3
<title>Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?</title>
5
<H1>Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?
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 <i>"forces of nature"</i> 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.
19
However, this is not the case. This is for three reasons.
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 <b>before</b> 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
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 <i>"disappear"</i> (see
36
<a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>
37
) or that we think <i>"full-blown"</i>
38
communism will appear <i>"overnight"</i> (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 <i>"workers state."</i> Lenin himself argued that <i>"[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."</i>
46
[<b>Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?</b>, 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!
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.
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 <i>"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."</i> [Arshinov, <b>The History of
66
the Makhnovist Movement</b>, p. 50] The space in which this
67
happened was created by a partisan force that instead of
68
using the <i>"efficiency"</i> 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 <b><i>"Liberty or Death"</i></b> and
76
<b><i>"The Land to the Peasants, the
77
Factories to the Workers."</i></b> 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.
84
It is this that explains the importance of the Makhnovists. As
85
historian Christopher Reed notes, the <i>"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."</i> However, Reed argues that <i>"the Makhno movement in the
91
Ukraine suggests that there was more than one way to fight against
92
the counter-revolution."</i> [<b>From Tsar to Soviets</b>, 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 <i>"exceptional
96
circumstances"</i> as the Bolsheviks which did <b>not</b> 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.
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 <i>"Green"</i> 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 <i>"rear"</i> 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.
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>,
145
applied their ideas of working class self-management whenever
146
and wherever they could.
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, <i>"better perhaps than any other movement, shows that
153
the Russian Revolution could have been a great liberating force."</i>
154
Equally, the reason why it has been almost totally ignored (or
155
slandered, when mentioned) by Stalinist and Trotskyist writers
156
is simple: <i>"It shows the Bolsheviks stifling workers and peasants
157
with lies and calumnies, and then crushing them in a bloody massacre."</i>
158
[Daniel and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, <b>Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing
159
Alternative</b>, p. 200]
161
This section of our FAQ will indicate the nature and history of this
162
important social movement. As we will prove, <i>"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."</i> [Arshinov,
166
<b>The History of the Makhnovist Movement</b>, 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:
171
<i>"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."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti: The
190
People Armed</b>, p. 88-9]
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 <b><i>Makhnovshchina</b></i>
197
(which means the <i>"Makhno movement"</i>) although its proper name was
198
the <b><i>Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine</b></i>. This section
199
of the FAQ will cover both, although the Makhnovshchina will be
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 <b>The History of the
205
Makhnovist Movement</b> and Voline's <b>The Unknown Revolution</b>
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 <b>Nestor Makhno in
209
the Russian Revolution</b> 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 <b>The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno,
213
1918-1921</b> 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 <b>The Russian
216
Anarchists</b> contains a short account of the movement and his
217
<b>Anarchist Portraits</b> has a chapter on Nestor Makhno. Makhnovist
218
source material is included in Avrich's <b>The Anarchists in the
219
Russian Revolution</b>. Daniel Guerin includes a section on Makhno
220
and the Makhnovist Movement in volume 2 of <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>.
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 <b>From Tsar to
224
Soviets</b> has an excellent section on the Makhnovists. Serge
225
Cipko presents an excellent overview of works on the Makhnovists
226
in his <i>"Nestor Makhno: A Mini-Historiography of the Anarchist
227
Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1921"</i> (<b>The Raven</b>, no. 13).
228
Alexander Skirda presents an overview of perestroika soviet
229
accounts of Makhno in his essay <i>"The Rehabilitation of
230
Makhno"</i> (<b>The Raven</b>, no. 8). Skirda's biography <b>Nestor
231
Makhno: Le Cosaque de l'anarchie</b> is by far the best account
232
of the movement available.
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,
243
<a name="app1"><h2>1 Who was Nestor Makhno?</h2>
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 <i>"Makhno
248
movement"</i> and his name is forever linked with the revolution
249
in the South-East of the Ukraine. So who was Makhno?
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.
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 <b>kulaks.</b>
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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, <b>Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil
342
War</b>, 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.
347
In this way, <i>"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."</i> [Michael Palij, <b>The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno</b>,
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 <b>volosts</b> (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.
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 <i>"Committee for the
381
Salvation of the Revolution"</i> 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.
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.
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
<i>"paper revolution,"</i> 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, <i>"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."</i> [David Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 252]
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, <i>"How did the peasants of your region
432
understand the slogan ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS IN THE
433
VILLAGES?"</i> Makhno states that Lenin <i>"was astonished"</i> at
436
<i>"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
447
To this Lenin replied: <i>"Well, then, the peasants of your region
448
are infected with anarchism!"</i> [Nestor Makhno, <b>My Visit to the
449
Kremlin</b>, p. 18] Later in the interview, Lenin stated: <i>"Do the
450
anarchists ever recognise their lack of realism in present-day
451
life? Why, they don't even think of it."</i> Makhno replied:
453
<i>"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.
