated with the slogan "All to whom freedom and

4040

independence are dear should stay in the Ukraine and

4041

fight the Denikinists," it should be noted that "[n]owhere

4042

.. . . nationalism openly advocated, and the line of

4043

argument put forward can more easily be interpreted as

4044

libertarian and, above all, anti-White." [Malet, Op. Cit.,

4045

p. 146]

4046

4047

In 1928, Makhno wrote a rebuttal to a Soviet historian's

4048

claim that Makhno became a Ukrainian Nationalist during

4049

the 1920-21 period. He "totally dismissed the charges"

4050

and argued that the historian "distorted anarchism's

4051

espousal of local autonomy so as to create trumped-up

4052

charges of nationalism." As Sysyn argues, while Makhno

4053

"never became a nationalist, he did to a degree become

4054

a Ukrainian anarchist." [Op. Cit., p. 292 and p. 303]

4055

4056

Thus while neither Makhno nor the movement were nationalists,

4057

they were not blind to national and cultural oppression. They

4058

considered nationalism as too narrow a goal to satisfy the

4059

social aspirations of the working classes. As Makhno

4060

argued in exile, the Ukrainian toilers had "asserted their

4061

rights to use their own language and their entitlement

4062

to their own culture, which had been regarded before the

4063

revolution as anathema. They also asserted their right to

4064

conform in their lives to their own way of life and specific

4065

customs." However, "[i]n the aim of building an independent

4066

Ukrainian State, certain statist gentlemen would dearly love

4067

to arrogate to themselves all natural manifestations of

4068

Ukrainian reality." Yet the "healthy instincts of the

4069

Ukrainian toilers and their baleful life under the Bolshevik

4070

yoke has not made them oblivious of the State danger in

4071

general" and so they "shun the chauvinist trend and do not

4072

mix it up with their social aspirations, rather seeking their

4073

own road to emancipation." [The Struggle Against the State

4074

and Other Essays, pp. 24-5]

4075

4076

In summary, the Makhnovists were opposed to nationalism

4077

but supported culture diversity and self-determination

4078

within a free federation of toilers communes and councils.

4079

They did not limit their aims to national liberation, but

4080

rather sought the self-liberation of the working classes

4081

from every oppression -- foreign or domestic, economic or

4082

political, cultural or social.

4083

4084

<a name="app12"><h2>12 Did the Makhnovists support the Whites?</h2>

4085

4086

No, they did not. However, black propaganda by the Bolsheviks

4087

stated they did. Victor Serge wrote about the "strenuous

4088

calumnies put out by the Communist Party" against him

4089

"which went so far as to accuse him of signing pacts with

4090

the Whites at the very moment when he was engaged in a

4091

life-and-death struggle against them." [Memoirs of a

4092

Revolutionary, p. 122]

4093

4094

According to Arshinov, "Soviet newspapers spread the false

4095

news of an alliance between Makhno and Wrangel" and in the

4096

summer of 1920, a representative of the Kharkov government

4097

"declared at the Plenary Session of the Ekaterinoslav

4098

Soviet, that Soviet authorities had written proof of the

4099

alliance between Makhno and Wrangel. This was obviously

4100

an intentional lie." Wrangel, perhaps believing these

4101

lies had some basis, sent a messenger to Makhno in July,

4102

1920. "Wrangel's messenger was immediately executed"

4103

and the "entire incident was reported in the Makhnovist

4104

press. All this was perfectly clear to the Bolsheviks.

4105

They nevertheless continued to trumpet the alliance

4106

between Makhno and Wrangel. It was only after a

4107

military-political agreement had been concluded between

4108

the Makhnovists and the Soviet power that the Soviet

4109

Commissariat of War announced that there had never been

4110

an alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, that earlier

4111

Soviet assertions to this effect were an error."

4112

[Op. Cit., pp. 173-5]

4113

4114

Needless to say, while the Bolsheviks spread the rumour

4115

to discredit Makhno, the Whites spread it to win the

4116

confidence of the peasants. Thus when Trotsky stated

4117

that Wrangel had "united with the Ukrainian partisan

4118

Makhno," he was aiding the efforts of Wrangel to learn

4119

from previous White mistakes and build some kind of

4120

popular base. [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 220] By

4121

October, Trotsky had retracted this statement:

4122

4123

"Wrangel really tried to come into direct contact with

4124

Makhno's men and dispatched to Makhno's headquarters

4125

two representatives for negotiations . . . [However]

4126

Makhno's men not only did not enter into negotiations

4127

with the representatives of Wrangel, but publicly

4128

hanged them as soon as they arrived at the headquarters."

4129

[quoted by Palij, Ibid.]

4130

</blockquote>

4131

Trotsky, of course, still tried to blacken the Makhnovists.

4132

In the same article he argued that "[u]ndoubtedly Makhno

4133

actually co-operated with Wrangel, and also with the Polish

4134

szlachta, as he fought with them against the Red Army.

4135

However, there was no formal alliance between them. All

4136

the documents mentioning a formal alliance were fabricated

4137

by Wrangel . . . All this fabrication was made to deceive

4138

the protectors of Makhno, the French, and other imperialists."

4139

[quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 225]

4140

4141

It is hard to know where to start in this amazing piece of

4142

political story-telling. As we discuss in more detail in

4143

<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>,

4144

the Makhnovists were fighting the Red Army

4145

from January to September 1920 because the Bolsheviks had

4146

engineered their outlawing! As historian David Footman points

4147

out, the attempt by the Bolsheviks to transfer Makhno to Polish

4148

front was done for political reasons:

4149

4150

"it is admitted on the Soviet side that this order was primarily

4151

'dictated by the necessity' of liquidating Makhnovshchina as an

4152

independent movement. Only when he was far removed from his home

4153

country would it be possible to counteract his influence" [Op.

4154

Cit., p. 291]

4155

</blockquote>

4156

Indeed, it could be argued that by attacking Makhno in January

4157

helped the Whites to regroup under Wrangel and return later

4158

in the year. Equally, it seems like a bad joke for Trotsky to

4159

blame the victim of Bolshevik intrigues for defending themselves.

4160

And the idea that Makhno had "protectors" in any imperialist

4161

nation is a joke, which deserves only laughter as a response!

4162

4163

It should be noted that it is "agreed that the initiative for

4164

joint action against Wrangel came from the Makhnovites." This was

4165

ignored by the Bolsheviks until after "Wrangel started his big

4166

offensive" in September 1920 [Footman, Op. Cit., p. 294 and

4167

p. 295]

4168

4169

So while the Bolsheviks claimed that the Makhnovists had made a

4170

pact with General Wrangel, the facts are that Makhnovists fought

4171

the Whites with all their energy. Indeed, they considered the

4172

Whites so great a threat to the revolution they even agreed to

4173

pursue a pact with the Bolsheviks, who had betrayed them twice

4174

already and had subjected both them and the peasantry to

4175

repression. As such, it could be argued that the Bolsheviks

4176

were the only counter-revolutionaries the Makhnovists can be

4177

accurately accused of collaborating with.

4178

4179

Every historian who has studied the movement has refuted

4180

claims that the Makhnovist movement made any alliance with

4181

the counter-revolutionary White forces. For example, Michael

4182

Palij notes that Denikin "was the main enemy that Makhno fought,

4183

stubbornly and uncompromising, from the end of 1918 to the end

4184

of 1919. Its social and anti-Ukrainian policies greatly

4185

antagonised all segments of Ukrainian society. The result

4186

of this was an increased resistance to the Volunteer Army

4187

and its regime and a substantial strengthening of the Makhno

4188

movement." He also notes that after several months of "hard

4189

fighting" Denikin's troops "came to regard Makhno's army as

4190

their most formidable enemy." Makhno's conflict with Wrangel

4191

was equally as fierce and "[a]lthough Makhno had fought both

4192

the Bolsheviks and Wrangel, his contribution to the final

4193

defeat of the latter was essential, as is proved by the

4194

efforts of both sides to have him as an ally." [Op. Cit.,

4195

p. 177, p. 202 and p. 228] According to Footman, Makhno

4196

"remained to the end the implacable enemy of the Whites."

4197

[Op. Cit., p. 295] Malet just states the obvious: "The

4198

Makhnovists were totally opposed to the Whites." [Op. Cit.,

4199

p. 140]

4200

4201

We will leave the last word to the considered judgement of

4202

the White General Denikin who, in exile, stated that the

4203

Makhno movement was "the most antagonistic to the idea of

4204

the White movement." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 140]

4205

4206

In summary, the Makhnovists fought the White counter-revolution

4207

with all their might, playing a key role in the struggle and

4208

defeat of both Denikin and Wrangel. Anyone who claims that

4209

they worked with the Whites is either ignorant or a liar.

4210

4211

<a name="app13"><h2>13 What was the relationship of the Bolsheviks to the movement?</h2>

4212

4213

The Makhnovists worked with the Bolsheviks in three periods. The

4214

first (and longest) was against Denikin after the Red Army had

4215

entered the Ukraine after the withdrawal of the Austro-Germans.

4216

The second was an informal agreement for a short period after

4217

Denikin had been defeated. The third was a formal political and

4218

military agreement between October and November 1920 in the

4219

struggle against Wrangel. Each period of co-operation ended

4220

with Bolshevik betrayal and conflict between the two forces.

4221

4222

As such, the relationship of the Bolsheviks to the

4223

Makhnovists was one of, at best, hostile co-operation

4224

against a common enemy. Usually, it was one of conflict.

4225

This was due, fundamentally, to two different concepts of

4226

social revolution. While the Makhnovists, as anarchists,

4227

believed in working-class self-management and autonomy,

4228

the Bolsheviks believed that only a centralised state

4229

structure (headed by themselves) could ensure the success

4230

of the revolution. By equating working-class power with

4231

Bolshevik party government (and from 1919 onwards, with

4232

the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party), they could not

4233

help viewing the Makhnovist movement as a threat to their

4234

power (see

4235

<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>

4236

for a discussion of the political

4237

differences and the evolving nature of the Bolshevik's

4238

conception of party rule).

4239

4240

Such a perspective ensured that they could only co-operate

4241

during periods when the White threat seemed most dangerous.

4242

As soon as the threat was defeated or they felt strong enough,

4243

the Bolsheviks turned on their former allies instantly. This

4244

section discusses each of the Bolshevik betrayals and the

4245

subsequent conflicts. As such, it is naturally broken up into

4246

three parts, reflecting each of the betrayals and their

4247

aftermath.

4248

4249

Michael Malet sums up the usual Bolshevik-Makhnovist relationship

4250

by arguing that it "will be apparent that the aim of the Soviet

4251

government from the spring of 1919 onwards was to destroy the

4252

Makhnovists as an independent force, preferably killing Makhno

4253

himself in the process . . . Given the disastrous nature of

4254

Bolshevik land policy . . . this was not only unsurprisingly,

4255

it was inevitable." He also adds that the "fact that Makhno

4256

had a socio-political philosophy to back up his arguments only

4257

made the Bolsheviks more determined to break his hold over

4258

the south-east Ukraine, as soon as they realised that Nestor

4259

would not surrender that hold voluntarily." [Op. Cit., p. 128

4260

and p. 129]

4261

4262

The first betrayal occurred in June 1919. The Makhnovists had

4263

been integrated with the Red Army in late January 1919,

4264

retaining their internal organisation (including the election

4265

of commanders) and their black flags. With the Red Army they

4266

fought against Denikin's Volunteer Army. Before the arrival

4267

of Red forces in their region and the subsequent pact, the

4268

Makhnovists had organised a successful regional insurgent,

4269

peasant and worker congress which had agreed to call a

4270

second for February 12th. This second congress set up a

4271

Revolutionary Military Soviet to implement the decisions

4272

of this and following congresses. This congress (see

4273

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>)

4274

passed an anti-Bolshevik resolution, which

4275

urged "the peasants and workers to watch vigilantly the

4276

actions of the Bolshevik regime that cause a real danger

4277

to the worker-peasant revolution." Such actions included

4278

the monopolisation of the revolution, centralising power

4279

and overriding local soviets, repressing anarchists and

4280

Left Socialist Revolutionaries and "stifling any

4281

manifestation of revolutionary expression." [quoted by

4282

Palij, Op. Cit., p. 154]

4283

4284

This change from the recent welcome was simply the behaviour

4285

of the Bolsheviks since their arrival. The (unelected)

4286

Ukrainian Bolshevik government had tried to apply the

4287

same tactics as its Russian equivalent, particularly as

4288

regards the peasants. In addition, the Bolshevik land

4289

policy (as indicated in

4290

<a href="append46.html#app8">section 8</a>) was a complete

4291

disaster, alien to the ideas and needs of the peasants

4292

and, combined with grain requisitioning, alienating them.

4293

4294

The third congress was held on the 10th of April. By

4295

this time, Communist agricultural policy and terrorism

4296

had alienated all the peasantry, who "rich and poor alike"

4297

were "united in their opposition" to the Bolsheviks.

4298

[Footman, Op. Cit., p. 269] Indeed, the "poorer the

4299

areas, the more dissatisfied were the peasants with the

4300

Bolshevik decrees." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 156]

4301

As we indicated in

4302

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,

4303

the third congress was informed that it was

4304

"counter-revolutionary" and banned by the Bolshevik

4305

commander Dybenko, provoking a famous reply which stressed

4306

the right of a revolutionary people to apply the gains

4307

of that revolution when they see fit. It is worth re-quoting

4308

the relevant section:

4309

4310

"Can there exist laws made by a few people who call

4311

themselves revolutionaries which permit them to

4312

outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary

4313

than they are themselves? . . .

4314

4315

"Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should

4316

come to the country to establish laws of violence,

4317

to subjugate a people who have just overthrown all

4318

lawmakers and all laws?

4319

4320

"Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary

4321

has the right to apply the most severe penalties to a

4322

revolutionary mass, of which he calls himself the

4323

defender, simply because this mass has taken the good

4324

things which the revolution promised them, freedom

4325

and equality, without his permission?

4326

4327

"Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be

4328

silent when such a revolutionary takes away the

4329

freedom which they have just conquered?

4330

4331

"Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of

4332

a delegate because he believes he ought to carry out

4333

the mandate given him by the revolutionary mass

4334

which elected him?

4335

4336

"Whose interests should the revolutionary defend;

4337

those of the Party or those of the people who set

4338

the revolution in motion with their blood?" [quoted

4339

by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 103]

4340

</blockquote>

4341

After the 3rd congress, the Bolsheviks started to turn

4342

against Makhno:

4343

4344

"It was now that favourable mention of Makhno ceased to

4345

appear in the Soviet Press; an increasingly critical

4346

note became apparent. Supplies failed to get through to

4347

Makhnovite units and areas." [Footman, Op. Cit., p. 271]

4348

</blockquote>

4349

Lenin himself advised local Bolshevik leaders on Makhno,

4350

stating in early May that "temporarily, while Rostov is

4351

not yet captured, it is necessary to be diplomatic."

4352

[quoted by Arthur E. Adams, Bolsheviks in the Ukraine,

4353

pp. 352-3] Thus, as long as the Bolsheviks needed cannon

4354

fodder, Makhno was to be tolerated. Things changed when

4355

Trotsky arrived. On May 17th he promised a "radical and

4356

merciless liquidation of partisanshchina [the partisan

4357

movement], independence, hooliganism, and leftism."

4358

[quoted by Adams, Op. Cit., p. 360] According to one

4359

historian, Trotsky "favoured a thorough-going annihilation

4360

of the partisan's ideological leaders as well as men like

4361

Hryhoriyov who wielded political power." [Adams, Op. Cit.,

4362

p. 360] Unsurprisingly, given Trotsky's stated mission,

4363

Bolshevik hostility towards the Makhnovists became more

4364

than mere words. It took the form of both direct and

4365

indirect aggression. "In the latter part of May," states

4366

Footman, "the Cheka sent over two agents to assassinate

4367

Makhno." Around the same time, the Red "hold-back of supplies

4368

for the Insurgents developed into a blockade of the area.

4369

Makhnovite units at the front ran short of ammunition."

4370

[Op. Cit., p. 271 and p. 272] This, obviously, had a

4371

negative impact the Makhnovists' ability to fight the

4372

Whites.

4373

4374

Due to the gravity of the military and political situations both

4375

at and behind the front, the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military

4376

Soviet decided to call an extraordinary congress of peasants,

4377

workers, insurgents and Red soldiers. This congress was to

4378

determine the immediate tasks and the practical measures to

4379

be taken by the workers to remedy the mortal danger represented

4380

by the Whites. On May 31st, a call was sent out which stated,

4381

in part, "that only the working masses themselves can find a

4382

solution [to the current problem], and not individuals or

4383

parties." The congress would be based as follows: "elections of

4384

delegates of peasants and workers will take place at general

4385

assemblies of villages, towns, factories and workshops."

4386

[quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 121]

4387

4388

The Bolshevik reply came quickly, with Trotsky issuing his

4389

infamous Order no. 1824 on June 4th:

4390

4391

"This Congress is directed squarely against the Soviet Power

4392

in the Ukraine and against the organisation of the southern

4393

front, where Makhno's brigade is stationed. This congress can

4394

have no other result then to excite some new disgraceful revolt

4395

like that of Grigor'ev, and to open the front to the Whites,

4396

before whom Makhno's brigade can only retreat incessantly on

4397

account of the incompetence, criminal designs and treason of

4398

its commanders.

4399

4400

"1. By the present order this congress is forbidden, and will

4401

in no circumstances be allowed to take place.

4402

4403

"2. All the peasant and working class population shall be warned.

4404

orally and in writing, that participation in the said congress

4405

will be considered an act of high treason against the Soviet

4406

Republic and the Soviet front.

4407

4408

"3. All delegates to the said Congress shall be arrested

4409

immediately and bought before the Revolutionary Military

4410

Tribunal of the 14th, formerly 2nd, Army of the Ukraine.

4411

4412

"4. The persons spreading the call of Makhno and the Hulyai

4413

Pole Executive Committee to the Congress shall likewise be

4414

arrested.

4415

4416

"5. The present order shall have the force of law as soon as

4417

it is telegraphed. It should be widely distributed, displayed

4418

in all public places, and sent to the representatives of the

4419

executive committees of towns and villages, as well as to all

4420

the representatives of Soviet authority, and to commanders and

4421

commissars of military units." [quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit.,

4422

pp. 122-3]

4423

</blockquote>

4424

Arshinov argues that this "document is truly classic" and

4425

"[w]hoever studies the Russian revolution should learn it by

4426

heart." He compares Trotsky's order to the reply the Makhnovists

4427

had sent to the Bolsheviks' attempt to ban the third congress.

4428

Clearly, Order No. 1824 shows that laws did exist "made by a

4429

a few people who call themselves revolutionaries which permit

4430

them to outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary than

4431

they are themselves"! Equally, the order shows that "a

4432

revolutionary has the right to apply the most severe penalties

4433

to a revolutionary mass . . . simply because this mass has

4434

taken the good things which the revolution has promised them,

4435

freedom and equality, without his permission"! Little wonder

4436

Arshinov states that this order meant that the "entire peasant

4437

and labouring population are declared guilty of high treason

4438

if they dare to participate in their own free congress."

4439

[Op. Cit., p. 123]

4440

4441

According to Voline, in Alexandrovsk "all workers meetings

4442

planned for the purpose of discussing the call of the

4443

Council and the agenda of the Congress were forbidden under

4444

pain of death. Those which were organised in ignorance of

4445

the order were dispersed by armed force. In other cities

4446

and towns, the Bolsheviks acted in the same way. As for

4447

the peasants in the villages, they were treated with still

4448

less ceremony; in many places militants and even peasants

4449

'suspected of acting in favour of the insurgents and the

4450

Congress' were seized and executed after a semblance of

4451

a trial. Many peasants carrying the call were arrested,

4452

'tried' and shot, before they could even find out about

4453

Order No. 1824." [Op. Cit., pp. 599-600]

4454

4455

As Arshinov summarises:

4456

4457

"This entire document represents such a crying usurpation of

4458

the rights of the workers that it is pointless to comment

4459

further on it." [Op. Cit., p. 124]

4460

</blockquote>

4461

Trotsky continued his usurpation of the rights of the workers

4462

in a later order on the congress. In this, Trotsky called

4463

this openly announced workers, peasant and insurgent congress

4464

a "conspiracy against Soviet power" and a "congress of

4465

Anarchist-kulaks delegates for struggle against the Red

4466

Army and the Soviet power" (which explains why the congress

4467

organisers had asked that hotbed of kulakism, the Red Army

4468

troops, to send delegates!). Trotsky indicated the fate of

4469

those workers and peasants who dared participate in their

4470

own revolution: "There can be only one penalty for these

4471

individuals: shooting." [How the Revolution Armed,

4472

vol. II, p. 293]

4473

4474

Trotsky also ordered the arrest of Makhno, who escaped but who

4475

ordered his troops to remain under Bolshevik command to ensure

4476

that the front against Denikin was maintained. However, five

4477

members of his staff were shot for having distributed literature

4478

concerning the banned fourth congress. This order was the first

4479

step in the Bolshevik attempt to "liquidate the Makhnovist

4480

movement." This campaign saw Bolshevik regiments invade the

4481

insurgent area, shooting militants on the spot and destroying

4482

the free communes and other Makhnovist organisations. [Arshinov,

4483

Op. Cit., p. 121] It should be noted that during the Spanish

4484

Revolution, the Stalinists acted in the same way, attacking

4485

rural collectives while the anarchist troops fought against

4486

Franco at the front.