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
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."</i>
494
Lenin replied: <i>"Perhaps I am mistaken."</i> [Makhno, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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 <i>"a guerrilla leader of quite outstanding
514
ability."</i> [David Footman, <b>Civil War in Russia</b>, 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
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 <b>Delo Truda</b>,
527
an anarchist-communist paper started in Paris by Peter
528
Arshinov (many of these articles have been published
529
in the book <b>The Struggle Against the State and Other
530
Essays</b>). He remained active in the anarchist movement
533
In Paris, Makhno met the famous Spanish anarchists
534
Buenaventura Durruti and Francisco Ascaso in 1927. He
535
argued that in Spain <i>"conditions for a revolution with
536
a strong anarchist content are better than in Russia"</i>
537
because not only was there <i>"a proletariat and a peasantry
538
with a revolutionary tradition whose political maturity
539
is shown in its reactions,"</i> the Spanish anarchists had
540
<i>"a sense of organisation which we lacked in Russia. It is
541
organisation which assures the success in depth of all
542
revolutions."</i> Makhno recounted the activities of the
543
Hulyai Pole anarchist group and the events in revolutionary
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."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti: The People
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: <i>"Makhno has
572
never refused to fight. If I am alive when you start your
573
struggle, I will be with you."</i> [quoted by Paz, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
576
Makhno's most famous activity in exile was his association
577
with, and defence of, the <b>Organisational Platform of
578
the Libertarian Communists</b> (known as the <i>"Platform"</i>).
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 <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b> 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.
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.
601
So ended the life of one great fighters for working-class freedom.
602
Little wonder Durruti's words to Makhno:
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."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 88]
609
For fuller details of Makhno's life, see the accounts by Peter
610
Arshinov (<b>The History of the Makhnovist Movement</b>), Paul Avrich
611
(<i>"Nestor Makhno: The Man and the Myth,"</i> in <b>Anarchist Portraits</b>),
612
Michael Palij, (<b>The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno</b>) and Michael Malet
613
(<b>Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution</b>).
615
<a name="app2"><h2>2 Why was the movement named after Makhno?</h2>
617
Officially, the Makhnovist movement was called the <b>Revolutionary
618
Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine</b>. In practice, it was usually
619
called the <i>"Makhno movement"</i> (<b><i>"Makhnovshchina"</i></b>
621
Makhnovists. Unsurprisingly, Trotsky placed great significance on
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'. <b>There, armed men are united not around a
627
programme, not around an ideological banner, but around a man.</b>"</i>
628
[<b>The Makhno Movement</b>]
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
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."</i> [contained in Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 272]
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 <i>"Makhnovist
648
movement"</i> was because the <i>"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."</i> [<b>The Unknown Revolution</b>, p. 551]
654
<i>"From the first days of the movement,"</i> Arshinov notes,
655
<i>"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."</i>
663
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 50]
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 <i>"Batko"</i> (see
673
<a href="append46.html#app3">next section</a>).
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 <i>"Revolutionary Military
681
Soviet."</i> 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:
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."</i> [Trotsky,
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 <b>The Makhno Movement</b> 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.
706
As Voline argued, <i>"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."</i> Ultimately, the term
711
<i>"Makhnovshchina"</i> is used <i>"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."</i> [<i>"preface,"</i>
715
Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 19]
717
<a name="app3"><h2>3 Why was Makhno called <i>"Batko"</i>?</h2>
719
Nestor Makhno was often called in the movement <i>"Batko"</i>,
720
which is Ukrainian for <i>"father."</i> Peter Arshinov explains
721
how and in what circumstances Makhno was given this
724
"It was . . . in September 1918, that Makhno received
725
the nickname <b>Batko</b> -- general leader of the revolutionary
726
insurrection in the Ukraine. This took place in the
727
following circumstances. Local <b>pomeshchiks</b> [landed gentry]
728
in the major centres, the <b>kulaks</b> [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 <b>pomeshchiks</b>
732
created a special volunteer detachment consisting of their
733
own sons and those of <b>kulaks</b> 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
<b>pomeshchik</b> 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.
769
"It was at this movement that one of the partisans, Shchus',
770
turned to Makhno and said:
772
"'From now on you will be <b>Batko</b> to all of us, and we
773
vow to die with you in the ranks of the insurgents.'
775
"Then the whole detachment swore never to abandon the
776
insurgent ranks, and to consider Makhno the general
777
<b>Batko</b> 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 <b>pomeshchik</b> 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.
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 <b>Batko</b> of
799
the entire revolutionary insurrection in the Urkaine."</i>
800
[Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 59-60]
802
This was how Makhno acquired the nickname <i>"Batko,"</i> which
803
stuck to him thereafter.
805
It should be stressed that <i>"Batko"</i> was a nickname and
806
did not signify any form of autocratic or hierarchical
807
position within the movement:
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."</i>
815
[Michael Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 17]
817
That this was a nickname can be seen from the fact that
818
<i>"[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."</i> [Peter
821
Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 226] To attach significance to
822
the fact that the peasants called Makhno <i>"Batko"</i> (as
823
the Bolsheviks did) simply signifies an ignorance of
824
the Makhnovist movement and its social environment.
826
<a name="app4"><h2>4 Can you give a short overview of the Makhnovist movement?</h2>
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)
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>.
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.
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
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 . . .
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
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.
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."</i> [<b>The Unknown Revolution</b>, p. 558]
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 <i>"father"</i> (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
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
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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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.
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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 25]
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 <i>"the third Transdnieper Batko Makhno brigade"</i> with
958
Makhno as commander. The Whites were repulsed and Hulyai Pole
959
retaken and the front pushed some distance eastwards.
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 <i>"Revolutionary
964
Military Soviet"</i> to co-ordinate civilian affairs and execute
965
its decisions. The congress resolved that <i>"the land belongs
966
to nobody"</i> 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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 154-5] A report by the
971
commander of the 2nd Red Army, Skatchco, indicates the nature
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. . ."</i>
983
[quoted by Alexander Skirda, <b>The Rehabilitation of Makhno</b>,
986
Unsurprisingly, the peasants reacted strongly to the
987
Bolshevik regime. Their <i>"agricultural policy and terrorism"</i>
988
ensured that <i>"by the middle of 1919, all peasants, rich and
989
poor, distrusted the Bolsheviks."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156]
990
In April alone, there were 93 separate armed rebellions
991
against the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine. The <i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 31]
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 <i>"created new forms of social organisation:
1013
free workers' communes and Soviets."</i> [Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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>
1024
It was during this period (late 1918 and early 1919), that
1025
the <b><i>Nabat</i></b> anarchist federation was organised. <i>"Anarchist
1026
influence was reported from Aleksandrovsk and other centres,"</i>
1027
notes David Footman, <i>"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. <b>Nabat</b>, the main Anarchist newspaper in the
1033
Ukraine, was suppressed, and its editorial board dispersed
1034
under threat of arrest."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 270] Daniel Guerin
1035
has reproduced two documents from the Nabat federation in
1036
volume II of his <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>.
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:
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."</i> [quoted by Malet,
1047
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33]
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).
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
<i>"never been a revolutionary"</i> and that there had been a
1063
<i>"great deal of adventurism in his joining the ranks of
1064
the Petliurists and then the ranks of the Red Army."</i> His
1065
temperament was mixed, consisting of <i>"a certain amount
1066
of sympathy for oppressed peasants, authoritarianism,
1067
the extravagance of a Cossack chieftain, nationalist
1068
sentiments and anti-Semitism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 110]
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.
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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 112 and
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 <i>"unremitting pressure from Moscow to take Taganrog
1099
and Rostov."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 36] The Makhnovist advance
1100
stopped due to the non-fulfilment of an urgent order for
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 <i>"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."</i>
1118
[Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 118] Palij confirms this, noting
1119
that <i>"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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 175] David
1122
Footman also notes that the Bolshevik <i>"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."</i>
1125
He also mentions that <i>"[i]n the latter part of May the
1126
<b>Cheka</b> sent over two agents to assassinate Makhno."</i>
1127
[<b>Civil War in Russia</b>, p. 271]
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
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."</i>
1148
[quoted by Alexander Skirda, <b>The Rehabilitation of Makhno</b>,
1151
This, incidentally, tallies with Arshinov's account that
1152
<i>"hordes of Cossacks had overrun the region, <b>not through
1153
the insurrectionary front but from the left flank where
1154
the Red Army was stationed.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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 <i>"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."</i> 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 <i>"General Shkuro's division routed Makhno
1164
at Hulyai Pole."</i> [<b>The White Armies</b>, 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.
1169
It was around this time that Trotsky, in a public meeting
1170
in Kharkov, <i>"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 <b>povstantsi</b>, 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."</i> [Emma Goldman,
1178
<b>My Disillusionment in Russia</b>, p. 63]
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 <i>"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."</i> Combined with the
1191
<i>"hostile attitude"</i> of the Bolshevik authorities towards him,
1192
which would lead <i>"unavoidably to the creation of a special
1193
internal front,"</i> 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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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.
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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 86f]
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 <i>"opened the front"</i> to the
1213
Whites). This was nonsense, as noted above.
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
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
<i>"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."</i>
1244
Following him, Makhno <i>"demanded before the entire congress"</i>
1245
that Hryhoriyiv <i>"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."</i> [Arshinov,
1248
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 136]
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 <i>"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."</i> [quoted by Malet,
1260
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 42] The troops under Hryhoriyiv became part
1261
of the general Insurrectionary Army.
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. <i>"Denikin,"</i> in Voline's words,
1273
<i>"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."</i> This repression <i>"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."</i>
1288
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 607]
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).
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.
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
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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 625]
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 <i>"an order . . . from which
1346
we must not retreat one single step."</i> 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 <i>"fully
1350
subordinate to [Bolshevik] command"</i> or <i>"be subjected to
1351
ruthless punishment."</i> [<b>How the Revolution Armed</b>,
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
<i>"annihilate Makhnovist bands"</i> and <i>"disarm the population."</i>
1355
The 41st was sent <i>"into reserve"</i> to the Hulyai Pole region.