4487

4488

Thus the participating event for the break between the

4489

Makhnovists and Bolsheviks was Trotsky's banning of the

4490

fourth regional congress. However, this was preceded by

4491

an intense press campaign against the Makhnovists as well

4492

as holding back of essential supplies from the frontline

4493

troops. Clearly the Bolsheviks considered that the soviet

4494

system was threatened if soviet conferences were called

4495

and that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was undermined

4496

if the proletariat took part in the revolutionary process!

4497

4498

With the Makhnovist front weakened, they could not hold against

4499

Denikin's attacks, particularly when Red Army troops retreated on

4500

their flank. Thus, the front which the Makhnovists themselves had

4501

formed and held for more than six months was finally broken.

4502

[Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 124] The Red Army was split into three

4503

and the Whites entered the Ukraine, which the Bolsheviks promptly

4504

abandoned to its fate. The Makhnovists, drawing stray Red Army

4505

and other forces to it, continued to fight the Whites, ultimately

4506

inflicting a decisive defeat on them at Peregonovka, subsequently

4507

destroying their supply lines and ensuring Denikin's defeat

4508

(see <a href="append46.html#app4">section 4</a>).

4509

4510

The Red Army re-entered the Ukraine at the end of 1919.

4511

Bolshevik plans with regard to the Makhnovists had already

4512

been decided in a secret order written by Trotsky on

4513

December 11th. Red Army troops had to "be protected

4514

against infection by guerrilla-ism and Makhnovism" by

4515

various means, including "extensive agitation" which

4516

used "examples from the past to show the treacherous role

4517

played by the Makhnovites." A "considerable number of

4518

agents" would be sent "ahead" of the main forces

4519

to "join the

4520

guerrilla detachments" and would agitate against "guerrilla-ism."

4521

Once partisan forces meet with Red Army troops, the former

4522

"ceases to be a military unit after it has appeared on our

4523

side of the line . . . From that moment it becomes merely

4524

material for processing, and for that purpose is to be sent

4525

to our rear." To "secure complete subordination of the

4526

detachments," the Red forces "must make use of the agents

4527

previously set to these detachments." The aim, simply put,

4528

was to ensure that the partisans became "fully subordinate

4529

to our command." If the partisans who had been fighting for

4530

revolution and against the Whites opposed becoming "material

4531

for processing" (i.e cannon fodder), "refuses to submit to

4532

orders, displays unruliness and self-will," then it "must

4533

be subjected to ruthless punishment." Recognising the

4534

organic links the partisans had with the peasants, Trotsky

4535

argues that "in the Ukraine, guerrilla detachments appear

4536

and disappear with ease, dissolving themselves into the

4537

mass of the armed peasant population" and so "a fundamental

4538

condition for the success against guerrilla-ism is

4539

unconditional disarmament of the rural population,

4540

without exception." [Trotsky, How the Revolution Armed,

4541

vol. II, pp. 440-2] As events would show, the Bolsheviks

4542

implemented Trotsky's order to the letter.

4543

4544

On December 24th, Makhno's troops met with the Bolshevik 14th

4545

army and its commander "admitted Makhno's service in defeating

4546

Denikin." However, while "the Bolsheviks fraternised with the

4547

Makhno troops . . . they distrusted Makhno, fearing the

4548

popularity he had gained as a result of his successful

4549

fighting against Denikin." The Bolsheviks had "no intention

4550

of tolerating Makhno's independent policy, but hoped first to

4551

destroy his army by removing it from its own base. With this

4552

in mind, on January 8th, 1920, the Revolutionary Military

4553

Council of the Fourteenth Army ordered Makhno to move to the

4554

Polish Front . . . The author of the order realised that there

4555

was no real war between the Poles and the Bolsheviks at the

4556

time and he also knew that Makhno would not abandon his region.

4557

.. . . Uborevich [the author] explained that 'an appropriate

4558

reaction by Makhno to this order would give us the chance

4559

to have accurate grounds for our next steps' . . . [He]

4560

concluded: 'The order is a certain political manoeuvre and,

4561

at the very least, we expect positive results from Makhno's

4562

realisation of this.'" [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 209 and p. 210]

4563

As can be seen, these actions fit perfectly with Trotsky's

4564

secret order and with Bolshevik desire for a monopoly of

4565

power for itself (see

4566

<a href="append46.html#app14">next section</a>).

4567

4568

As expected, the Makhnovists refused to leave their territory.

4569

They realised the political motivations behind the order. As

4570

Arshinov notes, "[s]ending the insurrectionary army to the

4571

Polish front meant removing from the Ukraine the main nerve

4572

centre of the revolutionary insurrection. This was precisely

4573

what the Bolsheviks wanted: they would then be absolute masters

4574

of the rebellious region, and the Makhnovists were perfectly

4575

aware of this." [Op. Cit., p. 163] As well as political

4576

objections, the Makhnovists listed practical reasons for

4577

not going. Firstly, "the Insurrectionary Army was subordinate

4578

neither to the 14th Corps nor to any other unit of the Red Army.

4579

The Red commander had no authority to give orders to the

4580

Insurrectionary Army." Secondly, "it was materially impossible

4581

to carry it out, since half the men, as well as nearly all

4582

the commanders and staff, and Makhno himself, were sick

4583

[with typhus]." Thirdly, "the fighting qualities and

4584

revolutionary usefulness of the Insurrectionary Army were

4585

certainly much greater on their own ground." [Voline, Op.

4586

Cit., pp. 650-1]

4587

4588

The Bolsheviks refused to discuss the issue and on the 14th

4589

of January, they declared the Makhnovists outlawed. They

4590

then "made a great effort to destroy" Makhno. [Palij,

4591

Op. Cit., p. 210] In summary, the Bolsheviks started the

4592

conflict in order to eliminate opposition to their power.

4593

This led to nine months of bitter fighting between the

4594

Red Army and the Makhnovists. To prevent fraternisation,

4595

the Bolsheviks did not use local troops and instead imported

4596

Latvian, Estonian and Chinese troops. They also used other

4597

"new tactics," and "attacked not only Makhno's partisans,

4598

but also the villages and towns in which the population

4599

was sympathetic toward Makhno. They shot ordinary soldiers

4600

as well as their commanders, destroying their houses,

4601

confiscating their properties and persecuting their families.

4602

Moreover the Bolsheviks conducted mass arrests of innocent

4603

peasants who were suspected of collaborating in some way

4604

with the partisans. It is impossible to determine the

4605

casualties involved." They also set up "Committees of

4606

the Poor" as part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus,

4607

which acted as "informers helping the Bolshevik secret police

4608

in its persecution of the partisans, their families and

4609

supporters, even to the extent of hunting down and executing

4610

wounded partisans." [Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 212-3]

4611

4612

This conflict undoubtedly gave time for the Whites to

4613

reorganise themselves and encouraged the Poles to invade

4614

the Ukraine, so prolonging the Civil War. The Makhnovists

4615

were threatened by both the Bolsheviks and Wrangel. By

4616

mid-1920, Wrangel appeared to be gaining the upper hand

4617

and the Makhnovists "could not remain indifferent to

4618

Wrangel's advance . . . Everything done to destroy him

4619

would in the last analysis benefit the revolution." This

4620

lead the Makhnovists to consider allying with the Bolsheviks

4621

as "the difference between the Communists and Wrangel

4622

was that the Communists had the support of the masses

4623

with faith in the revolution. It is true that these masses

4624

were cynically misled by the Communists, who exploited

4625

the revolutionary enthusiasm of the workers in the interests

4626

of Bolshevik power." With this in mind, the Makhnovists

4627

agreed at a mass assembly to make an alliance with the

4628

Bolsheviks against Wrangel as this would eliminate the

4629

White threat and end the civil war. [Arshinov, Op. Cit.,

4630

p. 176]

4631

4632

The Bolsheviks ignored the Makhnovist offer using

4633

mid-September, when "Wrangel's success caused the Bolsheviks

4634

leaders to reconsider." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 223] Sometime

4635

between the 10th and 15th of October the final agreement was

4636

signed:

4637

4638

"Part I -- Political Agreement.

4639

4640

"1. Immediate release of all Makhnovists and anarchists imprisoned

4641

or in exile in the territories of the Soviet Republic; cessation

4642

of all persecutions of Makhnovists or anarchists, except those

4643

who carry on armed conflict against the Soviet Government.

4644

4645

"2. Complete freedom in all forms of public expression and

4646

propaganda for all Makhnovists and anarchists, for their

4647

principles and ideas, in speech and the press, with the

4648

exception of anything that might call for the violent

4649

overthrow of the Soviet Government, and on condition that

4650

the requirements of military censorship be respected. For

4651

all kinds of publications, the Makhnovists and anarchists,

4652

as revolutionary organisations recognised by the Soviet

4653

Government may make use of the technical apparatus of the

4654

Soviet State, while naturally submitting to the technical

4655

rules for publication.

4656

4657

"3. Free participation in elections to the Soviets; and the

4658

right of Makhnovists and anarchists to be elected thereto.

4659

Free participation in the organisation of the forthcoming

4660

Fifth Pan-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets . . .

4661

4662

"Part II -- Military Agreement.

4663

4664

"1. The Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovist)

4665

will join the armed forces of the Republic as a partisan army,

4666

subordinate, in regard to operations, to the supreme command of

4667

the Red Army; it will retain its established internal structure,

4668

and does not have to adopt the bases and principles of the

4669

regular Red Army.

4670

4671

"2. When crossing Soviet territory at the front, or going between

4672

fronts, the Insurrectionary Army will not accept into its ranks

4673

neither any detachments of, nor deserters from, the Red Army . . .

4674

4675

"3. For the purpose of destroying the common enemy -- the White

4676

Army -- the Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army

4677

(Makhnovists) will inform the working masses that collaborate

4678

with it the agreement that has been concluded; it will call upon

4679

the people to cease all military actions hostile to the Soviet

4680

power; and for its part, the Soviet power will immediately

4681

publish the clauses of the agreement.

4682

4683

"4. The families of combatants of the Makhnovist Revolutionary

4684

Insurrectionary Army living in the territory of the Soviet

4685

Republic shall enjoy the same rights as those of soldiers of

4686

the Red Army . . ." [quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 178]

4687

</blockquote>

4688

This agreement was agreed by both sides, although the Bolsheviks

4689

immediately broke it by publishing the military agreement first,

4690

followed by the political agreement a week later, so obscuring

4691

the real meaning of the pact. As it stands, the political clause

4692

simply gave anarchists and Makhnovists the rights they should

4693

have already had, according to the constitution of the Soviet

4694

state. This shows how far the Bolsheviks had applied that

4695

constitution.

4696

4697

The agreement is highly significant as in itself it disproves

4698

many of the Bolsheviks slanders about the Makhnovists and it

4699

proves the suppression of the anarchist press to have been on

4700

political grounds.

4701

4702

However, the Makhnovists desired to add a fourth clause to

4703

the Political Agreement:

4704

4705

"Since one of the essential principles of the Makhnovist movement

4706

is the struggle for the self-management of the workers, the

4707

Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovist) believes it should insist on

4708

the following fourth point of the political agreement: in the

4709

region where the Makhnovist Army is operating, the population

4710

of workers and peasants will create its own institutions of

4711

economic and political self-management; these institutions will

4712

be autonomous and joined in federation, by means of agreement,

4713

with the government organs of the Soviet Republic," [quoted by

4714

Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 179-80]

4715

</blockquote>

4716

Unsurprisingly, the Bolsheviks refused to ratify this clause.

4717

As one Bolshevik historian pointed out, the "fourth point was

4718

fundamental to both sides, it meant the system of free Soviets,

4719

which was in total opposition to the idea of the dictatorship

4720

of the proletariat." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 108] As

4721

we discuss in the

4722

<a href="append46.html#app14">next section</a>,

4723

the Bolsheviks had equated

4724

the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the dictatorship

4725

of their party and so working-class self-management could not

4726

be allowed. It should be noted that this fourth clause was the

4727

cause of Lenin and Trotsky's toying with the idea of allowing

4728

the Makhnovists south-eastern Ukraine as an anarchist

4729

experiment (as mentioned by both Victor Serge and Trotsky in

4730

later years).

4731

4732

Once Wrangel had been defeated by Makhnovist and Red Army

4733

units, the Bolsheviks turned on the movement. Makhno had

4734

"assumed that the coming conflict with the Bolsheviks could

4735

be limited to the realm of ideas, feeling that the strong

4736

revolutionary ideas and feelings of the peasants, together

4737

with their distrust of the foreign invaders, were the best

4738

guarantees for the movement's territory. Moreover, Makhno

4739

believed that the Bolsheviks would not attack his movement

4740

immediately. A respite of some three months would have

4741

allowed him to consolidate his power [sic!] and to win

4742

over much of the Bolshevik rank and file." [Palij,

4743

Op. Cit., p. 231] From the wording of the second clause

4744

of the military agreement (namely, to refuse Red Army

4745

deserters or units), it is clear that the Bolsheviks were

4746

aware of the appeal of Makhnovist politics on the Red

4747

Army soldiers. As soon as Wrangel was defeated, the Red

4748

Army attacked. Makhnovist commanders were invited to

4749

meetings, arrested and then shot. The Red Army surrounded

4750

Makhnovist units and attacked them. At the same time,

4751

anarchists were arrested all across the Ukraine. Hulyai

4752

Pole itself was attacked (Makhno, despite overwhelming

4753

odds, broke out). [Malet, Op. Cit., pp. 71-2]

4754

4755

In the words of Makhno:

4756

4757

"In this difficult and responsible revolutionary position

4758

the Makhno movement made one great mistake: alliance with

4759

the Bolsheviks against a common enemy, Wrangel and the

4760

Entente. In the period of this alliance that was morally

4761

right and of practical value for the revolution, the Makhno

4762

movement mistook Bolshevik revolutionism and failed to

4763

secure itself in advance against betrayal. The Bolsheviks

4764

and their experts treacherously circumvented it." [quoted

4765

by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 234]

4766

</blockquote>

4767

While the Bolsheviks continuously proclaimed the final defeat

4768

of the Makhnovists, they held out for nearly a year before

4769

being forced to leave the Ukraine in August 1921. Indeed,

4770

by the end of 1920 his troops number ten to fifteen thousand

4771

men and the "growing strength of the Makhno army and its

4772

successes caused serious concern in the Bolshevik regime."

4773

More Red troops were deployed, "stationing whole regiments,

4774

primarily cavalry, in the occupied villages to terrorise

4775

the peasants and prevent them from supporting Makhno. . .

4776

Cheka punitive units were constantly trailing the partisans,

4777

executing Makhno's sympathisers and the partisans' families."

4778

[Palij, Op. Cit., p. 237 and p. 238] Combined with this

4779

state terrorism, economic conditions in the villages got

4780

worse. The countryside was exhausted and 1921 was a famine

4781

year. With his rural base itself barely surviving, the

4782

Makhnovists could not survive long.

4783

4784

It should be noted that during the periods after the Bolsheviks

4785

had turned on the Makhnovists, the latter appealed to rank-and-file

4786

Red Army troops not to attack them. As one of their leaflets

4787

put it: "Down with fratricidal war among the working people!"

4788

They urged the Red Army troops (with some success) to rebel

4789

against the commissars and appointed officers and join with

4790

the Makhnovists, who would "greet [them] as our own brothers

4791

and together we will create a free and just life for workers

4792

and peasants and will struggle against all tyrants and

4793

oppressors of the working people." [contained in Arshinov,

4794

Op. Cit., p. 276 and p. 283]

4795

4796

Even after the defeat of the Makhnovists, the Bolsheviks did not

4797

stop their campaign of lies. For example, Trotsky reported to

4798

the Ninth Congress of Soviets on December 26th, 1921, that

4799

the Makhnovists were "in Romania," where Makhno had "received

4800

a friendly welcome" and was "liv[ing] comfortably in Bucharest."

4801

The Makhnovists had picked Romania because it was, like Poland,

4802

"a country where they . . . felt secure" due to the way they

4803

treated "Russian counter-revolutionary bands." [How the

4804

Revolution Armed, vol. IV, p. 404] In reality, the "Romanian

4805

authorities put Makhno, his wife, and his followers in an

4806

internment camp." The Bolsheviks were not unaware of this,

4807

as they "sent a series of sharp diplomatic notes demanding

4808

Makhno's extradiction." They expelled Makhno and his wife

4809

to Poland on April 11, 1922. The Poles also interned them

4810

and, again, the Bolsheviks demanded Makhno's extradition

4811

"on the ground that he was a criminal and not entitled to

4812

political asylum." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 242] Trotsky's lies

4813

come as no surprise, given his and his party's track record

4814

on slandering anarchists.

4815

4816

As can be seen, the relationship of the Makhnovists to the

4817

Bolsheviks was one of constant betrayal of the former by the

4818

latter. Moreover, the Bolsheviks took every opportunity to

4819

slander the Makhnovists, with Trotsky going so far as to

4820

report Makhno was living well while he was rotting in a

4821

capitalist prison. This is to be expected, as the aims of the

4822

two groups were at such odds. As we discuss in the

4823

<a href="append46.html#app14">next section</a>,

4824

while the Makhnovists did whatever they could to encourage

4825

working-class self-management and freedom, the Bolsheviks had

4826

evolved from advocating the government of their party as the

4827

expression of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" to stating

4828

that only the dictatorship of their party could ensure the success of

4829

a social revolution and so was "the dictatorship of the

4830

proletariat." As the Makhnovist movement shows, if need be,

4831

the party would happily exercise its dictatorship over the

4832

proletariat (and peasantry) if that was needed to retain its

4833

power.

4834

4835

<a name="app14"><h2>14 How did the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks differ?</h2>

4836

4837

Like chalk and cheese.

4838

4839

Whereas the Bolsheviks talked about soviet democracy while

4840

exercising a party dictatorship, the Makhnovists not only

4841

talked about "free soviets," they also encouraged them with

4842

all their ability. Similarly, while Lenin stated that

4843

free speech was "a bourgeois notion" and that there could

4844

be "no free speech in a revolutionary period," the Makhnovists

4845

proclaimed free speech for working people. [Lenin quoted by

4846

Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 33] While the

4847

Bolsheviks ended up arguing for the necessity of party

4848

dictatorship during a revolution, the Makhnovists introduced

4849

free soviets and organised peasant, worker and insurgent

4850

congresses to conduct the revolution.

4851

4852

We have discussed the Makhnovist ideas in both theory and

4853

practice in sections

4854

<a href="append46.html#app5">5</a>,

4855

<a href="append46.html#app6">6</a> and

4856

<a href="append46.html#app7">7</a>. In spite of

4857

the chaos and difficulties imposed upon the movement by

4858

having to fight the counter-revolution, the Makhnovists

4859

applied their ideals constantly. The Makhnovists were a mass

4860

movement and its constructive efforts showed that there was

4861

an alternative route the Russian revolution could have followed

4862

other than the authoritarian dictatorship that Leninists, then

4863

and now, claimed was inevitable if the revolution was to be saved.

4864

4865

To see why, we must compare Bolshevik ideology and practice

4866

to that of the Makhnovists in three key areas. Firstly, on

4867

how a revolution should be defended. Secondly, on the role of

4868

the soviets and party in the revolution. Thirdly, on the question

4869

of working-class freedom.