1356
This was <i>"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."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 54]
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:
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.'"</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210]
1380
In addition, war with Poland did not break out until the
1381
end of April, over three months later.
1383
Needless to say, the Makhnovists <b>did</b> realise the political
1384
motivations behind the order. As Arshinov notes, <i>"[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."</i> Moreover, the Makhnovists considered the
1391
move <i>"physically impossible"</i> as <i>"half the men, the entire
1392
staff and the commander himself were in hospital with
1393
typhus."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 163]
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 <i>"new tactics,"</i> and <i>"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."</i> They also set up <i>"Committees of
1410
the Poor"</i> as part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus,
1411
which acted as <i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 212-3]
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 <i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 214]
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 <i>"The Road to Freedom."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1434
p. 60] Of course, this did not stop the Bolsheviks later
1435
claiming such an alliance existed!
1437
Ironically enough, at a general assembly of insurgents, it
1438
was decided that <i>"the destruction of Wrangel"</i> would <i>"eliminate
1439
a threat to the revolution"</i> and so free <i>"all of Russia"</i>
1440
from <i>"the counter-revolutionary barrage."</i> The mass of workers
1441
and peasants <i>"urgently needed an end to all those wars"</i> and
1442
so they proposed <i>"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."</i> There was
1446
no reply and the Bolsheviks <i>"continued their war against the
1447
Makhnovists, and they also continued their previous campaign
1448
of lies and calumnies against them."</i> [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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 <i>"the final liquidation of the Makhno band."</i> [Malet,
1460
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 62] A few days later, the Bolsheviks changed
1461
their mind and negotiations began.
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 <i>"high-handed
1472
communists and commissars"</i> in forcing them to recognise
1473
the <i>"free insurrection."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 64]
1475
The agreement was signed between October 10th and 15th.
1476
It consisted of two parts, a Political and a Military
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, <i>"there was never the slightest
1488
intention on the Bolshevik side of keeping to the
1489
agreement once its military value had passed."</i>
1490
[David Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 296]
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 <i>"Makhnovist
1504
units fulfilled their military tasks with no less heroism
1505
than the Red Army units."</i> [quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 69]
1507
On hearing this success on 16th November, the reaction of the
1508
Makhnovista still at Hulyai Pole was cynical but realistic:
1509
<i>"It's the end of the agreement. I'll bet you anything that
1510
the Bolsheviks will be on us within the week."</i> [quoted by
1511
Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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 <i>"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."</i> [quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 71]
1522
Of course this treachery went right to the top, just before the
1523
26th <i>"deadline"</i> (which Makhno, not having seen the orders,
1524
was unaware of), Lenin urged Rakovski, head of the Ukrainian
1525
government to <i>"[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."</i>
1528
[quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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, <b>Ibid.</b>]
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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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 <b>Nabat</b> conference
1550
In the resulting struggle between the two forces,
1551
as Palij notes, the <i>"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."</i> 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. <i>"In contrast
1559
to the Bolsheviks, Makhno partisans received detailed,
1560
accurate information from the population at all times."</i>
1561
[Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 236-7]
1563
Frunze brought in extra forces and ordered both the
1564
<i>"annihilation of the Makhnovists"</i> 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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 73] While it was common
1572
practice for the Bolsheviks to shoot all Makhnovist prisoners,
1573
the <i>"existence of roundup detachments at the end of 1920,
1574
whose task was to re-collect prisoners freed by the Makhnovists"</i>
1575
shows that the Makhnovists did not reciprocate in kind.
1576
[Malet <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 129]
1578
At the end of 1920, the Makhnovists had ten to fifteen
1579
thousand troops and the <i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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
<i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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, <i>"when the partisans
1598
were fighting Budenny's Fourth Cavalry Division, their
1599
First Brigade, commanded by Maslak, joined Makhno."</i>
1600
[Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 239]
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:
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."</i>
1625
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 240-1]
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.
1635
For more details of the history of the movement, Michael
1636
Malet's <b>Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution</b> is
1637
an excellent summary. Michael Palij's <b>The Anarchism of
1638
Nestor Makhno</b> is also worth consulting, as are the
1639
anarchist histories of Voline and Arshinov.
1641
<a name="app5"><h2>5 How were the Makhnovists organised?</h2>
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.
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:
1655
"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according
1656
to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the
1657
electoral principle, and self-discipline.
1659
"<b>Voluntary enlistment</b> meant that the army was composed
1660
only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their
1663
"<b>The electoral principle</b> 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.
1669
"<b>Self-discipline</b> 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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 96]
1675
Voline paints a similar picture. He also notes that the
1676
electoral principle was sometimes violated and commanders
1677
appointed <i>"in urgent situations by the commander himself,"</i>
1678
although such people had to be <i>"accepted without reservation"</i>
1679
by <i>"the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole
1680
army."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 584]
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:
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."</i> [Palij,
1704
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 108-9]
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.
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. <b>But it
1717
was not at all an authoritarian organ.</b> 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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 577]
1723
As such, when Palij notes that this council <i>"had no decisive
1724
voice in the army's actions,"</i> he misses the point of the
1725
council. [Palij, <b>Ibid.</b>] 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.
1736
It should also be noted that women not only supported the
1737
Makhnovists, they also <i>"fought alongside the men."</i> [Arshinov,
1738
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 145] However, <i>"the participation of women in
1739
the movement (by all accounts, quite substantial)"</i> needs
1740
<i>"further investigation."</i> [Serge Cipko, <i>"Nestor Makhno: A
1741
Mini-Historiography of the Anarchist Revolution in Ukraine,
1742
1917-1921,"</i> pp. 57-75, <b>The Raven</b>, no. 13, p. 75]
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 <i>"tachanka"</i>) during 1918-19.
1749
As Michael Malet notes, this was a <i>"novel tactic"</i> and Makhno
1750
<i>"could be described as the inventor of the motorised division
1751
before the car came into general use."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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).
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
<i>"general voluntary and equalitarian mobilisation"</i> should
1763
take place. This meant that this appeal, <i>"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."</i> [Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 577] The Congress itself
1767
passed a resolution after a long and passionate debate that
1768
stated it <i>"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."</i> [quoted by Palij,
1773
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 106]
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 <i>"voluntary mobilisation"</i> in reality
1784
<i>"meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were
1785
required to serve."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 114] On the other side,
1786
surviving leaflets from 1920 <i>"are in the nature of appeals
1787
to join up, not instructions."</i> [Malet,<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 105]
1788
Trotsky, ironically, noted that <i>"Makhno does not have
1789
general mobilisations, and indeed these would be impossible,
1790
as he lacks the necessary apparatus."</i> [quoted by Malet,
1791
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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.
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
<i>"Confederation of Anarchist Organisations of the Ukraine"</i>
1802
was held between November 12th to 16th, 1918. The new
1803
federation was named <i>"Nabat"</i> (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 <i>"united anarchism"</i>
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
<b>Nabat</b>), as did leaflets and pamphlets. There was a main
1813
weekly paper (called <b>Nabat</b>) which was concerned largely
1814
with anarchist theory. This completed the Makhnovist
1815
papers <b>Road to Freedom</b> (which was often daily, sometimes
1816
weekly and dealt with libertarian ideas, everyday problems
1817
and information on partisan activities) and <b>The Makhnovist
1818
Voice</b> (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
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.
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
1855
The Makhnovist movement was, fundamentally, a working class
1856
movement. It was <i>"one of the very few revolutionary movements
1857
to be led and controlled throughout by members of 'the toiling
1858
masses.'"</i> [David Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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
1864
<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>
1865
for further discussion of
1866
the differences between the two forces).
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.
1874
<a name="app6"><h2>6 Did the Makhnovists have a constructive social programme?</h2>
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 <i>"leading Makhnovists had definite ideas about the ideal
1880
form of social organisation."</i> [<b>Nestor Makhno in the Russian
1881
Civil War</b>, 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
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:
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."</i> [quoted by Peter Arshinov,
1906
<b>The History of the Makhnovist Movement</b>, p. 58]
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 <i>"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."</i> [contained in Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 273]
1924
They, like other anarchists and the Kronstadt rebels, termed
1925
this programme of working class self-management the <b><i>"third
1926
revolution."</i></b>
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: <i>"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."</i> [contained in Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 281] We split the
1935
aspects simply to aid the presentation of their ideas.
1937
At the core of their ideas was what they termed the <i><b>"Free
1938
Soviet System"</b></i> (or <b><i>"free soviets"</i></b> 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:
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."</i> [contained in Peter Arshinov,
1951
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 280-1]
1953
Thus the key idea advocated by the leading Makhnovista for
1954
social organisation and decision-making was the <i>"free toilers'
1955
soviet of peasant and worker organisations."</i> 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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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
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 <i>"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."</i> This would be based on the
1975
<i>"principles of solidarity, friendship and equality."</i> This
1976
meant that in the Makhnovist system of free soviets, the
1977
<i>"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."</i> [contained in Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 272-3]
1982
As David Footman summarises, Makhno's <i>"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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 247]
1991
Hence the Makhnovist social organisation was a federation of
1992
self-managed workers' and peasants' councils (soviets), which
1993
would <i>"be only the executors of the decisions made in our
1994
workers' gatherings and conferences."</i> [contained in Arshinov,
1995
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 281] In other words, an anarchist system based
1996
on mass assemblies and decision-making from the bottom up.
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:
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.
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."</i> [contained in Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
2020
They continually stressed that the <i>"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."</i> This meant a system of use-rights, as <i>"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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 273 and p. 281]
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
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."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155]
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 <i>"free"</i> or <i>"working"</i> communes. Like their policy
2053
of land distribution, it also aimed to benefit the poorer
2054
peasants and rural wage labourers. The <i>"free commune"</i> 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.
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.