4870

4871

Early in 1918, after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty the

4872

Bolsheviks re-introduced Tsarist officers into the army alongside

4873

bourgeois military discipline. As Maurice Brinton correctly

4874

summarises:

4875

4876

"Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after

4877

Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The

4878

death penalty for disobedience under fire had been restored. So,

4879

more gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate

4880

living quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic

4881

forms of organisation, including the election of officers, had

4882

been quickly dispensed with." [The Bolsheviks and Workers'

4883

Control, p. 37]

4884

</blockquote>

4885

Officers were appointed rather then elected. They argued this had to

4886

be done to win the war. The "principle of election," stated Trotsky,

4887

"is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient and has been,

4888

in practice, abolished by decree." Thus the election of officers

4889

and the creation of soldiers' committees was abolished from the top,

4890

replaced by appointed officers. Trotsky's rationale for this was

4891

simply that "political power is in the hands of the same working

4892

class from whose ranks the Army is recruited." In other words, the

4893

Bolshevik Party held power as power was actually held by it, not

4894

the working class. Trotsky tried to answer the obvious objection:

4895

4896

"Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system

4897

under which the government is headed by persons who have been

4898

directly elected by the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and

4899

Soldiers' Deputies, there can be no antagonism between the

4900

government and the mass of the workers, just as there is no

4901

antagonism between the administration of the union and the

4902

general assembly of its members, and, therefore, there cannot

4903

be any grounds for fearing the appointment of members of the

4904

commanding staff by the organs of the Soviet Power." [Work,

4905

Discipline, Order]

4906

</blockquote>

4907

He repeated this argument in his 1919 diatribe against the

4908

Makhnovists:

4909

4910

"The Makhnovites shout raucously: 'Down with appointed commanders!'

4911

This they do only so as to delude the ignorant element among their

4912

own soldiers. One can speak of 'appointed' persons only under the

4913

bourgeois order, when Tsarist officials or bourgeois ministers

4914

appointed at their own discretion commanders who kept the soldier

4915

masses subject to the bourgeois classes. Today there is no authority

4916

in Russia but that which is elected by the whole working class and

4917

working peasantry. It follows that commanders appointed by the

4918

central Soviet Government are installed in their positions by the

4919

will of the working millions. But the Makhnovite commanders reflect

4920

the interests of a minute group of Anarchists who rely on the kulaks

4921

and the ignorant." [The Makhno Movement]

4922

</blockquote>

4923

Of course, most workers are well aware that the administration

4924

of a trade union usually works against them during periods of struggle.

4925

Indeed, so are most Trotskyists as they often denounce the betrayals

4926

by that administration. Thus Trotsky's own analogy indicates the

4927

fallacy of his argument. Equally, it was not "the will of the working

4928

millions" which appointed anyone, it was a handful of leaders of the

4929

Bolshevik party (which had manipulated the soviets to remain in

4930

power). Needless to say, this was a vast change from Lenin's

4931

comments in State and Revolution opposing appointment and calling

4932

for election of all officials!

4933

4934

Moreover, the explanation that "the ignorant" were to blame for

4935

Makhnovist opposition to appointed officers had a long legacy

4936

with Trotsky. In April 1918, when justifying Bolshevik introduction

4937

of appointed officers, he had argued that the "Soviet government

4938

is the same as the committee of a trade union. It is elected by

4939

the workers and peasants and you can at the All-Russian Congress

4940

of Soviets, at any moment you like, dismiss that government and

4941

appoint another. But once you have appointed it, you must give

4942

it the right to choose the technical specialists." He stressed

4943

that this applied "in military affairs, in particular." Using the

4944

trade union analogy, he argued that the workers had "entrusted

4945

us [the Bolshevik leaders] with the direction of the union" and

4946

this meant that the Bolshevik leaders, not the workers, should

4947

decide things as "we are better able to judge in the matter" than

4948

them! The workers role was stated clearly: "if our way of conducting

4949

the business is bad, then throw us out and elect another committee!"

4950

[Leon Trotsky Speaks, p. 113] In other words, like any bureaucrat,

4951

for Trotsky working-class participation in the affairs of the

4952

revolution was seen as irrelevant: the masses had voted and

4953

their role was now that of obeying those who "are better able to

4954

judge."

4955

4956

Using an argument the Tsar could have been proud of, Trotsky defended

4957

the elimination of soldier democracy:

4958

4959

"How could soldiers who have just entered the army choose the

4960

chiefs! Have they any vote to go by? They have none. And therefore

4961

elections are impossible." [Ibid.]

4962

</blockquote>

4963

Equally, how could workers and peasants who have just entered

4964

political or economic struggle in 1917 choose the chiefs? Had

4965

they any vote to go by? They had none. And therefore political

4966

and workplace elections are impossible. Unsurprisingly, Trotsky

4967

soon ended up applying this logic to politics as well, defending

4968

(like all the leaders of Bolshevism) the dictatorship of the

4969

party over working class. How could the "ignorant" workers

4970

be expected to elect the best "chiefs" never mind manage their

4971

own affairs!

4972

4973

Ironically, in 1936 the Stalinist Communist Party in Spain was

4974

to make very similar arguments about the need for a regular army

4975

and army discipline to win the war. As Aileen O'Carroll in her

4976

essay "Freedom and Revolution" argues:

4977

4978

"The conventional army structure evolved when feudal kings or

4979

capitalist governments required the working class to fight its

4980

wars for them. These had to be authoritarian institutions, because

4981

although propaganda and jingoism can play a part initially in

4982

encouraging enlistment, the horrors of war soon expose the futility

4983

of nationalism. A large part of military organisation is aimed at

4984

ensuring that soldiers remain fighting for causes they do not

4985

necessarily believe in. Military discipline attempts to create an

4986

unthinking, unquestioning body of soldiers, as fearful of their

4987

own side as of the other." [Red & Black Revolution, no. 1]

4988

</blockquote>

4989

In short in both Russia and Spain the Bolsheviks wanted an army

4990

that would obey them regardless of whether the individual soldiers

4991

felt they were doing the correct thing, indeed who would obey

4992

through fear of their officers even when they knew what they were

4993

doing was wrong. Such a body would be essential for enforcing

4994

minority rule over the wishes of the workers. Would a self-managed

4995

army be inclined to repress workers' and peasants' strikes and

4996

protests? Of course not.

4997

4998

The Makhnovists show that another kind of revolutionary army

4999

was possible in the Russian Revolution and that the "ignorant"

5000

masses could choose their own officers. In other words, the

5001

latter-day justifications of the followers of Bolshevism are

5002

wrong when they assert that the creation of the top-down,

5003

hierarchical Red Army was a result of the "contradiction

5004

between the political consciousness and circumstantial

5005

coercion" and "a retreat" because "officers were appointed

5006

and not elected," it was a conscript army and "severe

5007

military discipline." [John Rees, "In Defence of October",

5008

International Socialism, no. 52, pp. 3-82, p. 46] As can

5009

be seen, Trotsky did not consider it as a "retreat" or caused

5010

by "circumstances." Equally, the Makhnovists managed to

5011

organise themselves relatively democratically in the

5012

circumstances created by the same civil war.

5013

5014

As such, the differences between the Makhnovists and the

5015

Bolsheviks as regards the internal organisation of a

5016

revolutionary army are clear. The Bolsheviks applied

5017

top-down, bourgeois methods of internal organisation and

5018

discipline. The Makhnovists applied democratic internal

5019

organisation and discipline as far as possible.

5020

5021

From our discussion of the Bolshevik justifications for its

5022

system of appointed officers in the Red Army, it will come

5023

as no surprise that as regards the relationship of the

5024

soviets to the revolutionary organisation (party) the

5025

Makhnovists and Bolsheviks were (again) miles apart. While

5026

we discuss this in greater detail in <a href="append41.html#app14">section 14</a> of the appendix <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>, we will give a flavour of Bolshevik ideology on this subject here.

5027

5028

From the start, Lenin identified soviet (or working class)

5029

power with the power of their own party. In October 1917,

5030

Lenin was equating party and class: "the power of the

5031

Bolsheviks -- that is, the power of the proletariat."

5032

[Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, p. 102] After the

5033

October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were clear that the

5034

soviets would not have "all power." Rather, the first act

5035

of soviet sovereignty was to alienate it into the hands of

5036

a Bolshevik government. In response to a few leading

5037

Bolsheviks who called for a coalition government, the

5038

Bolshevik Central Committee stated that it was "impossible

5039

to refuse a purely Bolshevik government without treason

5040

to the slogan of the power of the Soviets, since a majority

5041

at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets . . .

5042

handed power over to this government." [quoted by

5043

Robery V. Daniels, A Documentary History of Communism,

5044

vol. 1, pp. 127-8] How can the "power of the Soviets"

5045

exist when said soviets immediately "handed power" over

5046

to another body? Thus the only "power" the soviets had

5047

was simply the "power" to determine who actually held

5048

political power.

5049

5050

The question of who held power, the soviets or the party,

5051

came into focus when the soviet elections resulted

5052

in non-Bolshevik majorities being elected. After the

5053

initial honeymoon period, soviet elections started to go

5054

badly for the Bolsheviks. Ever since taking power in 1917,

5055

the Bolsheviks had become increasingly alienated from the

5056

working class. The spring and summer of 1918 saw "great

5057

Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" in all provincial

5058

city elections that data is available for. The Mensheviks were

5059

the main beneficiaries of these election swings (Socialist

5060

Revolutionaries also gained) The Bolsheviks forcibly

5061

disbanded such soviets. They continually postponed elections

5062

and "pack[ed] local soviets once they could no longer count

5063

on an electoral majority" by giving representation to the

5064

organisations they dominated which made workplace elections

5065

meaningless. [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, pp. 22-4

5066

and p. 33] In Petrograd, such packing swamped the actual

5067

number of workplace delegates, transforming the soviets and

5068

making elections irrelevant. Of the 700-plus deputies to the

5069

"new" soviet, over half were elected by Bolshevik dominated

5070

organisations so ensuring a solid Bolshevik majority even

5071

before the factory voting began.

5072

5073

Thus, the regime remained "soviet" in name only. Faced with a

5074

defeat in the soviets, the Bolsheviks simply abolished them

5075

or changed them to ensure their position. This process, it

5076

should be noted, started before the outbreak of Civil War

5077

in late May 1918, implying that Bolshevik authoritarianism

5078

cannot be explained as reactions to difficult objective

5079

circumstances.

5080

5081

Unsurprisingly, Bolshevik ideology started to adjust to the

5082

position the party found itself in. As Samuel Farber argues,

5083

in the "period of March to June 1918, Lenin began to make

5084

frequent distinctions within the working class, singling

5085

out workers who could still be trusted, denouncing workers

5086

whom he accused of abandoning the working class and

5087

deserting to the side of the bourgeoisie, and complaining

5088

about how the working class had become 'infected with the

5089

disease of petty-bourgeois disintegration.'" [Op. Cit.,

5090

p. 25] Combined with the vision of "working-class" or

5091

"soviet" power expressed by the power of his party, this

5092

laid the foundations for what came next. In 1919 Lenin

5093

fully and explicitly argued that the "dictatorship of

5094

the proletariat" was, in fact, the dictatorship of the

5095

Bolshevik party:

5096

5097

"we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of

5098

one party . . . we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one

5099

party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift

5100

from that position . . . '" [Collected Works, vol. 29,

5101

p. 535]

5102

</blockquote>

5103

This quickly become Bolshevik orthodoxy. Trotsky argued in

5104

his infamous work Terrorism and Communism that there was

5105

"no substitution at all" when "the power of the party"

5106

replaces "the power of the working class." Zinoviev argued

5107

this point at the Second Congress of the Communist International.

5108

As he put it:

5109

5110

"Today, people like Kautsky come along and say that in Russia

5111

you do not have the dictatorship of the working class but the

5112

dictatorship of the party. They think this is a reproach against

5113

us. Not in the least! We have a dictatorship of the working

5114

class and that is precisely why we also have a dictatorship of

5115

the Communist Party. The dictatorship of the Communist Party

5116

is only a function, an attribute, an expression of the

5117

dictatorship of the working class . . . [T]he dictatorship

5118

of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of

5119

the Communist Party." [Proceedings and Documents of the

5120

Second Congress, 1920, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]

5121

</blockquote>

5122

Neither Lenin nor Trotsky disagreed. By the end of the civil

5123

war, Lenin was arguing that "the dictatorship of the proletariat

5124

cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole

5125

of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only

5126

over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still

5127

so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . . that

5128

an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly

5129

exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by

5130

a vanguard . . . the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be

5131

exercised by a mass proletarian organisation." [Collected Works,

5132

vol. 32, p. 21]

5133

5134

This places the Bolshevik betrayals of the Makhnovists in 1919

5135

and 1920 into political context. It also explains the Bolshevik

5136

opposition to the proposed fourth clause of the 1920 political

5137

and military agreement (see

5138

<a href="append46.html#app13">last section</a>). Simply put, at the

5139

time (and long afterwards) the Bolsheviks equated the revolution

5140

with their own power. As such, Makhnovist calls for soviet

5141

self-management threatened the "dictatorship of the proletariat"

5142

(i.e. dictatorship of the party) by encouraging working people

5143

to participate in the revolution and giving the radically false

5144

idea that working-class power could be exercised by working

5145

people and their own class organisations.

5146

5147

Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev held this position until their deaths.

5148

Trotsky, for example, was arguing in 1923 that "[i]f there is one

5149

question which basically not only does not require revision but

5150

does not so much as admit the thought of revision, it is the

5151

question of the dictatorship of the Party, and its leadership

5152

in all spheres of our work." [Leon Trotsky Speaks, p. 158]

5153

Even after the rise of Stalinism, he was still arguing for the

5154

"objective necessity" of the "revolutionary dictatorship of a

5155

proletarian party" in 1937. He stressed that the "revolutionary

5156

party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders

5157

the masses to the counter-revolution . . . Abstractly speaking,

5158

it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced

5159

by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling people without any

5160

party, but this presupposes such a high level of political

5161

development among the masses that it can never be achieved

5162

under capitalist conditions." [Trotsky, Writings 1936-37,

5163

pp. 513-4]

5164

5165

This suggests that the later Trotskyist argument that the Bolsheviks

5166

were forced by "objective factors" to replace the dictatorship of

5167

the proletariat by that of the party is false. At the time, and

5168

afterwards, the Bolsheviks did not argue in these terms. The

5169

end of soviet democracy was not considered a problem or a retreat

5170

for the revolution. The opposite was the case, with the elimination

5171

of democracy being raised to an ideological truism to be applied

5172

everywhere. Equally, the fact that the Makhnovists did all they

5173

could to promote soviet self-management and actually called

5174

regional congresses of workers, peasants and insurgents suggests

5175

that "objective factors" simply cannot explain Bolshevik actions.

5176

Simply put, like the Bolshevik betrayals of the Makhnovists, the

5177

Bolshevik elimination of soviet democracy by party dictatorship

5178

can only be fully understood by looking at Bolshevik ideology.

5179

5180

Little wonder the Makhnovists argued as followed:

5181

5182

"Since the arrival of the Bolsheviks the dictatorship of their

5183

party has been established here. As a party of statists, the

5184

Bolshevik Party everywhere has set up state organs for the

5185

purpose of governing the revolutionary people. Everything has

5186

to be submitted to their authority and take place under their

5187

vigilant eye. All opposition, protest, or even independent

5188

initiative has been stifled by their Extraordinary Commissions

5189

[the secret police, the Cheka]. Furthermore, all these

5190

institutions are composed of people who are removed from

5191

labour and from revolution. In other words, what has been

5192

created is a situation in which the labouring and

5193

revolutionary people have fallen under the surveillance

5194

and rule of people who are alien to the working classes,

5195

people who are inclined to exercise arbitrariness and

5196

violence over the workers. Such is the dictatorship of the

5197

Bolshevik-Communist Party . . .

5198

5199

"We again remind the working people that they will liberate

5200

themselves from oppression, misery and violence only

5201

through their own efforts. No change in power will help

5202

them in this. Only by means of their own free worker-peasant

5203

organisations can the workers reach the summit of the

5204

social revolution -- complete freedom and real equality."

5205

[quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit. pp. 116-7]

5206

</blockquote>

5207

Which brings us to the next issue, namely working-class

5208

freedom. For anarchists, the key point of a revolution is

5209

to increase working-class freedom. It means the end of

5210

hierarchy and the direct participation in the revolution

5211

by the working classes themselves. As Bakunin put it,

5212

"revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands

5213

of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those

5214

of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately

5215

becomes reaction." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,

5216

p. 237] For this reason, the Makhnovists (like Bakunin)

5217

argued for a revolutionary society based on free federations

5218

of worker and peasant organisations (free soviets).

5219

5220

This means that actions which consolidated rule by a few

5221

cannot be revolutionary, even if the few are made up of

5222

the most revolutionary of the revolutionaries. Thus working

5223

class power cannot be equated to the power of a political

5224

party, no matter how "socialist" or "revolutionary" its

5225

ideas or rhetoric. This means that Bolshevik restrictions

5226

on working class freedom (of speech, assembly, press,

5227

organisation) struck at the heart of the revolution. It

5228

did not signify the defence of the revolution, but rather

5229

its defeat. Ultimately, as Emma Goldman quickly recognised,

5230

what the Bolsheviks called "defence of the Revolution"

5231

was "really only the defence of [the] party in power."

5232

[My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 57]

5233

5234

Anarchists had long argued that, to quote Goldman again,

5235

there is "no greater fallacy than the belief that aims

5236

and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics

5237

are another. This conception is a potent menace to social

5238

regeneration. All human experience teaches that methods

5239

and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim.

5240

The means employed become, through individual practice,

5241

part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it,

5242

modify it, and presently the aims and means become

5243

identical." [Op. Cit., p. 260] The evolution of Bolshevik

5244

practice and theory reinforces this argument. The means

5245

used had an impact on the course of events, which in turn

5246

shaped the next set of means and the ideology used to

5247

justify it.

5248

5249

This explains the Makhnovist and Bolshevik differences in

5250

relationship to working-class freedom. For anarchists, only

5251

freedom or the struggle for freedom can teach people to be

5252

free (and so is genuinely revolutionary). This explains why

5253

the Makhnovists not only proclaimed freedom of election, speech,

5254

press, assembly and organisation for working people, which

5255

was an essential revolutionary position, they also implemented

5256

it (see

5257

<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>). The Bolsheviks did the reverse, clamping

5258

down on the opposition at every occasion (including workers'

5259

strikes and protests). For the Makhnovists, working-class freedom

5260

was the key gain of the revolution, and so had to be introduced,

5261

practised and defended. Hence Makhno:

5262

5263

"I consider it an inviolable right of the workers and peasants,

5264

a right won by the revolution, to call congresses on their

5265

own account, to discuss their affairs. That is why the

5266

prohibitions of such congresses, and the declaration

5267

proclaiming them illegal . . . , represent a direct and

5268

insolent violation of the rights of the workers." [quoted

5269

by Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 129]

5270

</blockquote>

5271

For the Bolsheviks, working-class freedom was something to

5272

fear. Back in 1903, Lenin laid the groundwork for this by

5273

arguing that the "spontaneous development of the labour

5274

movement leads to it being subordinated to bourgeois ideology."

5275

He stressed that "the working class, exclusively by their own

5276

effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness . . .

5277

the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite

5278

independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement;

5279

it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of ideas among the

5280

revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." This meant that "Social

5281

Democratic [i.e. socialist] consciousness . . . could only be

5282

brought to them from without." [Essential Works of Lenin,

5283

p. 82 and pp. 74-5] Clearly, if the workers turned against

5284

the party, then the workers were "being subordinated to

5285

bourgeois ideology." It was in their own interests, therefore,

5286

for the party to subordinate the workers and so soviet

5287

democracy became not an expression of working-class power

5288

but rather something which undermined it!

5289

5290

This perspective can be seen when the Makhnovists liberated

5291

cities. In Alexandrovsk and Katerinoslav, the Bolsheviks

5292

proposed to the Makhnovists spheres of action - their Revkom

5293

(Revolutionary Committee) would handle political affairs and

5294

the Makhnovists military ones. Makhno advised them "to go and

5295

take up some honest trade instead of seeking to impose their

5296

will on the workers." Instead, the Makhnovists called upon

5297

"the working population to participate in a general conference

5298

.. . . and it was proposed that the workers organise the life

5299

of the city and the functioning of the factories with their

5300

own forced and their organisations." [Arshinov Op. Cit., p. 154

5301

and p. 149] The differences between the Bolsheviks and

5302

Makhnovists could not be clearer.

5303

5304

Lastly, we should note that while Lenin and the leading

5305

Bolsheviks wholeheartedly opposed working-class economic

5306

self-management by factory committees and instead urged

5307

"efficient" top-down one-man management, the Makhnovists

5308

supported working-class self-management of production.