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, <i>"liberty or death"</i>
2079
and <i>"the land to the peasants, the factories to the workers."</i>
2081
<a name="app7"><h2>7 Did they apply their ideas in practice?</h2>
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:
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."</i> [<b>From Tsar to Soviets</b>, p. 263]
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 <i>"free
2112
soviet system"</i> 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.
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 <i>"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."</i> [<b>The Unknown Revolution</b>,
2123
p. 571] However, in the disruption of the Civil War the
2124
Makhnovists applied their ideas when and where they could.
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 <b>from the start</b> encouraged working-class
2132
self-organisation and self-government. By late 1917,
2133
in the area around Hulyai Pole <i>"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."</i> [David Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 248]
2140
The aim of the Makhnovists was to <i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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.
2150
However, <i>"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."</i> [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 86]
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
<i>"free communes."</i> 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.
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 <i>"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."</i>
2175
Unlike many communes, people were given the personal space
2176
they desired, so <i>"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."</i>
2180
The management of each commune <i>"was conducted by a general
2181
meeting of all its members."</i> 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, <b>Anarchists in
2187
the Russian Revolution</b>, pp. 131]
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, <i>"they
2202
were organised from the bottom up, not the top down."</i>
2203
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 121]
2205
However, as Makhno himself acknowledged, while the <i>"majority
2206
of the toiling population saw in the organisation of rural
2207
communes the healthy germ of a new social life"</i> which
2208
could provide a <i>"model of a free and communal form of
2209
life,"</i> the <i>"mass of people did not go over to it."</i> They
2210
cited as their reasons <i>"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."</i> [Makhno, quoted by Avrich, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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.
2222
As Michael Malet argues:
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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 121]
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
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 <i>"free soviet system."</i>
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:
2250
23 January 1919 at Velyka Mykhailivka
2252
12 February 1919 at Hulyai Pole
2254
10 April 1919 at Hulyai Pole
2256
20 October 1919 at Aleksandrovsk
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 <b>discussing</b> 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, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
2270
<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a> for further details.
2272
The reason for these regional congresses was simple, to
2273
co-ordinate the revolution. <i>"It was indispensable,"</i> Arshinov
2274
notes, <i>"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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 87-8]
2282
These congresses <i>"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."</i>
2286
[David Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 266]
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 <i>"was strongly anti-Bolshevik and favoured a
2296
democratic socio-political way of life."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
2297
p. 153] One delegate made the issue clear:
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."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 154]
2306
A general resolution was passed, which acknowledged the
2307
fact that the Bolshevik party was <i>"demanding a monopoly of
2308
the Revolution."</i> It also stated:
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."</i> [quoted by
2318
Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 267]
2321
<a href="append46.html#app5">section 5</a>,
2322
the congress also decided to
2323
issue an <i>"obligatory"</i> mobilisation to gather troops for
2324
the Army. It also accepted a resolution on land reform,
2325
stating that the land <i>"belongs to nobody"</i> and could be
2326
used by anyone as long as they did not use wage labour
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 <i>"turn the
2333
attention of all toiling people away from the real
2334
reason for their poverty,"</i> namely the Tsarist regime's
2335
oppression. [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155]
2337
The second congress also elected the Revolutionary Military
2338
Soviet of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents, which had <i>"no
2339
powers to initiate policy but designed merely to implement
2340
the decisions of the periodic congresses."</i> [Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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 <i>"clarify the
2346
situation and to consider the prospects for the future
2347
of the region."</i> It decided to conduct a voluntary
2348
mobilisation of men to fight the Whites and <i>"rejected,
2349
with the approval of both rich and poor peasants, the
2350
Bolshevik expropriations."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 158]
2351
Toward the end of the congress, it received a telegram
2352
from the Bolshevik commander Dybenko calling it
2353
<i>"counter-revolutionary,"</i> its organisers <i>"outlaws"</i>
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:
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? . . .
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?
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?
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?
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
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?"</i> [quoted
2389
by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 103]
2392
<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>,
2394
ban the fourth congress indicates that such laws
2395
do exist, with the <i>"entire peasant and labouring
2396
population are declared guilty of high treason
2397
if they dare participate in their own free congress."</i>
2398
[Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 123]
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
<i>"lapdogs of the bourgeoisie"</i> during the discussion on
2406
<i>"free socio-economic organisations"</i>! [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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
2413
According to Voline, the chairman, Makhnovist ideas were
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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 640]
2426
He notes that the congress <i>"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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
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 <i>"counter-intelligence"</i>
2437
section. As noted in
2438
<a href="append46.html#app5">section 5</a>,
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 (<i>"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."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 300]). The delegate
2447
stated that this <i>"counter-espionage service"</i> was
2448
engaged in <i>"arbitrary acts and uncontrolled actions
2449
-- of which some are very serious, rather like the
2450
Bolshevik Cheka."</i> [quoted by Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 643]
2451
Immediately a commission of several delegates was
2452
created to investigate the situation. Voline argues
2453
that <i>"[s]uch an initiative on the part of workers'
2454
delegates would not have been possible under the
2455
Bolshevik regime. It was by activity of this kind that
2456
the congress gave a preview of the way in which a
2457
society should function from the beginning if it
2458
is based on a desire for progress and self-realisation."</i>
2459
[Voline, <b>Ibid.</b>] Sadly, the commission could not
2460
complete its work due to the city being evacuated
2461
soon after the congress.
2463
Another incident shows that under the Makhnovists the
2464
civilian population was in control. A delegate noted
2465
that Klein, the Makhnovist military commander in the
2466
city, had become publicly and riotously drunk after
2467
issuing proclamations against drunkenness. Klein was
2468
called before the congress, which accepted his apology
2469
and his request to be sent to the front, away from
2470
the boredom of desk work which had driven him to drink!
2471
This, according to Voline, showed that the workers and
2472
their congress were the masters and the army its servant.
2473
[Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 645-7]
2475
Outside of the congresses the work of local Soviets was to be
2476
co-ordinated through the Revolutionary Military Soviet (RMS), the
2477
first RMS was set up by the 2nd congress and consisted of one
2478
delegate for each of the 32 volsts the Makhnovista had liberated.
2479
The RMS was to be answerable to the congresses and limited to
2480
implementing their decisions but the difficult military situation
2481
meant this seldom happened. When it did (the 3rd Congress) the
2482
Congress had no problems with its actions in the previous period.
2483
After the Aleksandrovsk congress, the RMS consisted of 22 delegates
2484
including three known Bolsheviks and four known Makhnovists, the
2485
Bolsheviks considered the remaining delegates <i>"anarchists or
2486
anarchist sympathisers".</i>
2488
The military chaos of 1920 saw the RMS dissolved and replaced by
2489
the Soviet of Revolutionary Insurgents of the Ukraine, which
2490
consisted of seven members elected by the insurgent army. Its
2491
secretary was a left Socialist Revolutionary. The RMS in addition
2492
to making decisions between Congresses carried out propaganda work
2493
including the editing of the Makhnovist paper <i>"The Road to Freedom"</i>
2494
and collected and distributed money.
2496
Lastly, we must discuss what happened when the Makhnovists
2497
applied their ideas in any cities they liberated as this
2498
gives a clear idea of the way they applied their ideas in
2499
practice. Anarchist participant Yossif the Emigrant
2500
stated that it was <i>"Makhno's custom upon taking a city
2501
or town to call the people together and announce to
2502
them that henceforth they are free to organise their
2503
lives as they think best for themselves. He always proclaims
2504
complete freedom of speech and press; he does not fill
2505
the prisons or begin executions, as the Communists do."</i>
2506
He stressed it was <i>"the expression of the toilers themselves"</i>
2507
and <i>"the first great mass movement that by its own efforts
2508
seeks to free itself from government and establish economic
2509
self-determination. In that sense it is thoroughly
2510
Anarchistic."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>The Bolshevik Myth</b>,
2513
Arshinov paints a similar picture:
2515
"As soon as they entered a city, they declared that they
2516
did not represent any kind of authority, that their armed
2517
forces obliged no one to any sort of obligation and had
2518
no other aim than to protect the freedom of the working
2519
people. The freedom of the peasants and the workers,
2520
said the Makhnovists, resides in the peasants and workers
2521
themselves and may not be restricted. In all fields of
2522
their lives it is up to the workers and peasants themselves
2523
to construct whatever they consider necessary. As for the
2524
Makhnovists -- they can only assist them with advice, by
2525
putting at their disposal the intellectual or military
2526
forces they need, but under no circumstances can the
2527
Makhnovists prescribe for them in any manner."</i> [Arshinov,
2528
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 148]
2530
In addition, the Makhnovists <i>"fully applied the revolutionary
2531
principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press,
2532
and of political association. In all cities and towns
2533
occupied by the Makhnovists, they began by lifting all
2534
the prohibitions and repealing all the restrictions
2535
imposed on the press and on political organisations by
2536
one or another power."</i> Indeed, the <i>"only restriction that
2537
the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the
2538
Bolsheviks, the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other
2539
statists was a prohibition on the formation of those
2540
'revolutionary committees' which sought to impose a
2541
dictatorship over the people."</i> They also took the
2542
opportunity to destroy every prison they got their
2543
hands on, believing that free people <i>"have no use
2544
for prisons"</i> which are <i>"always built only to subjugate
2545
the people, the workers and peasants."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 153,
2548
The Makhnovists encouraged self-management. Looking
2551
"They immediately invited the working population to
2552
participate in a general conference of the workers
2553
of the city. When the conference met, a detailed
2554
report was given on the military situation in the
2555
region and it was proposed that the workers organise
2556
the life of the city and the functioning of the factories
2557
with their own forces and their own organisations, basing
2558
themselves on the principles of labour and equality. The
2559
workers enthusiastically acclaimed all these suggestions;
2560
but they hesitated to carry them out, troubled by their
2561
novelty, and troubled mainly by the nearness of the
2562
front, which made them fear that the situation of the
2563
town was uncertain and unstable. The first conference was
2564
followed by a second. The problems of organising life
2565
according to principles of self-management by workers
2566
were examined and discussed with animation by the masses
2567
of workers, who all welcomed these ideas with the greatest
2568
enthusiasm, but who only with difficulty succeeded in
2569
giving them concrete forms. Railroad workers took the first
2570
step in this direction. They formed a committee charged
2571
with organising the railway network of the region . . .