5309

Under the Bolsheviks, as Arshinov argued, the

5310

"nationalisation of industry, [while] removing the

5311

workers from the hands of individual capitalists,

5312

delivered them to the yet more rapacious hands of a

5313

single, ever-present capitalist boss, the State. The

5314

relations between the workers and this new boss are

5315

the same as earlier relations between labour and capital,

5316

with the sole difference that the Communist boss, the

5317

State, not only exploits the workers, but also punishes

5318

them himself . . . Wage labour has remained what it was

5319

before, except that it has taken on the character of an

5320

obligation to the State . . . It is clear that in all this

5321

we are dealing with a simple substitution of State

5322

capitalism for private capitalism." [Op. Cit., p. 71]

5323

The Makhnovist propaganda, in contrast, stressed the

5324

need for workers to socialise the means of production

5325

and place it under their direct management by their own

5326

class organs. In other words, the abolition of wage

5327

slavery by workers' self-management of production.

5328

5329

Unsurprisingly, the Makhnovists supported the Kronstadt rebellion

5330

(see the appendix

5331

<a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt uprising?"</a>

5332

for more on Kronstadt). Indeed, there is

5333

significant overlap between the Kronstadt demands and the

5334

ideas of the Makhnovist movement. For example, the Makhnovist

5335

idea of free soviets is almost identical to the first three

5336

points of the Kronstadt programme and their land policy the

5337

same as point 11 of the Kronstadt demands. The Kronstadt

5338

rebels also raised the idea of "free soviets" and the "third

5339

revolution," common Makhnovist slogans (see

5340

<a href="append42.html#app3">section 3</a> of the

5341

appendix <a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt uprising?"</a>

5342

for details). As one Bolshevik writer notes, it is "characteristic

5343

that the anarchist-Makhnovists in the Ukraine reprinted the appeal

5344

of the Kronstadters, and in general did not hide their sympathy

5345

for them." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 108] Voline also

5346

noted that the "ideas and activities of the Makhnovist peasants

5347

were similar in all respects to those of the Kronstadt rebels

5348

in 1921." [Op. Cit., p. 575]

5349

5350

In summary, the major difference between the Makhnovists and

5351

the Bolsheviks is that the former stuck by and introduced their

5352

stated aims of "soviet power" and working-class freedom while

5353

the latter rejected them once they clashed with Bolshevik party

5354

policies.

5355

5356

<a name="app15"><h2>15 How do the modern followers of Bolshevism slander the Makhnovists?</h2>

5357

5358

Many modern-day supporters of Bolshevism, on the rare occasions

5359

when they do mention the Makhnovist movement, simply repeat the

5360

old Bolshevik (and Stalinist) slanders against them.

5361

5362

For example, this is what Joseph Seymour of the U.S. Spartacus

5363

League did. Their newspaper Workers Vanguard ran a series

5364

entitled "Marxism vs. Anarchism" and in part 7, during his

5365

discussion of the Russian Revolution, Seymour claimed:

5366

5367

"The most significant counter-revolutionary force under the banner

5368

of anarchism was the Ukrainian peasant-based army of Nestor Makhno,

5369

which carried out pogroms against Jewish communities and collaborated

5370

with White armies against the Bolsheviks." [Workers Vanguard,

5371

8/30/1996, p. 7]

5372

</blockquote>

5373

Seymour, needless to say, made these accusations without providing

5374

any documentation, and with good reason, for outside of Stalinist

5375

hagiographies, no evidence exists to support his claims. As we

5376

indicated in

5377

<a href="append46.html#app9">section 9</a>,

5378

the Makhnovists opposed anti-Semitism

5379

and did not conduct pogroms. Equally,

5380

<a href="append46.html#app12">section 12</a> proves

5381

that the Makhnovists did not collaborate with the Whites in

5382

any way (although this did not stop the Bolshevik press deliberately

5383

spreading the lie that they had).

5384

5385

More recently, the UK Leninist Revolutionary Communist Group

5386

asserted in their paper that the Makhnovists "joined with

5387

counter-revolutionary White and imperialist armies against

5388

socialist Russia. This band of brigands also carried out

5389

pogroms against Jewish communities in the Ukraine." [Fight

5390

Racism! Fight Imperialism!, issue no. 174, p. 12] No evidence

5391

for such a claim was presented in the original review article.

5392

When an anarchist pointed out their assertion was "falling

5393

back on a long tradition of Stalinist lies" and asked

5394

for "any historical references" to support it, the

5395

paper replied by stating that while there were "several"

5396

references, it would

5397

give two: "E.H. Carr refers to it in his history of the

5398

civil war. Also the anarchist historian Paul Avrich mentions

5399

it in his work The anarchists in the Russian Revolution."

5400

[Op. Cit., no. 175, p. 15]

5401

5402

In reality, neither work says any such thing. Looking at the

5403

first (unnamed) one, assuming it is E.H. Carr's The Bolshevik

5404

Revolution there is no reference to pogroms carried out by the

5405

Makhnovists (looking in the index for "Makhno"). Which, perhaps,

5406

explains why the paper refused to provide a book title and

5407

page number. As far as the second reference goes, Avrich made

5408

no such claim in The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.

5409

He did address the issue in his Anarchist Portraits,

5410

concluding such charges are false.

5411

5412

And the name of the original article? Ironically, it was entitled

5413

"The anarchist school of falsification"!

5414

5415

However, more sophisticated slanders, lies and distortions have

5416

been levelled at the Makhnovists by the supporters of Bolshevism.

5417

This is to be expected, as the experience of the Makhnovists

5418

effectively refute the claim that the Bolsheviks had no choice

5419

but to act as they did. It is hard to maintain a position that

5420

"objective conditions" made the Bolsheviks act as they did

5421

when another mass revolutionary army, operating in the same

5422

environment, did not act in the same way. This means that the

5423

Makhnovists are strong evidence that Bolshevik politics played

5424

a key role in the degeneration of the Russian Revolution.

5425

Clearly such a conclusion is dangerous to Bolshevism and so

5426

the Maknovist movement must be attacked, regardless of the

5427

facts.

5428

5429

A recent example of this is John Rees' essay "In Defence of

5430

October" (International Socialism, no. 52, pp. 3-82). Rees,

5431

a member of the UK Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) is at

5432

pains to downplay the role of Bolshevik ideology in the

5433

degeneration of the Russian Revolution. He argues that

5434

"objective factors" ensured that the Bolsheviks acted

5435

as they did. The "subjective factor" was simply a choice

5436

between defeat and defence against the Whites: "Within

5437

these limits Bolshevik policy was decisive." [Op. Cit.,

5438

p. 30] This explains his attack on the Makhnovist movement.

5439

Faced with the same "objective factors" as the Bolsheviks,

5440

the Makhnovists did not act in the same way. As such, the

5441

"subjective factor" amounts to more than Rees' stark

5442

choice and so objective conditions cannot explain everything.

5443

5444

Clearly, then, the Makhnovists undermine his basic thesis.

5445

As such, we would expect a less than honest account of the

5446

movement and Rees does not disappoint. He talks about the

5447

"muddled anarchism" of Makhno, dismissing the whole movement

5448

as offering no alternative to Bolshevism and being without

5449

"an articulated political programme." Ultimately, for Rees,

5450

Makhno's "anarchism was a thin veneer on peasant rebellion"

5451

and while "on paper" the Makhnovists "appeared to have a more

5452

democratic programme" there were "frauds." [p. 57, p. 58, p. 61

5453

and p. 70]

5454

5455

The reality of the situation is totally different. Ignoring

5456

the obvious contradiction (i.e. how can the Makhnovists have

5457

the appearance of a "democratic programme" and, simultaneously,

5458

not articulate it?) we shall analyse his account of the

5459

Makhnovist movement in order to show exactly how low the

5460

supporters of Bolshevism will go to distort the historical

5461

record for their own aims (see

5462

the appendix <a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt

5463

uprising?"</a> for Rees's

5464

distortions about the Kronstadt revolt). Once the selective

5465

and edited quotations provided by Rees are corrected, the

5466

picture that clearly emerges is that rather than the

5467

Makhnovists being "frauds," it is Rees' account which

5468

is the fraud (along with the political tradition which

5469

inspired it).

5470

5471

Rees presents two aspects of his critique of the Makhnovists.

5472

The first is a history of the movement and its relationships

5473

(or lack of them) with the Bolsheviks. The second is a

5474

discussion of the ideas which the Makhnovists tried to put

5475

into practice. Both aspects of his critique are extremely

5476

flawed. Indeed, the errors in his history of the movement

5477

are so fundamental (and, indeed, so at odds with his

5478

references) that it suggests that ideology overcame objectivity

5479

(to be polite). The best that can be said of his account is that

5480

at least he does not raise the totally discredited accusation

5481

that the Makhnovists were anti-Semitic or "kulaks." However,

5482

he more than makes up for this by distorting the facts and

5483

references he uses (it would be no exaggeration to argue

5484

that the only information Rees gets correct about his sources

5485

is the page number).

5486

5487

Rees starts by setting the tone, stating that the "methods used

5488

by Makhno and Antonov [a leader of the "Greens" in Tambov]

5489

in their fight against the Red Army often mirrored those

5490

used by the Whites." [Op. Cit., p. 57] Strangely enough,

5491

while he lists some for Antonov, he fails to specify any

5492

against Makhno. However, the scene is set. His strongest

5493

piece of evidence as regards Makhno's "methods" against

5494

the Red Army come from mid-1920 after, it should be noted,

5495

the Bolsheviks had engineered the outlawing of the

5496

Makhnovist movement and needlessly started the very conflict

5497

Rees uses as evidence against Makhno. In other words, he

5498

is attacking the Makhnovists for defending themselves

5499

against Bolshevik aggression!

5500

5501

He quotes reports from the Ukrainian Front to blacken the

5502

Makhnovists, using them to confirm the picture he extracts

5503

from "the diary of Makhno's wife." These entries, from

5504

early 1920, he claims "betray the nature of the movement"

5505

(i.e. after, as we shall see, the Bolsheviks had engineered

5506

the outlawing of the Makhnovists). [Op. Cit., p. 58] The

5507

major problem for Rees' case is the fact that this diary

5508

is a fake and has been known to be a fake since Arshinov

5509

wrote his classic account of the Makhnovists in 1923:

5510

5511

"After 1920, the Bolsheviks wrote a great deal about the

5512

personal defects of Makhno, basing their information on

5513

the diary of his so-called wife, a certain Fedora Gaenko

5514

.. . . But Makhno's wife is Galina Andreevna Kuz'menko. She

5515

has lived with him since 1918. She never kept, and therefore

5516

never lost, a diary. Thus the documentation of the Soviet

5517

authorities is based on a fabrication, and the picture

5518

these authorities draw from such a diary is an ordinary

5519

lie." [Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement,

5520

p. 226f]

5521

</blockquote>

5522

Ironically enough, Rees implicitly acknowledges this by lamely

5523

admitting (in an end note) that "Makhno seems to have had two

5524

'wives'" [Op. Cit., p. 78] And we should note that the source

5525

Rees uses for the fake diary entries (W.H. Chamberlin's The

5526

Russian Revolution) uses as his source the very Bolshevik

5527

documentation that Arshinov quite correctly denounced over

5528

70 years before Rees put pen to paper. Little wonder Michael

5529

Palij, in his detailed account of the movement (The Anarchism

5530

of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921), fails to use it. So, in summary,

5531

a major part of his account is based on falsehoods, falsehoods

5532

exposed as such decades ago. This indicates well the quality

5533

of his case against the Makhnovist movement.

5534

5535

As regards the "evidence" he extracts from this fake diary

5536

and Red Army reports, it simply shows that Bolsheviks were

5537

shot by Makhno's troops and Red Army troops died in combat.

5538

This went both ways, of course. In "military operations the

5539

Bolsheviks shot all prisoners. The Makhnovists shot all

5540

captured officers unless the Red rank and file strongly

5541

interceded for them. The rank and file were usually sent

5542

home, though a number volunteered for service with the

5543

Insurgents." Equally, "[o]n the occupation of a village by

5544

the Red Army the Cheka would hunt out and hang all active

5545

Makhnovite supporters; an amenable Soviet would be set up;

5546

officials would be appointed or imported to organise the

5547

poor peasants . . . and three or four Red militia men left

5548

as armed support for the new village bosses." [David Footman,

5549

Op. Cit., pp. 292-3] As such, Rees' account of Makhnovist

5550

"terror" against the Bolsheviks seems somewhat hypocritical.

5551

We can equally surmise that the methods used by the Bolsheviks

5552

against the Makhnovists also "often mirrored those used by the

5553

Whites"! And Rees lambastes socialist Samuel Farber for

5554

mentioning the "Red Terror, but not the Green Terror" in

5555

Farber's discussion of the Tambov revolt! All in all, pretty

5556

pathetic.

5557

5558

Rees' concern for the truth can be seen from the fact that

5559

he asserts that Makhno's "rebellion" was "smaller" than

5560

the Tambov uprising and distinguished from it "only by

5561

the muddled anarchism of its leader." [Op. Cit., p. 58]

5562

In fact, the Makhnovist movement was the bigger of the

5563

two. As Michael Malet notes:

5564

5565

"The differences between them explain why the Makhnovshchina

5566

lasted over four years, the Antonovshchina less than one

5567

year. The initial area of the Makhno movement was larger,

5568

and later expanded, whereas the Antonov region was restricted

5569

to the southern half of one province throughout its existence.

5570

The Makhno movement became established earlier, and was

5571

well-known before its break with the soviet regime. A

5572

crucial factor was the period of peace between the Bolsheviks

5573

and Makhno during the first half of 1919, something Antonov

5574

never had. It allowed for political and social development

5575

as well as military build-up. It followed from this that

5576

Makhno attracted much more support, which was increased

5577

and deepened by the positive ideology of Makhno and the

5578

anarchists who came to help him. This was not a matter of

5579

being anti-State and anti-town -- all the Greens, including

5580

Antonov, shared this view in a less sophisticated form --

5581

but a positive land policy and a realisation of the need

5582

to link up with the towns on a federal basis in the

5583

post-revolutionary society." [Op. Cit., p. 155]

5584

</blockquote>

5585

Even in terms of troops, the Makhno movement was larger.

5586

The Antonov rebellion had "a peak of around 20,000" troops.

5587

[Read, Op. Cit., p. 268] Makhno, in comparison, had a peak

5588

of about 40,000 in late 1919 [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 112] (Read

5589

states a peak of around 30,000 [Op. Cit., p. 264]). Even by

5590

the end of 1920, a few months into the Tambov rebellion

5591

(it started in August of that year), the Makhnovists still

5592

had 10 to 15 thousand troops. [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 237]

5593

5594

In summary, the movement which lasted longer, covered a

5595

larger area and involved more troops is classed by Rees

5596

as the smaller of the two! Incredible -- but it does give

5597

a flavour of the scholarship involved in his essay. Perhaps

5598

by "smaller" Rees simply meant that Makhno was physically

5599

shorter than Antonov?

5600

5601

After getting such minor details as size wrong, Rees

5602

turns to the actual history of the movement. He looks at

5603

the relations between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks,

5604

accurately stating that they "were chequered." However,

5605

he is wrong when he tries to explain what happened by

5606

stating they "reflect[ed] the fast changing military

5607

situation in the Ukraine throughout the civil war."

5608

[Op. Cit., p. 58] In fact, as we will prove, the

5609

relationships between the two forces reflected the

5610

military situation refracted through the ideology and

5611

needs of Bolshevik power. To ignore the ideological

5612

factor in the Makhnovist-Bolshevik relationships cannot

5613

be justified as the military situation does not fully

5614

explain what happened.

5615

5616

The Makhnovists co-operated with the Red Army three times.

5617

Only two of these periods were formal alliances (the first

5618

and last). Discussing the first two pacts, Rees alleges that

5619

the Makhnovists broke with the Bolsheviks. The truth is the

5620

opposite -- the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists and

5621

betrayed them in order to consolidate their power. These

5622

facts are hardly unknown to Rees as they are contained in

5623

the very books he quotes from as evidence for his rewritten

5624

history.

5625

5626

The first pact between the Makhnovists and the Red Army

5627

ended June 1918. According to Rees, "[c]o-operation

5628

continued until June 1919 when the Insurgent Army broke

5629

from the Red Army" and quotes Michael Palij's book The

5630

Anarchism of Nestor Makhno as follows: "as soon as Makhno

5631

left the front he and his associates began to organise new

5632

partisan detachments in the Bolsheviks' rear, which

5633

subsequently attacked strongholds, troops, police, trains

5634

and food collectors." [Op. Cit., p. 58] Rees is clearly

5635

implying that Makhno attacked the Bolsheviks, apparently

5636

for no reason. The truth is totally different. It is easy

5637

to show this -- all we need to do is look at the book he

5638

uses as evidence.

5639

5640

Rees quotes Palij on page 177. This page is from chapter

5641

16, which is called "The Bolsheviks Break with Makhno."

5642

As this was not enough of a clue, Palij presents some

5643

necessary background for this Bolshevik break. He notes

5644

that before the break, "the Bolsheviks renewed their

5645

anti-Makhno propaganda. Trotsky, in particular, led a

5646

violent campaign against the Makhno movement." He also

5647

mentions that "[a]t the same time, the supplies of arms

5648

and other war materials to Makhno were stopped, thus

5649

weakening the Makhno forces vis-a-vis the Denikin troops."

5650

In this context, the Makhnovists Revolutionary Military

5651

Council "decided to call a fourth congress of peasants,

5652

workers, and partisans" for June 15th, 1919, which Trotsky

5653

promptly banned, warning the population that "participation

5654

in the Congress shall be considered an act of state treason

5655

against the Soviet Republic and the front." [Op. Cit., p. 175

5656

and p. 176]

5657

5658

The Bolsheviks had, of course, tried to ban the third

5659

congress in April but had been ignored. This time, they

5660

made sure that they were not. Makhno and his staff

5661

were not informed of Trotsky's dictatorial order and

5662

learned of it three days later. On June 9th, Makhno

5663

sent a telegram informing the Bolsheviks that he was

5664

leaving his post as leader of the Makhnovists. He

5665

"handed over his command and left the front with a

5666

few of his close associates and a cavalry detachment"

5667

while calling upon the partisans to "remain at the

5668

front to hold off Denikin's forces." Trotsky ordered

5669

his arrest, but Makhno was warned in advance and

5670

escaped. On June 15-16th, members of Makhno's staff

5671

"were captured and executed the next day." Now Palij

5672

recounts how "[a]s soon as Makhno left the front he

5673

and his associates began to organise new partisan

5674

detachments in the Bolsheviks' rear, which

5675

subsequently attacked strongholds, troops, police,

5676

trains and food collectors." [Op. Cit., p. 177]

5677

5678

Palij "subsequently" refers to Makhno after Denikin's

5679

breakthrough and his occupation of the Ukraine. "The

5680

oppressive policy of the Denikin regime," he notes,

5681

"convinced the population that it was as bad as the

5682

Bolshevik regime, and brought a strong reaction that

5683

led able young men . . . to leave their homes and join

5684

Makhno and other partisan groups." [Op. Cit., p. 190]

5685

As Makhno put it, "[w]hen the Red Army in south Ukraine

5686

began to retreat . . . as if to straighten the front

5687

line, but in reality to evacuate Ukraine . . . only

5688

then did my staff and I decide to act." [quoted by

5689

Palij, Op. Cit., p. 190] After trying to fight Denikin's

5690

troops, Makhno retreated and called upon his troops to leave

5691

the Red Army and rejoin the fight against Denikin. He "sent

5692

agents amongst the Red troops" to carry out propaganda

5693

urging them to stay and fight Denikin with the Makhnovists,

5694

which they did in large numbers. This propaganda was

5695

"combined with sabotage." Between these two events,

5696

Makhno had entered the territory of pogromist warlord

5697

Hryhoryiv (which did not contain Red troops as they

5698

were in conflict) and assassinated him. [Op. Cit., p. 191

5699

and p. 173]

5700

5701

It should also be noted that Palij states that it was the

5702

Whites who "were the main enemy that Makhno fought, stubbornly

5703

and uncompromisingly, from the end of 1918 to the end of 1919."

5704

[Op. Cit., p. 177]

5705

5706

Clearly, Rees's summary leaves a lot to be desired! Rather

5707

than Makhno attacking the Bolsheviks, it was they who broke

5708

with him -- as Palij, Rees's source, makes clear. Indeed,

5709

Makhno made no attempt to undermine the Red Army's campaign

5710

against Denikin (after all, that would have placed his troops

5711

and region in danger). Rather, he waited until the Bolsheviks

5712

showed that they would not defend the Ukraine against the

5713

Whites before he acted. As such, Rees misuses his source

5714

material and used Palij as evidence for a viewpoint which is

5715

the exact opposite of the one he recounts. The dishonesty is

5716

obvious. But, then again, it is understandable, as Trotsky

5717

banning a worker, peasant and partisan congress would

5718

hardly fit into Rees' attempt to portray the Bolsheviks

5719

as democratic socialists overcome by objective circumstances!

5720

Given that the Makhnovists had successfully held three such

5721

congresses to discuss the war against reaction, how could

5722

objective circumstances be blamed for the dictatorial

5723

actions of Trotsky and other leading Red Army officers in

5724

the Ukraine? Better not to mention this and instead rewrite

5725

history by making Makhno break with the Bolsheviks and attack

5726

them for no reason!

5727

5728

Rees moves onto the period of co-operation between the

5729

insurgents and the Bolsheviks. His version of what happened

5730

is that "Denikin's advance against Makhno's territory in

5731

autumn 1919 quickly forced a renewal of the treaty with the

5732

Bolsheviks. Makhno harassed Denikin's troops from the

5733

rear, making their advance more difficult." [Op. Cit.,

5734

p. 58]

5735

5736

A more accurate account of what happened would be that

5737

Makhno reorganised his troops after the Bolsheviks had

5738

retreated and evacuated the Ukraine. These troops included

5739

those that had been left in the Red Army in June, who now

5740

left to rejoin him (and brought a few Red Army units along

5741

too). After conducting quick and demoralising raids against

5742

Denikin's forces, the Makhnovists were forced to retreat to

5743

the West (followed by White forces). In late September, near

5744

Peregonovka, Makhno inflicted a major defeat against the

5745

following Whites and allowed the Makhnovists to attack

5746

across Denikin's supply lines (which stopped his attack

5747

on Moscow thus, ironically, saving the Bolshevik regime).

5748

Makhno's swift attack on the rear of the Whites ensured

5749

their defeat. As the correspondent of Le Temps observed:

5750

5751

"There is no doubt that Denikin's defeat is explained

5752

more by the uprising of the peasants who brandished

5753

Makhno's black flag, then by the success of Trotsky's

5754

regular army. The partisan bands of 'Batko' tipped

5755

the scales in favour of the Reds." [quoted by Palij,

5756

Op. Cit., p. 208]

5757

</blockquote>

5758

Palij argues that it was the "rapidly changing military

5759

situation [which] soon caused a change in the Bolsheviks'

5760

attitude toward Makhno." The two forces meet up on

5761

December 24th, 1919. However, "[a]lthough the Bolsheviks

5762

fraternised with the Makhno troops and the commander

5763

even offered co-operation, they distrusted Makhno,

5764

fearing the popularity he had gained as a result of

5765

his successful fight against Denikin." [Op. Cit., p. 209]

5766

It should also be stressed that no formal treaty

5767

was signed.

5768

5769

Clearly, Rees' summary leaves a lot to be desired!

5770

5771

This is not the end of it. Rees even attempts to blame

5772

the Makhnovists for the attack of General Wrangel. He

5773

argues that "by the end of 1919 the immediate White

5774

threat was removed. Makhno refused to move his troops to

5775

the Polish front to meet the imminent invasion and

5776

hostilities with the Red Army began again on an even

5777

more widespread scale." [Op. Cit., p. 58]

5778

5779

This, needless to say, is a total distortion of the facts.

5780

Firstly, it should be noted that the "imminent" invasion

5781

by Poland Rees mentions did not, in fact, occur until

5782

"the end of April" (the 26th, to be precise). The break

5783

with Makhno occurred as a result of an order issued in

5784

early January (the 8th, to be precise). [Michael Palij,

5785

Op. Cit., p. 219 and p. 210] Clearly, the excuse of

5786

"imminent" invasion was a cover, as recognised by a

5787

source Rees himself uses, namely Palij's work:

5788

5789

"The author of the order realised at that time there was no

5790

real war between the Poles and the Bolsheviks at that time

5791

and he also knew that Makhno would not abandon his region

5792

.. . . Uborevich [the author] explained that 'an appropriate

5793

reaction by Makhno to this order would give us the chance

5794

to have accurate grounds for our next steps' . . . [He]

5795

concluded: 'The order is a certain political manoeuvre and,

5796

at the very least, we expect positive results from Makhno's

5797

realisation of this.'" [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 210]

5798

</blockquote>

5799

This is confirmed by Rees' other references. David Footman,

5800

whom Rees also uses for evidence against the Makhnovist

5801

movement, notes that while it was "true there were military

5802

reasons for reinforcing" the Polish frontier (although he

5803

also notes the significant fact that the war "was not to

5804

break out for another four months"), it was "admitted on

5805

the Soviet side that this order was primarily 'dictated

5806

by the necessity' of liquidating Makhnovshchina as an

5807

independent movement. Only when he was far removed from

5808

his home country would it be possible to counteract his

5809

influence, and to split up and integrate his partisans

5810

into various Red Army formations." He notes that there

5811

were "other occasions (notably in Siberia) of the Soviet

5812

authorities solving the problem of difficult partisan

5813

leaders by sending them off to fight on distant fronts"

5814

and, of course, that "Makhno and his staff . . . were

5815

perfectly aware of the underlying Soviet motives." Footman

5816

recounts how the Makhnovist staff sent a "reasoned reply" to

5817

the Bolsheviks, that there "was no immediate response" from

5818

them and in "mid-January the Central Committee of the

5819

Ukrainian Communist Party declared Makhno and his force

5820

to be outside the law, and the Red Army attacked." [The

5821

Russian Civil War, pp. 290-1]

5822

5823

In other words, according to the sources Rees himself

5824

selects, the Bolsheviks started the conflict in order

5825

to eliminate opposition to their power!

5826

5827

Needless to say, the Makhnovists did realise the political

5828

motivations behind the order. As Arshinov notes, "[s]ending

5829

the insurrectionary army to the Polish front meant removing

5830

from the Ukraine the main nerve centre of the revolutionary

5831

insurrection. This was precisely what the Bolsheviks wanted:

5832

they would then be absolute masters of the rebellious region,

5833

and the Makhnovists were perfectly aware of this." In addition,

5834

"neither the 14th Corps nor any other unit of the Red Army

5835

had any ties with the Makhnovist army; least of all were

5836

they in a position to give orders to the insurrectionary

5837

army." Nor does Rees mention that the Makhnovists considered

5838

the move "physically impossible" as "half the men, the entire

5839

staff and the commander himself were in hospital with typhus."

5840

[Op. Cit., p. 163]

5841

5842

Consider what Rees is (distortedly) accounting. The beginning

5843

of 1920 was a time of peace. The Civil War looked like it was

5844

over. The White Generals had been defeated. Now the Bolsheviks

5845

turn on their allies after issuing an ultimatum which they

5846

knew would never be obeyed. Under the circumstances, a stupider

5847

decision cannot be easily found! Moreover, the very logic of

5848

the order was a joke. Would be it wise to leave the Ukraine

5849

undefended? Of course not and if Red Army units were to stay

5850

to defend the region, why not the Makhnovists who actually

5851

came from the area in question? Why provoke a conflict when

5852

it was possible to transfer Red Army units to the Polish

5853

front? Simply put, Rees presents a distorted picture of

5854

what was happening in the Ukraine at the time simply so he

5855

can whitewash the Bolshevik regime and blacken the Makhnovists.

5856

As he himself later notes, the Bolshevik-Makhnovist conflict

5857

gave the White General Wrangel the space required to restart

5858

the Civil War. Thus the Bolshevik decision to attack the

5859

Makhnovists helped prolong the Civil War -- the very factor

5860

Rees blames the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and

5861

Bolshevik ideology and practice on!

5862

5863

It is now that Rees presents his evidence of Makhnovist

5864

violence against the Bolsheviks (the Red Army reports and

5865

entries from the fake diary of Makhno's wife). Arguing

5866

that the entries from the fake diary "betray the nature

5867

of the movement in this period," he tries to link them

5868

with Makhnovist theory. "These actions," he argues, "were

5869

consistent with an earlier resolution of the Insurgent

5870

Army which declared that it was 'the actions of the

5871

Bolshevik regime which cause a real danger to the

5872

worker-peasant revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 59]

5873

5874

Firstly, given a true account of the second break between the

5875

Makhnovists and Bolsheviks, it would be fair to conclude that

5876

the resolution was, in fact, correct! However, such facts

5877

are not mentioned by Rees, so the reader is left in ignorance.

5878

5879

Secondly, to correct another of Rees' causal mistakes, it

5880

should be noted that this resolution was not passed by

5881

the Insurgent Army. Rather it was passed at the Second

5882

Regional Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents held

5883

at Hulyai Pole on February 12th, 1919. This congress had

5884

245 delegates, representing 350 districts and was one of

5885

four organised by the Makhnovists. Unsurprisingly, these

5886

regional congresses are not even mentioned by Rees in his

5887

account. This is for obvious reasons -- if the Makhnovists

5888

could organise congresses of workers, peasants and

5889

insurgents to discuss the progress of the revolution, then

5890

why could the Bolsheviks not manage it? Equally, to mention

5891

them would also mean mentioning that the Bolsheviks tried to

5892

ban one and succeeded in banning another.

5893

5894

Thirdly, the tone of the congress was anti-Bolshevik simply

5895

because the Ukraine had had a taste of Bolshevik rule. As Rees

5896

himself acknowledges in a roundabout way, the Bolsheviks

5897

had managed to alienate the peasantry by their agricultural

5898

policies.

5899

5900

Fourthly, the Bolsheviks had engineered the outlawing of

5901

the Makhnovists. Thus the actions of the Makhnovists were

5902

not "consistent" with the earlier resolution. They were,

5903

in fact, "consistent" with self-defence against a repressive

5904

state which had attacked them first!

5905

5906

Looking at the congress where the resolution was passed,

5907

we find that the list of "real dangers" was, quite

5908

simply, sensible and, in fact, in line with Leninist

5909

rhetoric. The resolution acknowledged the fact that

5910

the Bolshevik party was "demanding a monopoly of the

5911

Revolution." As we discussed in

5912

<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>, it

5913

was during this period that the Bolsheviks explicitly

5914

started to argue that the "dictatorship of the party"

5915

was the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The

5916

resolution also stated:

5917

5918

"With deep regret the Congress must also declare that

5919

apart from external enemies a perhaps even greater danger,

5920

arising from its internal shortcomings, threatens the

5921

Revolution of the Russian and Ukrainian peasants and

5922

workers. The Soviet Governments of Russia and of the

5923

Ukraine, by their orders and decrees, are making efforts

5924

to deprive local soviets of peasants and workers'

5925

deputies of their freedom and autonomy." [quoted by

5926

Footman, Op. Cit., p. 267]

5927

</blockquote>

5928

It also stated:

5929

5930

"the political commissars are watching each step of the

5931

local soviets and dealing ruthlessly with those friends

5932

of peasants and workers who act in defence of peoples'

5933

freedom from the agency of the central government . . .

5934

The Bolshevik regime arrested left Socialist Revolutionaries

5935

and anarchists, closing their newspapers, stifling any

5936

manifestation of revolutionary expression."

5937

</blockquote>

5938

Delegates also complained that the Bolshevik government

5939

had not been elected, that it was "imposing upon us its

5940

party dictatorship" and "attempting to introduce its

5941

Bolshevik monopoly over the soviets." [quoted by Palij,

5942

[Op. Cit., p. 154]

5943

5944

The resolution noted that the current situation was

5945

"characterised by the seizure of power by the political

5946

party of Communists-Bolsheviks who do not balk at anything

5947

in order to preserve and consolidate their political power

5948

by armed force acting from the centre. The party is

5949

conducting a criminal policy in regard to the social

5950

revolution and in regard to the labouring masses." To

5951

top it off, point number three read:

5952

5953

"We protest against the reactionary habits of Bolshevik

5954

rulers, commissars, and agents of the Cheka, who are

5955

shooting workers, peasants, and rebels, inventing all

5956

kinds of excuses . . . The Cheka which were supposed to

5957

struggle with counterrevolution . . . have turned in the

5958

Bolsheviks' hands into an instrument for the suppression

5959

of the will of the people. They have grown in some cases

5960

into detachments of several hundred armed men with a

5961

variety of arms. We demand that all these forces be

5962

dispatched to the front." [quoted by Vladimir N. Brovkin,

5963

Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War, pp. 109-10]

5964

</blockquote>

5965

We should also point out that Rees selectively quotes the

5966

resolution to distort its meaning. The resolution, in fact,

5967

"urges the peasants and workers to watch vigilantly the

5968

actions of the Bolshevik regime that cause a real danger

5969

to the worker-peasant revolution." [quoted by Palij, Op.

5970

Cit., p. 154] We have listed some of the actions of the

5971

Bolsheviks that the congress considered as a "real danger."

5972

Considering the truth of these complaints, only someone

5973

blinded by Bolshevik ideology would consider it strange

5974

that worker and peasant delegates should agree to "watch

5975

vigilantly" those actions of the Bolsheviks which were

5976

a "real danger" to their revolution!

5977

5978

Lenin (before taking power, of course) had argued that

5979

elections and recall to soviets were essential to ensure

5980

that the workers control the "workers' state" and that

5981

socialism required the elimination of "special bodies of

5982

armed men" by an armed population. To this day, his followers

5983

parrot his claims (while, simultaneously, justifying the exact

5984

opposite in Lenin's Russia). Now, is Rees really arguing

5985

that the Bolshevik monopoly of power, the creation of a

5986

secret police and the clamping down on working people's

5987

freedom were not dangers to the Russian Revolution

5988

and should not be watched "vigilantly"? If so, then his

5989

conception of revolution includes the strange notion that

5990

dictatorship by a party does not threaten a revolution!

5991

Then again, neither did the Bolsheviks (indeed, they

5992

thought calling worker, peasant and partisan congresses

5993

to discuss the development of the revolution as the real

5994

danger to it!). If not, then he cannot fault the regional

5995

congress resolution for pointing out the obvious. As such,

5996

Rees' misquoting of the resolution backfires on him.

5997

5998

Significantly, Rees fails to mention that during this period

5999

(the first half of 1920), the Bolsheviks "shot ordinary

6000

soldiers as well as their commanders, destroying their houses,

6001

confiscating their properties, and persecuting their families.

6002

Moreover the Bolsheviks conducted mass arrests of innocent

6003

peasants who were suspected of collaborating in some way

6004

with the partisans. It is impossible to determine the

6005

casualties involved." The hypocrisy is clear. While Rees

6006

presents information (some of it, we stress, from a fake

6007

source) on Makhnovist attacks against the Bolshevik

6008

dictatorship, he remains silent on the Bolshevik tactics,

6009

violence and state terrorism. Given that the Bolsheviks had

6010

attacked the Makhnovists, it seems strange that that Rees

6011

ignores the "merciless methods" of the Bolsheviks (to use

6012

Palij's phrase) and concentrates instead on the acts of

6013

self-defence forced onto the Makhnovists. Perhaps this

6014

is because it would provide too strong a "flavour" of

6015

the Bolshevik regime? [Op. Cit., pp. 212-3 and p. 213]

6016

6017

Rees makes great play of the fact that White forces took

6018

advantage of the conflict between the Makhnovists and the

6019

Bolsheviks, as would be expected. However, it seems like

6020

an act of ideological faith to blame the victims of this

6021

conflict for it! In his attempts to demonise the Makhnovists,

6022

he argues that "[i]n fact it was Makhno's actions against

6023

the Red Army which made 'a brief return of the Whites possible.'"

6024

In defence of his claims, Rees quotes from W. Bruce Lincoln's

6025

Red Victory. However, looking at Lincoln's work we discover

6026

that Lincoln is well aware who is to blame for the return

6027

of the Whites. Unsurprisingly, it is not the Makhnovists:

6028

6029

"Once Trotsky's Red Army had crushed Iudenich and Kolchak and

6030

driven Deniken's forces back upon their bases in the Crimea

6031

and the Kuban, it turned upon Makhno's partisan forces with

6032

a vengeance . . . [I]n mid-January 1920, after a typhus

6033

epidemic had decimated his forces, a re-established Central

6034

Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party declared Makhno

6035

an outlaw. Yet the Bolsheviks could not free themselves

6036

from Makhno's grasp so easily, and it became one of the

6037

supreme ironies of the Russian Civil War that his attacks

6038

against the rear of the Red Army made it possible for the

6039

resurrected White armies . . . to return briefly to the

6040

southern Ukraine in 1920." [Red Victory, p. 327]

6041

</blockquote>

6042

Ignoring the fact that Rees does not bother to give the

6043

correct quote (a problem that re-occurs frequently in his

6044

essay), it can be seen that he does paraphrase the last

6045

sentence of Lincoln's work correctly. Strange, then, that

6046

he ignores the rest of his account which clearly indicates

6047

that the Bolsheviks "turned upon" the Makhnovists and

6048

"declared Makhno an outlaw." Obviously such trivial facts

6049

as the initial Bolshevik attacks against the Makhnovists

6050

are unimportant to understanding what actually happened in

6051

this period. Informing his readers that it was the Bolsheviks'

6052

betrayal of the Makhnovists which provoked the resistance

6053

that "made it possible for . . . the White armies . . . to

6054

return briefly" would confuse them with facts and so it

6055

goes unmentioned.

6056

6057

Lincoln, it must be stressed, concurs with Rees's other main

6058

sources (Palij and Footman) on the fact that the Bolsheviks

6059

betrayed the Makhnovists! Clearly, Rees has rewritten history

6060

and distorted all of his main references on the Makhnovist

6061

movement. After reading the same fact in three different

6062

sources, you would think that the Bolshevik betrayal of the

6063

Makhnovists which provoked their resistance against them would

6064

warrant some mention, but no! In true Stalinist fashion,

6065

Rees managed to turn a Bolshevik betrayal of the Makhnovists

6066

into a stick with which to beat them with! Truly amazing.

6067

6068

Simply put, if the Bolsheviks had not wanted to impose their

6069

rule over the Ukraine, then the conflict with the Makhnovists

6070

need not have taken place and Wrangel would not have been in a

6071

position to invade the Ukraine. Why did the Bolsheviks act

6072

in this way? There was no "objective factor" for this action

6073

and so we must turn to Bolshevik ideology.

6074

6075

As we proved in

6076

<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>,

6077

Bolshevik ideology by this time

6078

identified Bolshevik party dictatorship as the only expression

6079

of "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Does Rees really

6080

believe that such perspectives had no impact on how the Bolsheviks

6081

acted during the Revolution? The betrayal of the Makhnovists can

6082

only be understood in terms of the "subjective factor" Rees seeks

6083

to ignore. If you think, as the Bolsheviks clearly did, that the

6084

dictatorship of the proletariat equalled the dictatorship of

6085

the party (and vice versa) then anything which threatened the

6086

rule of the party had to be destroyed. Whether this was soviet

6087

democracy or the Makhnovists did not matter. The Makhnovist idea

6088

of worker and peasant self-management, like soviet democracy,

6089

could not be reconciled with the Bolshevik ideology. As such,

6090

Bolshevik policy explains the betrayals of the Makhnovists.

6091

6092

Not satisfied with distorting his source material to present

6093

the Makhnovists as the guilty party in the return of Wrangel,

6094

he decides to blame the initial success of Wrangel on them

6095

as well. He quotes Michael Palij as follows: "As Wrangel

6096

advanced . . . Makhno retreated north . . . leaving behind

6097

small partisan units in the villages and towns to carry out

6098

covert destruction of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus

6099

and supply bases." [Op. Cit., p. 59] He again sources Palij's

6100

work on the "effective" nature of these groups, stating

6101

that White Colonel Noga reported to headquarters that

6102

Makhno was critical to Wrangel's advance.

6103

6104

As regards the claims that Makhno was "critical" to Wrangel's

6105

advance, Colonal Noga actually states that it was "peasant

6106

uprisings under Makhno and many other partisan detachments"

6107

which gave "the Reds no rest." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit.,

6108

p. 214] However, what Rees fails to mention is that Palij

6109

argues that it was the Bolshevik "policy of terror and

6110

exploitation" which had "turned almost all segments of

6111

Ukrainian society against the Bolsheviks, substantially

6112

strengthened the Makhno movement, and consequently

6113

facilitated the advance of the reorganised anti-Bolshevik

6114

force of General Wrangel from the Crimea into South Ukraine,

6115

the Makhno region." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 214] Again, Makhno

6116

is blamed for the inevitable results of Bolshevik policies

6117

and actions!

6118

6119

It should also be reported that Noga's comments are dated

6120

25th March 1920, while Palij's summary of Makhno's activities

6121

retreating from Wrangel was about June 1920 -- 2 months

6122

later! As regards this advance by Wrangel, Palij argues

6123

that it was the "outbreak of the Polish-Bolshevik war

6124

at the end of April" which "benefited Wrangel" and

6125

"enabled him to launch an offensive against the Bolsheviks

6126

in Tavriia on June 6th." Indeed, it was after a "series

6127

of battles" that Wrangel "penetrated north, forcing a

6128

general Bolshevik retreat." Now, "[a]s Wrangel advanced

6129

deeper into the Left Bank, Makhno retreated north to

6130

the Kharkiv region, leaving behind small partisan units

6131

in the villages and towns to carry on covert destruction

6132

of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus and supply

6133

bases." [Op. Cit., p. 219] Again, Rees' account has

6134

little bearing to reality or the source material he

6135

uses.

6136

6137

Rees continues to re-write history by arguing that "Makhno did

6138

not fight with the Reds again until October 1920 when Wrangel

6139

advanced on Makhno's base." [Op. Cit., p. 59] In fact, it

6140

was the Makhnovists who contacted the Bolsheviks in July

6141

and August in 1920 with a view to suspending hostilities

6142

and co-operating in the fight against Wrangel. This decision

6143

was made at a mass assembly of insurgents. Sadly, the

6144

Bolsheviks made no response. Only in September, after

6145

Wrangel had occupied many towns, did the Bolsheviks

6146

enter into negotiations. [Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 176-7]

6147

This is confirmed by Footman, who states that it is "agreed

6148

that the initiative for joint action against Wrangel came

6149

from the Makhnovists" [Op. Cit., p. 294], as well as by Palij,

6150

who notes that "Makhno was compelled to seek an understanding

6151

with the Bolsheviks" but "no reply was received." It was

6152

"Wrangel's success [which] caused the Bolshevik leaders to

6153

reconsider Makhno's earlier proposal." [Op. Cit., pp. 222-3]

6154

Obviously indicating that the Makhnovists placed the struggle

6155

against the White counter-revolution above their own politics

6156

would place the Bolsheviks in a bad light, and so Rees fails

6157

to give the details behind the agreement of joint action

6158

against Wrangel.

6159

6160

As regards this third and final break, Rees states that it was

6161

("unsurprisingly") a "treaty of convenience on the part of both

6162

sides and as soon as Wrangel was defeated at the end of the

6163

year the Red Army fought Makhno until he have up the struggle."

6164

[Op. Cit., p. 59] Which, as far as it goes, is true. Makhno,

6165

however, "assumed [that] the forthcoming conflict with the

6166

Bolsheviks could be limited to the realm of ideas" and that

6167

they "would not attack his movement immediately." [Palij,

6168

Op. Cit., p. 231] He was wrong. Instead the Bolsheviks

6169

attacked the Makhnovists without warning and, unlike the

6170

other breaks, without pretext (although leaflets handed

6171

out to the Red Army stated that Makhno had "violat[ed]

6172

the agreement"! [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 236]).

6173

6174

It would be a good idea to reproduce the agreement which the

6175

Bolsheviks ripped up. There were two parts, a military and a

6176

political one. The military one is pretty straight forward

6177

(although the clause on the Makhnovists refusing to accept

6178

Red Army detachments or deserters suggests that the

6179

Makhnovists' democratic army was seen by many Red Army

6180

soldiers as a better alternative to Trotsky's autocratic

6181

structure). The political agreement was as follows:

6182

6183

"1. Immediate release, and an end to the persecution of

6184

all Makhno men and anarchists in the territories of the

6185

Soviet Republics, except those who carry on armed

6186

resistance against Soviet authorities.

6187

6188

"2. Makhno men and anarchists were to have complete

6189

freedom of expression of their ideas and principles,

6190

by speech and the press, provided that nothing was

6191

expressed that tended to a violent overthrow of

6192

Soviet government, and on condition that military

6193

censorship be respected. . .

6194

6195

"3. Makhno men and anarchists were to enjoy full rights

6196

of participation in elections to the soviets, including

6197

the right to be elected, and free participation in the

6198

organisation of the forthcoming Fifth All-Ukrainian

6199

Congress of Soviets . . ." [cited by Palij, Op. Cit.,

6200

p. 224]

6201

</blockquote>

6202

Needless to say, the Bolsheviks delayed the publication

6203

of the political agreement several until several days

6204

after the military one was published -- "thus blurring

6205

its real meaning." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 225] Clearly,

6206

as it stands, the agreement just gave the Makhnovists

6207

and anarchists the rights they should have had according

6208

to the Soviet Constitution! Little wonder the Bolsheviks

6209

ignored it -- they also ignored their own constitution.

6210

However, it is the fourth point of the political agreement

6211

which gives the best insight into the nature of Bolshevism.

6212

This last point was never ratified by the Bolsheviks as

6213

it was "absolutely unacceptable to the dictatorship of

6214

the proletariat." [quoted by Palij, Ibid.] This clause

6215

was:

6216

6217

"One of the basic principles of the Makhno movement

6218

being the struggle for the self-administration of the

6219

toilers, the Partisan Army brings up a fourth point:

6220

in the region of the Makhno movement, the worker and

6221

peasant population is to organise and maintain its

6222

own free institutions for economic and political

6223

self-administration; this region is subsequently

6224

federated with Soviet republics by means of agreements

6225

freely negotiated with the appropriate Soviet

6226

governmental organ." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit.,

6227

p. 224]

6228

</blockquote>

6229

Clearly, this idea of worker and peasant self-management,

6230

like soviet democracy, could not be reconciled with the

6231

Bolshevik support for party dictatorship as the expression

6232

of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which had become

6233

a Bolshevik ideological truism by that time. Little wonder

6234

the Bolsheviks failed to ratify the fourth clause and

6235

violated the other agreements. Simply put, a libertarian

6236

alternative to Bolshevism would give the Russian and

6237

Ukrainian working masses hope of freedom and make them

6238

harder to control. It is unsurprising that Rees fails to

6239

discuss the treaty -- it would, yet again, undermine his case

6240

that the Bolsheviks were forced by objective circumstances

6241

to be dictatorial.

6242

6243

And, of course, let us not forget the circumstances in

6244

which this betrayal took place. The country was, as Rees

6245

reminds us, in a state of economic disruption and collapse.

6246

Indeed, Rees blames the anti-working class and dictatorial

6247

actions and policies of the Bolsheviks on the chaos caused

6248

by the civil war. Yet here are the Bolsheviks prolonging

6249

this very Civil War by turning (yet again!) on their allies.

6250

After the defeat of the Whites, the Bolsheviks preferred

6251

to attack the Makhnovists rather than allow them the freedom

6252

they had been fighting for. Resources which could have been

6253

used to aid the economic rebuilding of Russia and the Ukraine

6254

were used to attack their former allies. The talents and

6255

energy of the Makhnovists were either killed or wasted in a

6256

pointless conflict. Should we be surprised? After all, the

6257

Bolsheviks had preferred to compound their foes during the

6258

Civil War (and, indirectly, aid the very Whites they were

6259

fighting) by betraying their Makhnovist allies on two

6260

previous occasions (once, because the Makhnovists had

6261

dared call a conference of working people to discuss the

6262

civil war being fought in their name). Clearly, Bolshevik

6263

politics and ideology played a key role in all these

6264

decisions. They were not driven by terrible objective

6265

circumstances (indeed, they made them worse).

6266

6267

Rees obviously distorted the truth about the first two

6268

agreements between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks. He

6269

portrayed the Makhnovists as the guilty party, "breaking"

6270

with the Bolsheviks when in fact it was (in both cases)

6271

the Bolsheviks who broke with and betrayed the Makhnovists.

6272

That explains why he fails to present any information on

6273

why the first break happened and why he distorts the

6274

events of the second. It cannot be said that he was unaware

6275

of these facts -- they are in the very books he himself

6276

references! As such, we have a clear and intended desire

6277

to deceive the reader. As regards the third agreement,

6278

while he makes no pretence that the Makhnovists were the

6279

guilty party however, he implies that the Bolsheviks had

6280

to act as they did before the Makhnovists turned on them.

6281

Little wonder, then, that he does not provide the details

6282

of the agreement made between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovists

6283

of the Bolsheviks. Simply put, Rees'distortions of the

6284

source material he uses comes as no surprise. It undermines

6285

his basic argument and so cannot be used in its original

6286

form. Hence the cherry-picking of quotations to support his

6287

case.

6288

6289

After distorting Makhnovist relations with the Bolsheviks,

6290

Rees moves on to distorting the socio-political ideas and

6291

practice of the Makhnovists. As would be expected from his

6292

hatchet-job on the military history of the movement, his

6293

account of its social ideas leaves much to be desired.

6294

However, both aspects of his critique have much in common.

6295

His account of its theoretical ideas and its attempts to

6296

apply them again abuse the source material in disgraceful

6297

ways.

6298

6299

For example, Rees states that under the Makhnovists

6300

"[p]apers could be published, but the Bolshevik and Left

6301

Socialist Revolutionary press were not allowed to call for

6302

revolution" and references Michael Palij's book. [Op. Cit.,

6303

p. 60] Looking at the page in question, we discover a somewhat

6304

different account. According to Palij's work, what the

6305

Makhnovists actually "prohibited" was that these parties

6306

should "propagate armed uprisings against the Makhnovist

6307

movement." A clear rewriting of the source material and an

6308

indication of how low Leninists will sink. Significantly,

6309

Palij also notes that this "freedom of speech, press, assembly

6310

and association" was implemented "[i]n contrast to the Bolshevik

6311

regime" and its policy of crushing such liberties. [Op. Cit.

6312

pp. 152-3] Ironically, the military-political agreement of

6313

late 1920 between the Reds and Makhnovists included a similar

6314

clause, banning expression that "tended to a violent overthrow

6315

of the Soviet government." [quoted by Palij, OP. Cit., p. 224]

6316

Which means, to use Rees' distorted terminology, that the

6317

Bolsheviks banned calls for revolution!

6318

6319

However, this distortion of the source material does give

6320

us an insight into the mentality of Leninism. After all,

6321

according to Palij, when the Makhnovists entered a city

6322

or town they "immediately announced to the population that

6323

the army did not intend to exercise political authority."

6324

The workers and peasants were to set up soviets "that would

6325

carry out the will and orders of their constituents" as well

6326

as "organis[e] their own self-defence force against

6327

counter-revolution and banditry." These political changes

6328

were matched in the economic sphere as well, as the

6329

"holdings of the landlords, the monasteries and the state,

6330

including all livestocks and goods, were to be transferred

6331

to the peasants" and "all factories, plants, mines, and other

6332

means of production were to become property of all the workers

6333

under control of their professional unions." [Op. Cit.,

6334

p. 151]

6335

6336

In such an environment, a call for "revolution" (or, more

6337

correctly, "armed uprisings against the Makhno movement")

6338

could only mean a Bolshevik coup to install a Bolshevik party

6339

dictatorship. As the Makhnovists were clearly defending working-

6340

class and peasant self-government, then a Bolshevik call for

6341

"armed uprisings" against them also meant the end of such free

6342

soviets and their replacement with party dictatorship. Little

6343

wonder Rees distorts his source! Arshinov makes the situation

6344

clear:

6345

6346

"The only restriction that the Makhnovists considered

6347

necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks, the left

6348

Socialist Revolutionaries and other statists was a

6349

prohibition on the formation of those 'revolutionary

6350

committees' which sought to impose a dictatorship over

6351

the people. In Aleksandrovsk and Ekaterinoslav, right

6352

after the occupation of these cities by the Makhnovists,

6353

the Bolsheviks hastened to organise Revkoms

6354

(Revolutionary Committees ) seeking to organise their

6355

political power and govern the population . . .

6356

Makhno advised them to go and take up some honest trade

6357

instead of seeking to impose their will on the

6358

workers . . . In this context the Makhnovists' attitude

6359

was completely justified and consistent. To protect the

6360

full freedom of speech, press, and organisation, they

6361

had to take measures against formations which sought to

6362

stifle this freedom, to suppress other organisations,

6363

and to impose their will and dictatorial authority on

6364

the workers." [Op. Cit., p. 154]

6365

</blockquote>

6366

Little wonder Rees distorts the issues and transforms

6367

a policy to defend the real revolution into one which

6368

banned a "call for revolution"! We should be grateful

6369

that he distorted the Makhnovist message for it allows

6370

us to indicate the dictatorial nature of the regime

6371

and politics Rees is defending.

6372

6373

All of which disproves Rees' assertion that "the movement

6374

never had any real support from the working class. Neither

6375

was it particularly interested in developing a programme

6376

which would appeal to the workers." [Op. Cit., p. 59] Now,

6377

Rees had obviously read Palij's summary of Makhnovist ideas.

6378

Is he claiming that workers' self-management and the

6379

socialisation of the means of production do not "appeal"

6380

to workers? After all, most Leninists pay lip-service to

6381

these ideas. Is Rees arguing that the Bolshevik policies

6382

of the time (namely one-man management and the militarisation

6383

of labour) "appealed" to the workers more than workers'

6384

self-management of production? Equally, the Makhnovists

6385

argued that the workers should form their own free soviets

6386

which would "carry out the will and orders of their

6387

constituents." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 151] Is Rees really

6388

arguing that the Bolshevik policy of party dictatorship

6389

"appealed" to the workers more than soviet democracy?

6390

If so, then heaven help us if the SWP ever get into power!

6391

6392

Luckily, as Jonathan Aves' book Workers Against Lenin proves,

6393

this was not the case. Working-class resistance to Bolshevik

6394

policies was extremely widespread and was expressed by strikes.

6395

It should be noted that the wave of strikes all across Russia

6396

which preceded the Kronstadt revolt also raised the demand

6397

for soviet democracy. The call for "free soviets" was raised

6398

by the Kronstadt revolt itself and during the "mini-Kronstadt"

6399

in Katerinoslav in June 1921 where the demands of the workers

6400

"were very similar in content with the resolutions of the

6401

Kronstadt rebels" and telegraph operators sent "messages

6402

throughout the Soviet Republic calling for 'free soviets.'"

6403

[Jonathan Aves, Workers Against Lenin, p. 172 and p. 173]

6404

6405

Clearly, the Makhnovists did create a "programme that would

6406

appeal to the workers." However, it is true that the Makhnovists

6407

did fail win over more than a minority of workers. This may

6408

have been due to the fact that the Makhnovists only freed two

6409

cities, both for short periods of time. As Paul Avrich notes,

6410

"he found little time to implement his economic programs."

6411

[Anarchist Portraits, p. 121] Given how Rees bends over

6412

backwards to justify Bolshevik policies in terms of "objective

6413

factors," it is significant that in his discussion of the

6414

Makhnovists such "objective factors" as time fail to get a

6415

mention!

6416

6417

Thus Rees's attempt to paint the Makhnovists as anti-working

6418

class fails. While this is the core of his dismissal of them

6419

as a possible "libertarian alternative to the Bolsheviks,"

6420

the facts do not support his assertions. He gives the example

6421

of Makhno's advice to railway workers in Aleksandrovsk "who

6422

had not been paid for many weeks" that they should "simply

6423

charge passengers a fair price and so generate their own

6424

wages." He states that this "advice aimed at reproducing

6425

the petit-bourgeois patterns of the countryside." [Op. Cit.,

6426

p. 59] Two points can be raised to this argument.

6427

6428

Firstly, we should highlight the Bolshevik (and so,

6429

presumably, "proletarian") patterns imposed on the

6430

railway workers. Trotsky simply "plac[ed] the railwaymen

6431

and the personnel of the repair workshops under martial

6432

law" and "summarily ousted" the leaders of the railwaymen's

6433

trade union when they objected." The Central Administrative

6434

Body of Railways (Tsektran) he created was run by him

6435

"along strictly military and bureaucratic lines." In other

6436

words, he applied his ideas on the "militarisation of

6437

labour" in full. [M. Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers'

6438

Control, p. 67] Compared to the Bolshevik pattern, only

6439

an ideologue could suggest that Makhno's advice (and it

6440

was advice, not a decree imposed from above, as was

6441

Trotsky's) can be considered worse. Indeed, by being

6442

based on workers' self-management it was infinitely

6443

more socialist than the militarised Bolshevik state

6444

capitalist system.

6445

6446

Secondly, Rees fails to understand the nature of

6447

anarchism. Anarchism argues that it is up to working

6448

class people to organise their own activities. This

6449

meant that, ultimately, it was up to the railway

6450

workers themselves (in association with other

6451

workers) to organise their own work and industry.

6452

Rather than being imposed by a few leaders, real

6453

socialism can only come from below, built by working

6454

people, through their own efforts and own class

6455

organisations. Anarchists can suggest ideas and solutions,

6456

but ultimately its up to workers (and peasants) to organise

6457

their own affairs. Thus, rather than being a source of

6458

condemnation, Makhno's comments should be considered as

6459

praiseworthy as they were made in a spirit of equality

6460

and were based on encouraging workers' self-management.

6461

6462

Ultimately, the best reply to Rees is simply the fact

6463

that after holding a "general conference of the workers

6464

of the city" at which it was "proposed that the workers

6465

organise the life of the city and the functioning of the

6466

factories with their own forces and their own organisations"

6467

based on "the principles of self-management," the "[r]ailroad

6468

workers took the first step in this direction" by "form[ing]

6469

a committee charged with organising the railway network of

6470

the region." [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 149]

6471

6472

Even more amazing (if that is possible) is Rees' account of

6473

the revolution in the countryside. Rees argues that the "real

6474

basis of Makhno's support was not his anarchism, but his

6475

opposition to grain requisitioning and his determination not

6476

to disturb the peasant economy" [Op. Cit., p. 59] and quotes

6477

Palij as follows:

6478

6479

"Makhno had not put an end to the agricultural inequalities.

6480

His aim was to avoid conflicts with the villages and to

6481

maintain a sort of united front of the entire peasantry."

6482

[M. Palij, Op. Cit., p. 214]

6483

</blockquote>

6484

However, here is the actual context of the (corrected) quote:

6485

6486

"Peasants' economic conditions in the region of the Makhno

6487

movement were greatly improved at the expense of the estates

6488

of the landlords, the church, monasteries, and the richest

6489

peasants, but Makhno had not put an end to the agricultural

6490

inequalities. His aim was to avoid conflicts within the

6491

villages and to maintain a sort of united front of the

6492

entire peasantry." [M. Palij, Op. Cit., p. 214]

6493

</blockquote>

6494

Clearly, Rees has distorted the source material, conveniently

6495

missing out the information that Makhno had most definitely

6496

"disturbed" the peasant economy at the expense of the rich!

6497

And, we are sure that Rees would have a fit if it were suggested

6498

that the real basis of Bolshevik support was not their socialism,

6499

but their opposition to the war and the Whites!

6500

6501

Amazingly, Rees also somehow manages to forget to mention the

6502

peasant revolution which had started in 1917 in his attack

6503

against Makhno:

6504

6505

"Makhno and his associates brought socio-political issues

6506

into the daily life of the people, who in turn supported the

6507

expropriation of large estates . . . On the eve of open

6508

conflict [in late 1917], Makhno assembled all the landowners

6509

and rich peasants (kulaks) of the area and took from them

6510

all official documents relating to their land, livestock,

6511

and equipment. Subsequently an inventory of this property

6512

was taken and reported to the people at the session of

6513

the local soviet, and then at the regional meeting, It

6514

was decided to allow the landlords to share the land,

6515

livestock, and tools equally with the peasants." [Palij,

6516

Op. Cit., p. 71]

6517

</blockquote>

6518

Obviously, Rees considers the expropriating of the

6519

landlords and kulaks as an act which "did not disturb

6520

the age-old class structure of the countryside"!

6521

6522

Let us not forget that the official Makhnovist position was

6523

that the "holdings of the landlords, the monasteries, and

6524

the state, including all livestock and goods, were to be

6525

transferred to the peasants." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 151]

6526

At the second congress of workers, peasants and insurgents

6527

held in February, 1919, it was resolved that "all land be

6528

transferred to the hands of toiling peasants . . . according

6529

to the norm of equal distribution." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit.,

6530

p. 155] This meant that every peasant family had as much

6531

land as they could cultivate without the use of hired labour.

6532

The Makhnovists argued with regards to the kulaks:

6533

6534

"We are sure that . . . the kulak elements of the village

6535

will be pushed to one side by the very course of events.

6536

The toiling peasantry will itself turn effortlessly on the

6537

kulaks, first by adopting the kulak's surplus land for

6538

general use, then naturally drawing the kulak elements

6539

into the social organisation." [cited by Michael Malet,

6540

Op. Cit., pp. 118-9]

6541

</blockquote>

6542

Thus, just to stress the point, the Makhnovists did

6543

"disturb" the "age-old class structure of the countryside."

6544

6545

Clearly, Rees is simply taking nonsense. When he states that

6546

Makhnovist land policies "did not disturb the age-old class

6547

structure of the countryside," he is simply showing his utter

6548

and total disregard for the truth. As the Bolsheviks themselves

6549

found out, no mass movement could possibly exist among the

6550

peasants without having a positive and levelling land policy.

6551

The Makhnovists were no exception.

6552

6553

Rees then states that "[i]n 1919 the local Bolshevik

6554

authorities made mistakes which played into Makhno's hands."

6555

Unsurprisingly enough, he argues that this was because

6556

they "tried to carry through the socialisation of the

6557

land, rather than handing it over to the peasants."

6558

[Op. Cit., p. 60] In fact, the Bolsheviks did not try

6559

to implement the "socialisation" of land. Rather, they

6560

tried to nationalise the land and place it under state

6561

control -- a radically different concept. Indeed, it was

6562

the Makhnovists who argued that the "land, the factories,

6563

the workshops, the mines, the railroads and the other

6564

wealth of the people must belong to the working people

6565

themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say,

6566

they must be socialised." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit.,

6567

p. 273] The Bolsheviks, in contrast, initially "decreed

6568

that all lands formerly belonging to the landlords should

6569

be expropriated and transformed into state farms." [Palij,

6570

Op. Cit., p. 156] The peasants quite rightly thought that

6571

this just replaced one set of landlords with another,

6572

stealing the land which rightfully belonged to them.

6573

6574

After distorting the source material by selective quoting,

6575

Rees does it again when he argues that "by the spring of 1920

6576

they [the Bolsheviks] had reversed the policy towards the

6577

peasants and instituted Committees of Poor Peasants, these

6578

'hurt Makhno . . . his heart hardened and he sometimes ordered

6579

executions.' This policy helped the Bolshevik ascendancy."

6580

[Op. Cit., p. 60]

6581

6582

Rees quotes Palij as evidence. To refute his argument we need

6583

simply quote the same pages:

6584

6585

"Although they [the Bolsheviks] modified their agricultural

6586

policy by introducing on February 5, 1920, a new land law,

6587

distributing the former landlords', state and church lands

6588

among the peasants, they did not succeed in placating them

6589

because of the requisitions, which the peasants considered

6590

outright robbery . . . Subsequently the Bolsheviks decided

6591

to introduce class warfare into the villages. A decree was

6592

issued on May 19, 1920, establishing 'Committees of the

6593

Poor' . . . Authority in the villages was delegated to the

6594

committees, which assisted the Bolsheviks in seizing the

6595

surplus grain . . . The establishment of Committees of the

6596

Poor was painful to Makhno because they became not only

6597

part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus the

6598

peasants opposed, but also informers helping the Bolshevik

6599

secret police in its persecution of the partisans, their

6600

families and supporters, even to the extent of hunting

6601

down and executing wounded partisans . . . Consequently,

6602

Makhno's 'heart hardened and he sometimes ordered

6603

executions where some generosity would have bestowed

6604

more credit upon him and his movement. That the Bolsheviks

6605

preceded him with the bad example was no excuse. For he

6606

claimed to be fighting for a better cause.' Although the

6607

committees in time gave the Bolsheviks a hold on every

6608

village, their abuse of power disorganised and slowed

6609

down agricultural life . . . This policy of terror and

6610

exploitation turned almost all segments of Ukrainian

6611

society against the Bolsheviks, substantially strengthened

6612

the Makhno movement, and consequently facilitated the

6613

advance of the reorganised anti-Bolshevik force of General

6614

Wrangel from the Crimea into South Ukraine, the Makhno

6615

region." [M. Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 213-4]

6616

</blockquote>

6617

Amazing what a ". . ." can hide, is it not! Rees turns

6618

an account which clearly shows the Bolshevik policy was

6619

based on informers, secret police and the murder of

6620

rebels as well as being a total disaster into a victory.

6621

Moreover, he also transforms it so that the victims are

6622

portrayed as the villains. Words cannot do this re-writing

6623

of history justice. Yes, indeed, an organisation of

6624

informers to the secret police in every village can aid

6625

the "ascendancy" of a one-party dictatorship (aided,

6626

of course, by overwhelming military force), but it

6627

cannot aid the ascendancy of freedom, equality and

6628

socialism.

6629

6630

Given the actual record of the Bolsheviks' attempts to break

6631

up what they considered the "age-old class structure" of the

6632

villages with the "Committees of the Poor," it is clear why

6633

Rees distorts his source.

6634

6635

It does seem ironic that Rees attacks the Makhnovists for not

6636

pursuing Bolshevik peasant policies. Considering the absolute

6637

failure of those policies, the fact that Makhno did not follow

6638

them is hardly cause for condemnation! Indeed, given the numerous

6639

anti-Bolshevik uprisings and large-scale state repression they

6640

provoked, attacking the Makhnovists for not pursuing such insane

6641

policies is equally insane. After all, who, in the middle of a

6642

Civil War, makes matters worse for themselves by creating more

6643

enemies? Only the insane -- or the Bolsheviks!

6644

6645

That Makhnovist land policy was correct and the Bolshevik

6646

one wrong can be seen from the fact that the latter

6647

changed their policies and brought them into line with

6648

the Makhnovist ones. As Palij notes, the Bolsheviks

6649

"modified their agricultural policy by introducing on

6650

February 5, 1920, a new land law, distributing the

6651

formers landlords', state, and church lands among the

6652

peasants." This, of course, was a vindication of

6653

Makhnovist policy (which dated from 1917!). Makhno

6654

"initiated the peasants' movement, confiscating and

6655

distributing landlords' land and goods" (and, unlike

6656

the Bolsheviks, "encouraging the workers to take over

6657

factories and workshops"). As regards the Bolsheviks

6658

attempts to break up what they considered the "age-

6659

old class structure" of the villages with the "Committees

6660

of the Poor," it was, as noted above, a complete

6661

disaster and counter-productive. [Op. Cit., p. 213

6662

and p. 250] All in all, the Makhnovist policies were

6663

clearly the most successful as regards the peasantry.

6664

They broke up the class system in the countryside

6665

by expropriating the ruling class and did not create

6666

new conflicts by artificially imposing themselves

6667

onto the villages.

6668

6669

Lastly, we must also wonder just how sensible it is to

6670

"disturb" the economy that produces the food you eat.

6671

Given that Rees, in part, blames Bolshevik tyranny on

6672

the disruption of the economy, it seems incredible that

6673

he faults Makhno for not adding to the chaos by failing

6674

to "disrupt the peasant economy"! However, why let logic

6675

get in the way of a good rant!

6676

6677

As well as ignoring the wealth of information on Makhnovist

6678

land policy, Rees turns to their attempts to form free agrarian

6679

communes. He argues that Makhno's attempts "to go beyond the

6680

traditional peasant economy were doomed" and quotes Makhno's

6681

memoirs which state "the mass of the people did not go over"

6682

to his peasant communes, which only involved a few hundred

6683

families. [Op. Cit., p. 59]

6684

6685

Looking at Makhno's memoirs a somewhat different picture appears.

6686

Firstly, Makhno states that there were "four such agricultural

6687

communes within a three- or four-mile radius of Hulyai-Pole,"

6688

but in the whole district "there were many" in 1918 (the period

6689

being discussed in his memoirs). Makhno recounts how each "commune

6690

consisted of ten families of peasants and workers, totalling a

6691

hundred, two hundred or three hundred members" and the "management

6692

of each commune was conducted by a general meeting of all its

6693

members." He does state that "the mass of people did not go over

6694

to it" but, significantly, he argues that this was because of

6695

"the advance of the German and Austrian armies, their own lack

6696

of organisation, and their inability to defend this order against

6697

the new 'revolutionary' and counter-revolutionary authorities.

6698

For this reason the toiling population of the district limited

6699

their real revolutionary activity to supporting in every way

6700

those bold spirits among them who had settled on the old estates

6701

[of the landlords] and organised their personal and economic life

6702

on free communal lines." [quoted by Paul Avrich, The Anarchists

6703

in the Russian Revolution, pp. 130-2]

6704

6705

Of course, failing to mention the time period Makhno was

6706

recounting does distort the success of the communes. The

6707

Bolsheviks were evacuating the Ukraine as part of their

6708

treaty with German and Austrian Imperialism when the

6709

communes were being set up. This left them in a dangerous

6710

position, needless to say. By July, 1918, the area was

6711

occupied by Austrian troops and it was early 1919 before

6712

the situation was stable enough to allow their

6713

reintroduction. One commune was named "Rosa Luxemburg"

6714

(after the Marxist revolutionary martyr) and was

6715

mostly destroyed by the Bolsheviks in June 1919 and

6716

completely destroyed by the Whites a few days later.

6717

In such circumstances, can it be surprising that only

6718

a minority of peasants got involved in them? Rather

6719

than praise the Makhnovists for positive social

6720

experimentation in difficult circumstances, Rees shows

6721

his ignorance of the objective conditions facing the

6722

revolution. Perhaps if the peasants did not have to

6723

worry about the Bolsheviks as well as the Whites,

6724

they would have had more members?

6725

6726

All in all, Rees account of Makhnovist ideas on the peasant

6727

economy are, to put it mildly, incorrect. They paint a

6728

radically different picture of the reality of both Makhnovist

6729

ideas and practice as regards the peasantry. Ironically, the

6730

soundness of Makhnovist policy in this area can be seen from

6731

the fact that the Bolsheviks changed their land policy to

6732

bring it into line with it. Not, of course, that you would know

6733

that from Rees' account. Nor would you know what the facts

6734

of the Bolsheviks' land policy were either. Indeed, Rees

6735

uses Michael Palij's book to create a picture of events

6736

which is the exact opposite of that contained in it! Very

6737

impressive!

6738

6739

Intent on driving the final nail into the coffin, he tries

6740

to apply "class analysis" to the Makhnovists. Rees actually

6741

states that "given this social base [i.e the Makhnovists'

6742

peasant base] . . . much of Makhno's libertarianism amounted

6743

to little more than paper decrees." [Op. Cit., p. 60]

6744

6745

Ironically enough, the list of "paper decrees" Rees presents

6746

(when not false or distorted) are also failings associated with

6747

the Bolsheviks (and taken to even more extreme measures by the

6748

Bolsheviks)! As such, his lambasting of the Makhnovists seems

6749

deeply hypocritical. Moreover, his attempt to ground the few

6750

deviations that exist between Makhnovist practice and Makhnovist

6751

theory in the peasant base of the army seems an abuse of class

6752

analysis. After all, these deviations were also shared by the

6753

Bolsheviks. As such, how can Rees justify the Bolshevik deviations

6754

from socialist theory in terms of "objective factors" yet

6755

blame Makhnovist ones on their "social base"? Do "objective

6756

factors" only afflict Leninists?

6757

6758

Take for example his first "paper" decree, namely the election

6759

of commanders. He states that "in practice the most senior

6760

commanders were appointed by Makhno." In other words, the

6761

Makhnovists applied this principle extensively but not

6762

completely. The Bolsheviks abolished it by decree (and did

6763

not blame it on "exceptional circumstances" nor consider it

6764

as a "retreat", as Rees asserts). Now, if Rees' "class analysis"

6765

of the limitations of the Makhnovists were true, does this mean

6766

that an army of a regime with a proletarian base (as he considers

6767

the Bolshevik regime) cannot have elected commanders? This

6768

is the logical conclusion of his argument.

6769

6770

Equally, his attempt to "give a flavour of the movement" by

6771

quoting one of the resolutions adopted by a mass meeting of

6772

partisans also backfires (namely, "to obey the orders of

6773

the commanders if the commanders are sober enough to give

6774

them"). Firstly, it should be noted that this was, originally,

6775

from a Red Army source. Secondly, drunkenness was a big

6776

problem during the civil war (as in any war). It was one of

6777

the easiest ways of forgetting reality at a time when life

6778

was often unpleasant and sometimes short. As such, the

6779

"objective factor" of civil war explains this resolution

6780

rather than the social base of the movement! Thirdly, Rees

6781

himself quotes a Central Committee member's comment to the

6782

Eighth Party Congress that there were so many "horrifying

6783

facts about drunkenness, debauchery, corruption, robbery

6784

and irresponsible behaviour of many party members that

6785

one's hair stands on end." [Op. Cit., p. 66] The Eighth

6786

Congress was in 1919. Does this comment give a "flavour"

6787

of the Bolshevik regime under Lenin? Obviously not, as Rees

6788

defends it and blames this list of horrors on the objective

6789

factors facing the Bolsheviks. Why does the drunkenness of

6790

the Makhnovists come from their "social base" while that of

6791

the Bolsheviks from "objective factors"? Simply put, Rees is

6792

insulting the intelligence of his readers.

6793

6794

The Makhnovist resolution was passed by a mass assembly

6795

of partisans, suggesting a fundamentally democratic

6796

organisation. Rees argues that the civil war resulted in

6797

the Bolshevik vices becoming institutionalised in the power

6798

of the bureaucracy. However, as can be seen, the Makhnovists

6799

practised democracy during the civil war, suggesting that

6800

the objective factors Rees tries to blame for the Bolshevik

6801

vices simply cannot explain everything. As such, his own

6802

example (yet again) backfires on his argument.

6803

6804

Rees claims that "Makhno held elections, but no parties

6805

were allowed to participate in them." [Op. Cit., p. 60]

6806

This is probably derived from Palij's comment that the

6807

free soviets would "carry out the will and orders of their

6808

constituents" and "[o]nly working people, not representatives

6809

of political parties, might join the soviets." [Op. Cit.,

6810

p. 151] This, in turn, derives from a Makhnovist proclamation

6811

from January 1920 which stated:

6812

6813

"Only labourers who are contributing work necessary to

6814

the social economy should participate in the soviets.

6815

Representatives of political organisations have no place

6816

in worker-peasant soviets, since their participation in

6817

a workers' soviet will transform the latter into deputies

6818

of the party and can lead to the downfall of the soviet

6819

system." [contained in Peter Arshinov's History of the

6820

Makhnovist Movement, p. 266]

6821

</blockquote>

6822

Rees' comments indicate that he is not familiar with the

6823

make-up of the Russian Soviets of 1917. Unlike the soviets

6824

from the 1905 revolution, those in 1917 allowed "various

6825

parties and other organisations to acquire voting

6826

representation in the soviet executive committees."

6827

Indeed, this was "often how high party leaders became

6828

voting delegates to" such bodies. It should "be

6829

underlined that these party delegates were selected

6830

by the leadership of each political organisation, and

6831

not by the soviet assembly itself. In other words, these

6832

executive committee members were not directly elected by

6833

the representatives of the producers" (never mind by the

6834

producers themselves). [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism,

6835

p. 31]

6836

6837

In addition, Russian Anarchists had often attacked the

6838

use of "party lists" in soviet elections, which turned

6839

the soviets from working-class organs into talking-shops.

6840

[Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p. 190] This use

6841

of party lists meant that soviet delegates could be anyone.

6842

For example, the leading left-wing Menshevik Martov recounts

6843

that in early 1920 a chemical factory "put up Lenin against

6844

me as a candidate [to the Moscow soviet]. I received seventy-six

6845

votes he-eight (in an open vote)." [quoted by Israel Getzler,

6846

Martov, p. 202] How would either of these two intellectuals

6847

actually know and reflect the concerns and interests of the

6848

workers they would be "delegates" of? If the soviets were

6849

meant to be the delegates of working people, then why should

6850

non-working class members of political parties be elected

6851

to a soviet?

6852

6853

Given that the people elected to the free soviets would be

6854

delegates and not representatives, this would mean that

6855

they would reflect the wishes of their workmates rather

6856

than the decisions of the party's central committee. As

6857

such, if a worker who was a member of a political party

6858

could convince their workmates of their ideas, the delegate

6859

would reflect the decisions of the mass assembly. As such,

6860

the input of political parties would not be undermined in any

6861

way (although their domination would be!).

6862

6863

As such, the Makhnovist ideas on soviets did not, in fact,

6864

mean that workers and peasants could not elect or send

6865

delegates who were members of political parties. They had

6866

no problems as such with delegates who happened to be working-

6867

class party members. They did have problems with delegates

6868

representing only political parties, delegates who were not

6869

workers and soviets being mere ciphers covering party rule.

6870

6871

That this was the case can be seen from a few facts.

6872

Firstly, the February 1919 congress resolution "was

6873

written by the anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries,

6874

and the chairman." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 155] Similarly,

6875

the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet created

6876

at the Aleksandrovsk congress in late 1919 had three

6877

Communists elected to it. There were 18 delegates

6878

from workers at that congress, six were Mensheviks

6879

and the remaining 12 included Communists [Malet,

6880

Op. Cit., p. 111, p. 124] Clearly, members of political

6881

parties were elected to both the congresses and

6882

the Revolutionary Military Soviet. As such, the idea

6883

that free soviets excluded members of political

6884

parties is false -- they simply were not dominated

6885

by them (for example, having executives made up of

6886

members of a single party or delegating their power

6887

to a government as per the national soviet in Russia).

6888

This could, of course, change. In the words of the

6889

Makhnovist reply to Bolshevik attempts to ban one of

6890

their congresses:

6891

6892

"The Revolutionary Military Council . . . holds itself

6893

above the pressure and influence of all parties and only

6894

recognises the people who elected it. Its duty is to

6895

accomplish what the people have instructed it to do,

6896

and to create no obstacles to any left socialist party

6897

in the propagation of ideas. Consequently, if one day

6898

the Bolshevik idea succeeds among the workers, the

6899

Revolutionary Military Council . . . will necessarily

6900

be replaced by another organisation, 'more revolutionary'

6901

and more Bolshevik." [quoted by Arshinov, Op. Cit.,

6902

pp. 103-4]

6903

</blockquote>

6904

As such, the Makhnovists supported the right of working-

6905

class self-determination, as expressed by one delegate

6906

to Hulyai Pole conference in February 1919:

6907

6908

"No party has a right to usurp governmental power

6909

into its hands . . . We want life, all problems,

6910

to be decided locally, not by order from any

6911

authority above; and all peasants and workers

6912

should decide their own fate, while those elected

6913

should only carry out the toilers' wish." [quoted

6914

by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 154]

6915

</blockquote>

6916

Thus, Rees fails to present an accurate account of Makhnovist

6917

theory and practice as regards "free soviets." Rather than

6918

oppose party participation within their soviets and congresses,

6919

the Makhnovists opposed the domination of soviets and

6920

congresses by political parties, a radically different

6921

concept. Like the Kronstadt rebels, they argued for all

6922

power to the soviets and not to parties.

6923

6924

Lastly, Rees attacks the Makhnovists for having two security

6925

forces, the Cheka-like razvedka and the Punitive Commission.

6926

How this is an expression of the Makhnovist "social base"

6927

is hard to explain, as both the Bolsheviks and Whites also

6928

had their security forces and counter-intelligence agencies.

6929

6930

While Rees quotes Footman's statement that "we can safely

6931

assume [!] these services were responsible for frequent

6932

injustices and atrocities," he fails to mention that

6933

Footman does not provide any examples (hence his comment

6934

that we can "assume" they occurred!). Footman himself

6935

notes that "[o]f the Makhnovite security services . . .

6936

we know very little." [David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 288]

6937

Rees himself only lists one, namely the summary shooting

6938

of a Bolshevik cell discovered in the Army. Given the

6939

bloody record of the Bolshevik Cheka (which, again, Rees

6940

defends as necessary to defend against the Whites!), this

6941

suggests that the crimes of the Makhnovist counter-intelligence

6942

pale in comparison.

6943

6944

Rees also quotes the historian Chamberlin that "Makhno's

6945

private Cheka . . . quickly disposed of anyone who was

6946

suspected of plotting against his life." [Op. Cit., 60]

6947

Strangely enough, Rees fails to mention the Bolshevik

6948

attempts to assassinate Makhno, including the one in the

6949

latter part of May 1919 when, it should be noted, the

6950

Makhnovists and Bolsheviks were meant to be in alliance.

6951

Nor does he mention that the Cheka "would hunt out and

6952

hang all active Makhnovites." [David Footman, Civil War

6953

in Russia, p. 271 and p. 293]

6954

6955

As regards the last conflict with the Red Army, it should

6956

be noted that while "generalised accusations of Makhnovist

6957

atrocities are common" the facts are it was "the Makhnovists

6958

who stood to gain by liberating prisoners, the Bolsheviks by

6959

shooting them." This was because "the Red Army soldiers had

6960

been conscripted from elsewhere to do work they neither liked

6961

nor understood" and the "insurgents had their own homes to

6962

defend." [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 130] Thus, while Rees quotes

6963

Footman's opinion that "Makhno's later campaigns [were]

6964

among the most bloody and vindictive," these facts suggest

6965

that we cannot "safely assume that these [security] services

6966

were responsible for frequent injustices and atrocities."

6967

Clearly, if the Makhnovists were releasing Red Army prisoners

6968

(and many of whom were joining Makhno), the picture of an

6969

atrocity inflicting army can hardly be a valid picture.

6970

6971

And it should be stressed that Bolshevik terror and violence

6972

against the Makhnovists is strangely absent from Rees's account.

6973

6974

Rees presents just one concrete example of Makhnovist

6975

"Cheka-like" violence, namely, the execution of a

6976

Bolshevik cell in December, 1919. It should be noted

6977

that the Bolsheviks had been explicitly arguing for

6978

Party dictatorship for some time by then. The reason why

6979

the Bolsheviks had been "denied an open trial" was because

6980

they had already been shot. Unfortunately, Makhno gave two

6981

contradictory reasons why the Bolsheviks had been killed.

6982

This led to the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet

6983

setting up a commission of three to investigate the issue.

6984

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the commission exonerated Makhno

6985

although Voline, out of the members, seemed to have been

6986

genuinely embarrassed by the affair. [Malet, Op. Cit.,

6987

pp. 51-2] Needless to say, Rees fails to comment on the

6988

Bolshevik summary killing of Makhnovist staff in June

6989

1919 or, indeed, any other summary executions conducted

6990

by the Bolsheviks against the Makhnovists (including the

6991

shooting of prisoners).

6992

6993

Given the summary justice handed out by the Bolshevik Cheka,

6994

it seems strange that Rees dismisses the Makhnovist movement

6995

on assumptions and one event, yet he does. Obviously, the

6996

large-scale and continuous Bolshevik killings of political

6997

enemies (including Makhnovists) is irrelevant compared to

6998

this one event.

6999

7000

All in all, Rees' attempts to blame the few deviations

7001

the Makhnovists had from anarchist theory on the "social

7002

base" of the movement are a joke. While justifying the

7003

far more extreme deviations of Bolshevik theory and practice

7004

in terms of "objective factors," he refuses to consider this

7005

possibility for the Makhnovists. The hypocrisy is clear, if

7006

not unexpected.

7007

7008

One last point. Taking Rees' "class analysis" of the Makhnovists

7009

seriously, the logical conclusion of his argument is clear.

7010

For Rees, a movement which compromises slightly with its

7011

principles in the face of extreme "objective factors" is

7012

"petty bourgeois." However, a movement which compromises

7013

totally (indeed introduces and justifies the exact opposite

7014

of its original claims) in face of the same "objective

7015

factors" is "proletarian." As such, his pathetic attempt

7016

at "class analysis" of the Makhnovists simply shows up

7017

the dictatorial nature of the Bolsheviks. If trying to

7018

live up to libertarian/democratic ideals but not totally

7019

succeeding signifies being "petty-bourgeois" while dismissing

7020

those ideals totally in favour of top-down, autocratic

7021

hierarchies is "proletarian" then sane people would

7022

happily be labelled "petty-bourgeois"!

7023

7024

And Rees states that "[n]either Makhno's social programme

7025

nor his political regime could provide an alternative

7026

to the Bolsheviks"! [Op. Cit., p. 60] Little wonder he

7027

distorts that social programme and political regime -- an

7028

honest account of both would see that Rees is wrong. The

7029

Makhnovist movement clearly shows that not only did Bolshevik

7030

policies have a decisive impact on the development of the

7031

Russian Revolution, there was a clear alternative to

7032

Bolshevik authoritarianism and party dictatorship.

7033

7034

In summary, Rees' attack on the Makhnovists fails. It can

7035

be faulted on both factual and logical grounds. His article

7036

is so riddled with errors, selective quoting and downright

7037

lies that it is factually unreliable. Similarly, his attempt

7038

to attack the Makhnovist political theory and practice is

7039

equally factually incorrect. His attempt to explain the

7040

deviations of Makhnovist practice from its theory in terms

7041

of the "social base" is simply an insult to the intelligence

7042

of the reader and an abuse of class analysis.

7043

7044

A far more compelling analysis would recognise that the

7045

Makhnovists were not a perfect social movement but that

7046

the deviations of its practice from its theory can be

7047

explained by the objective factors it faced. Equally, the

7048

example of the Makhnovists shows the weakness of Rees'

7049

main argument, namely that the objective factors that

7050

Bolshevism faced can solely explain its authoritarian

7051

politics. That the Makhnovists, facing the same objective

7052

factors, did not act in the same manner as the Bolsheviks

7053

shows that Bolshevik ideology played a key role in the

7054

failure of the revolution. This explains Rees' clumsy

7055

attempts to rewrite the history and theory of the

7056

Makhnovshchina.

7057

7058

<a name="app16"><h2>16 What lessons can be learned from the Makhnovists?</h2>

7059

7060

The Makhnovist movement was one of the most important

7061

events of the Russian Revolution. It was a mass movement

7062

of working people who tried and succeeded to implement

7063

libertarian ideas in extremely difficult circumstances.

7064

7065

As such, the most important lesson gained from the experience

7066

of the Makhno movement is simply that "objective factors" cannot

7067

and do not explain the degeneration of the Russian Revolution or

7068

Bolshevik authoritarianism. Here was a movement which

7069

faced the same terrible circumstances as the Bolsheviks faced

7070

(White counter-revolution, economic disruption, and so on)

7071

and yet did not act in the same manner as the Bolsheviks.

7072

Where the Bolsheviks completely abolished army democracy,

7073

the Makhnovists extensively applied it. Where the Bolsheviks

7074

implemented party dictatorship over the soviets, the Makhnovists

7075

encouraged and practised soviet self-management. While the

7076

Bolsheviks eliminated freedom of speech, press, assembly, the

7077

Makhnovists defended and implemented them. The list is endless

7078

(see <a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>).

7079

7080

This means that one of the key defences of the Bolshevik Myth,

7081

namely that the Bolsheviks had no choice but to act as they

7082

did due to "objective factors" or "circumstances" is totally

7083

undermined. As such, it points to the obvious conclusion:

7084

Bolshevik ideology influenced the practice of the party,

7085

as did their position within the "workers' state," and so

7086

influenced the outcome of the Revolution. This means that to

7087

play down Bolshevik ideology or practice in favour of "objective

7088

factors", one fails to understand that the actions and ideas

7089

generated during the revolution were not "objectively"

7090

determined but were themselves important and sometimes

7091

decisive factors in the outcome.

7092

7093

Take, for example, the Bolshevik decision to betray the Makhnovists

7094

in 1920. Neither betrayal was "objectively determined" before-

7095

hand. However, it did make perfect sense from a perspective

7096

which equated the revolution with the "dictatorship of the

7097

party." That the first betrayal undoubtedly extended the length

7098

of the Civil War by allowing the Whites the space to reorganise

7099

under Wrangel also had its impact on Bolshevik theory and

7100

practice as well as the "objective factors" it had to face.

7101

7102

As such, the Makhnovists give a counter-example to the common

7103

pro-Bolshevik argument that the horrors of the Civil War

7104

were responsible for the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party

7105

and the revolution. In the words of one historian:

7106

7107

"[The] Insurgent Army . . . was organised on a voluntary basis

7108

and respected the principle of election of commanders and

7109

staff. The regulations governing conduct were drawn up by

7110

commissions of soldiers and approved by general meetings of

7111

the units concerned. In other words, it embodied the principles

7112

of the soldiers' movement of 1917, principles rejected by

7113

the Bolsheviks when they set up the Red Army, supposedly

7114

because of their harmful effects on fighting efficiency, a

7115

characteristic of them discovered by the Bolsheviks only

7116

after they had come to power on the basis of promoting them.

7117

But the Insurgent Army, given its size and equipment, was

7118

very effective. Some have even credited it with greater

7119

responsibility than the Red Army for the defeat of Denikin.

7120

It took enormous efforts by the Bolsheviks, including the

7121

arrest or shooting of thousands of people, in order to

7122

pacify the region . . . even after the Insurgent Army

7123

was militarily broken, it took six months to mop up the

7124

remnants. . . Within its area of operations, which consisted

7125

of only two to three per cent of the total population of

7126

European Russia, the Insurgent Army was undoubtedly highly

7127

effective. While one can never know how history might have

7128

turned out had things been different, the Insurgent Army

7129

gives plenty of grounds for thinking that a people's

7130

revolutionary war of the kind it represented might have

7131

been at least as effective on a national scale with

7132

nationwide resources at its disposal as Trotsky and the

7133

Red Army's ruthless centralisation. It would not, however,

7134

have been compatible with the imposition from above of

7135

the Bolshevik leadership's vision of revolution. When

7136

the Insurgent Army drove the enemy out of an area they

7137

encouraged the local population to solve their own

7138

problems. Where the Red Army took over, the Cheka quickly

7139

followed. The Bolsheviks themselves were energetically

7140

snuffing out the ideals of 1917.

7141

7142

"Given such considerations it may be, though it cannot be

7143

logically proven one way or the other, that the Bolsheviks'

7144

deeply rooted authoritarianism rather than the civil war

7145

itself led to the construction of a highly centralised

7146

system that aimed at 'complete control' over political and

7147

many other aspects of social life. It could even be argued,

7148

though it is equally unprovable, that the tendency to

7149

authoritarianism, far from ensuring victory, nearly led

7150

to catastrophe. For one thing, it helped alienate many

7151

workers who felt cheated by the outcome of the revolution,

7152

and support for the regime was . . . far from even in this

7153

core group . . . [It] may, indeed, have been becoming

7154

more alienated as a result of Bolshevik measures depriving

7155

it of the means of expression of its growing catalogue of

7156

grievances. . . Far from being 'necessary' or even functional,

7157

the Bolshevik leadership's obsession with externally imposed

7158

discipline and authority might even have made the task of

7159

victory in the war more difficult and more costly. If the

7160

counter-example of Makhno is anything to go by then it

7161

certainly did." [Christopher Read, From Tsar to Soviets,

7162

pp. 264-5]

7163

</blockquote>

7164

As such, another key lesson to be learned from the Makhno

7165

movement is the importance of practising during a

7166

revolution the ideas you preach before it. Means and ends

7167

are linked, with the means shaping the ends and the ends

7168

inspiring the means. As such, if you argue for working-class

7169

power and freedom, you cannot dump these aims during a

7170

revolution without ensuring that they are never applied

7171

after it. As the Makhnovist movement showed, even the most

7172

difficult situations need not hinder the application of

7173

revolutionary ideas.

7174

7175

The importance of encouraging working-class autonomy also

7176

shines through the Makhnovist experience. The problems

7177

facing a social revolution are many, as are the problems

7178

involved in constructing a new society. The solutions to

7179

these problems cannot be found without the active and full

7180

participation of the working class. As the Makhnovist

7181

congresses and soviets show, free debate and meaningful

7182

meetings are the only means, firstly, to ensure that

7183

working-class people are "the masters of their own lives,"

7184

that "they themselves are making the revolution," that

7185

they "have gained freedom." "Take that faith away,"

7186

stressed Alexander Berkman, "deprive the people of power

7187

by setting up some authority over them, be it a political

7188

party or military organisation, and you have dealt a fatal

7189

blow to the revolution. You will have robbed it of its

7190

main source of strength, the masses." [ABC of Anarchism,

7191

p. 82]

7192

7193

Secondly, it allows the participation of all in solving

7194

the problems of the revolution and of constructing

7195

the new society. Without this input, real socialism

7196

cannot be created and, at best, some form of oppressive

7197

state capitalist regime would be created (as Bolshevism

7198

shows). A new society needs the freedom of experimentation,

7199

to adapt freely to the problems it faces, to adjust to the

7200

needs and hopes of those making it. Without working-class

7201

freedom and autonomy, public life becomes impoverished,

7202

miserable and rigid as the affairs of all are handed over

7203

to a few leaders at the top of a social hierarchy, who cannot

7204

possibility understand, let alone solve, the problems affecting

7205

society. Freedom allows the working class to take an active

7206

part in the revolution. Restricting working-class freedom

7207

means the bureaucratisation of the revolution as a few

7208

party leaders cannot hope to direct and rule the lives of

7209

millions without a strong state apparatus. Simply put,

7210

the emancipation of the working class is the task of the

7211

working class itself. Either working class people create

7212

socialism (and that needs workers' autonomy and freedom

7213

as its basis), or some clique will and the result will

7214

not be a socialist society.

7215

7216

As the experience of the Makhnovist movement shows, working-

7217

class freedom can be applied during a revolution and when

7218

it is faced with the danger of counter-revolution.

7219

7220

Another key lesson from the Makhnovist movement is that of

7221

the need for effective anarchist organisation. The Makhnovists

7222

did not become anarchist-influenced by chance. The hard

7223

effort by the local anarchists in Hulyai Pole before and

7224

during 1917 paid off in terms of political influence

7225

afterwards. Therefore, anarchists need to take a leading

7226

role in the struggles of working people (as we indicated

7227

in

7228

<a href="secI8.html#seci82">section I.8.2</a>,

7229

this was how the Spanish anarchists gained

7230

influence as well). As Voline noted, one of the advantages

7231

the Makhnovist movement had was "the activity of . . .

7232

libertarian elements in the region . . . [and the] rapidity

7233

with which the peasant masses and the insurgents, despite

7234

unfavourable circumstances, became acquainted with libertarian

7235

ideas and sought to apply them." [Op. Cit., p. 570]

7236

7237

Arshinov expands on this issue in a chapter of his history

7238

("The Makhnovshchina and Anarchism"), arguing that many

7239

Russian anarchists "suffered from the disease of

7240

disorganisation," which led to "impoverished ideas and

7241

futile practice." Moreover, most did not join the

7242

Makhnovist movement, "remained in their circles and

7243

slept through a mass movement of paramount importance."

7244

[Op. Cit., p. 244 and p. 242]

7245

7246

Indeed, it was only in May 1919 that the "Nabat" Ukrainian

7247

anarchist confederation was organised. This federation

7248

worked closely with the Makhnovists and gained influence

7249

in the villages, towns and cities within and around the

7250

Makhnovist region. In such circumstances, the anarchists

7251

were at a disadvantage compared to the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks

7252

and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had been organised far

7253

longer and so had more influence within the urban workers.

7254

7255

While many anarchists did participate effectively and

7256

organisationally within many areas of Russia and the

7257

Ukraine (gaining influence in Moscow and Petrograd, for

7258

example), they were much weaker than the Bolsheviks. This

7259

meant that the Bolshevik idea of revolution gained influence

7260

(by, it should be noted, appropriating anarchist slogans and

7261

tactics). Once in power, the Bolsheviks turned against their

7262

rivals, using state repression to effectively destroy the

7263

anarchist movement in Russia in April 1918 (see <a href="append41.html#app24">section 24</a> of the

7264

appendix <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> for details). This, incidentally, led to many anarchists

7265

coming to the Ukraine to escape repression and many joined

7266

the Makhnovists. As Arshinov notes, the Bolsheviks "knew

7267

perfectly well that . . . anarchism in Russia, lacking any

7268

contact with a mass movement as important as the

7269

Makhnovshchina, did not have a base and could not threaten

7270

nor endanger them." [Op. Cit., p. 248] Waiting till after

7271

a revolution starts to build such a base is a dangerous

7272

tactic, as the experience of the Russian anarchists shows.

7273

As the experience of the Moscow anarchists active in the

7274

bakers' union shows, organised working-class support can

7275

be an effective deterrent to state repression (the Moscow

7276

bakers' union continued to have anarchists active in it

7277

until 1921).

7278

7279

It should be noted that this lesson was recognised by the main

7280

anarchists associated with the Makhnovists. In exile, Voline

7281

argued for the need to build a "synthesis" anarchist federation

7282

(see

7283

<a href="secJ3.html#secj32">section J.3.2</a>)

7284

while Arshinov and Makhno both associated

7285

themselves with the Platform (see

7286

<a href="secJ3.html#secj33">section J.3.3</a>).

7287

7288

Another key lesson is the need to combine rural and urban

7289

organisation. As Voline argued, the "absence of a vigorous

7290

organised workers' movement which could support that of the

7291

peasant insurgents" was a major disadvantage for the Makhno

7292

movement. [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 571] If there had been a

7293

workers' movement influenced by anarchist or syndicalist

7294

ideas within the Ukrainian towns during the Russian

7295

Revolution, the possibilities of constructive work would

7296

have been increased immensely. Take the example of when the

7297

Makhnovists liberated Aleksandrovsk and organised two

7298

workers' conferences. It was only at the insurgents'

7299

insistence that the unions agreed to send delegates, but

7300

for information only. This was undoubtedly due to the fact

7301

that Mensheviks had some influence in the unions and

7302

Bolshevik influence was increasing. Both parties may have

7303

preferred the Makhnovists to the Whites, but neither

7304

accepted anarchist ideas of workers' self-management and

7305

so constructive work was limited to the railway workers.

7306

In contrast, when Katerinoslav was liberated, the bakers

7307

set themselves to preparing the socialisation of their

7308

industry and drawing up plans to feed both the army

7309

and the civilian population. Unsurprisingly, the bakers

7310

had long been under anarcho-syndicalist influence.

7311

[Malet, Op. Cit., p. 123 and p. 124]

7312

7313

As the Makhnovists themselves realised, their movement

7314

had to be complemented by urban working-class self-activity

7315

and self-organisations. While they did all they could

7316

to encourage it, they lacked a base within the workers'

7317

movement and so their ideas had to overcome the twin

7318

barriers of workers' unfamiliarity with both them and

7319

their ideas and Marxist influence. With a strong working-

7320

class movement influenced by anarchist ideas, the possibilities

7321

for constructive work between city and village would have

7322

been helped immensely (this can be seen from the example

7323

of the Spanish Revolution of 1936, where rural and urban

7324

collectives and unions made direct links with each other).

7325

7326

Lastly, there is the lesson to be gained from Makhnovist

7327

co-operation with the Bolsheviks. Simply put, the experience

7328

shows the importance of being wary towards Bolshevism.

7329

As Voline put it, another disadvantage of the Makhnovists

7330

was a "certain casualness, a lack of necessary distrust,

7331

towards the Communists." [Op. Cit., p. 571] The Makhnovists

7332

were betrayed three times by the Bolsheviks, who continually

7333

placed maintaining their own power above the needs of the

7334

revolution. The anarchists were simply used as cannon fodder

7335

against the Whites and once their utility had ended, the

7336

Bolsheviks turned their guns on them.

7337

7338

Thus a lesson to be learned is that co-operation between

7339

anarchists and Bolsheviks is fraught with danger. As many

7340

activists are aware, modern-day supporters of Bolshevism

7341

constantly urge everyone to unite "against the common

7342

enemy" and not to be "sectarian" (although, somehow this

7343

appeal to non-sectarianism does not stop them printing

7344

lying accounts of anarchism!). The Makhnovists took them at

7345

their word in early 1919 and soon found out that "unity"

7346

meant "follow our orders." When the Makhnovists continued

7347

to apply their ideas of working-class self-management, the

7348

Bolsheviks turned on them. Similarly, in early 1920 the

7349

Bolsheviks outlawed the Makhnovists in order to break their

7350

influence in the Ukraine. The Makhnovist contribution to

7351

the defeat of Denikin (the common enemy) was ignored.

7352

Lastly, in mid-1920 the Makhnovists placed the need of the

7353

revolution first and suggested an alliance to defeat the

7354

common enemy of Wrangel. Once Wrangel had been defeated,

7355

the Bolsheviks ripped up the agreement they had signed

7356

and, yet again, turned on the Makhnovists. Simply put,

7357

the Bolsheviks continually placed their own interests

7358

before that of the revolution and their allies. This is

7359

to be expected from an ideology based on vanguardism

7360

(see

7361

<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a> for further discussion).

7362

7363

This does not mean that anarchists and Leninists should not

7364

work together. In some circumstances and in some social

7365

movements, this may be essential. However, it would be wise

7366

to learn from history and not ignore it and, as such, modern

7367

activists should be wary when conducting such co-operation.

7368

Ultimately, for Leninists, social movements are simply a means

7369

to their end (the seizing of state power by them on behalf of

7370

the working class) and anarchists should never forget it.

7371

7372

Thus the lessons of the Makhnovist movement are exceedingly

7373

rich. Simply put, the Makhnovshchina show that anarchism is

7374

a viable form of revolutionary ideas and can be applied

7375

successfully in extremely difficult circumstances. They show

7376

that social revolutions need not consist of changing one set

7377

of bosses for another. The Makhnovist movement clearly shows

7378

that libertarian ideas can be successfully applied in a

7379

revolutionary situation.

7380

7381

</BODY>

7382

</HTML>