2572
From this point, the proletariat of Aleksandrovsk began
2573
to turn systematically to the problem of creating organs
2574
of self-management."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 149]
2576
Unfortunately, the Makhnovists occupied only two cities
2577
(Alexandrovsk for four weeks and Katerinoslav for two
2578
periods of one and five weeks respectively). As a rule
2579
the Makhnovist rank and file had little or no
2580
experience of life in the cities and this placed severe
2581
limits on their ability to understand the specific problems
2582
of the workers there. In addition, the cities did not
2583
have a large anarchist movement, meaning that the Mensheviks
2584
and Bolsheviks had more support then they did. Both parties
2585
were, at best, neutral to the Makhnovists and anarchists,
2586
so making it likely that they would influence the city
2587
workers against the movement. As Voline noted, the
2588
<i>"absence of a vigorous organised workers' movement which
2589
could support the peasant insurgents"</i> was a disadvantage.
2590
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 571]
2592
There were minor successes in both cities. In Alexandrovsk,
2593
some trains were got running and a few factories reopened.
2594
In Katerinoslav (where the city was under a state of siege
2595
and constant bombardment by the Whites), the tobacco workers
2596
won a collective agreement that had long been refused and
2597
the bakers set themselves to preparing the socialisation of
2598
their industry and drawing up plans to feed both the army
2599
and the civilian population. Unsurprisingly, the bakers
2600
had long been under anarcho-syndicalist influence. [Malet,
2601
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 124]
2603
Clearly, whenever they could, the Makhnovists practised their
2604
stated goals of working-class self-management and supported
2605
the organisational structures to ensure the control of and
2606
participation in the social revolution by the toiling masses.
2607
Equally, when they liberated towns and cities they did not
2608
impose their own power upon the working-class population but
2609
rather urged it to organise itself by setting up soviets,
2610
unions and other forms of working-class power. They urged
2611
workers to organise self-management of industry. True to the
2612
anarchist vision of a free society, they advocated and practised
2613
freedom of assembly, speech and organisation. In the words
2614
of historian Christopher Reed:
2616
"Makhno's Insurgent Army . . . was the quintessence of a
2617
self-administered, people's revolutionary army. It arose
2618
from the peasants, it was composed of peasants, it handed
2619
power to the peasants. It encouraged the growth of communes,
2620
co-operatives and soviets but distrusted all permanent
2621
elites attempting to take hold within them. It would be
2622
foolish to think that Makhno was supported by every
2623
peasant or that he and his followers could not, on
2624
occasions, direct their cruelty towards dissidents within
2625
their own ranks, but, on the whole, the movement perhaps
2626
erred on the side of being too self-effacing, of handing
2627
too much authority to the population at key moments."</i>
2628
[<b>From Tsar to Soviets</b>, p. 260]
2630
As such, Makhnovist practice matched its theory. This can
2631
be said of few social movements and it is to their credit
2632
that this is the case.
2634
<a name="app8"><h2>8 Weren't the Makhnovists just Kulaks?</h2>
2636
According to Trotsky (and, of course, repeated by his followers),
2637
<i>"Makhno created a cavalry of peasants who supplied their
2638
own horses. These were not the downtrodden village poor whom
2639
the October revolution first awakened, but the strong and
2640
well-fed peasants who were afraid of losing what they had.
2641
The anarchist ideas of Makhno (ignoring of the state,
2642
non-recognition of the central power) corresponded to the
2643
spirit of this kulak cavalry as nothing else could."</i> He
2644
argued that the Makhnovist struggle was not the anarchist
2645
struggle against the state and capitalism, but rather <i>"a
2646
struggle of the infuriated petty property owner against the
2647
proletarian dictatorship."</i> The Makhno movement, he stressed,
2648
was just an example of the <i>"convulsions of the peasant petty
2649
bourgeoisie which desired, of course, to liberate itself from
2650
capital but at the same time did not consent to subordinate
2651
itself to the dictatorship of the proletariat."</i> [Lenin and
2652
Trotsky, <b>Kronstadt</b>, p. 80, p. 89 and pp. 89-90]
2654
Unfortunately for those who use this kind of argument against
2655
the Makhnovists, it fails to stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
2656
Ignoring the sophistry of equating the Bolshevik party's
2657
dictatorship with the "dictatorship of the proletariat,"
2658
we can easily refute Trotsky's somewhat spurious argument
2659
concerning the background of the Makhnovists.
2661
Firstly, however, we should clarify what is meant by the term
2662
<i>"kulak."</i> According to one set of Trotskyist editors, it was
2663
<i>"popularly used to refer to well-to-do peasants who owned land
2664
and hired poor peasants to work it."</i> [<i>"glossary,"</i> Lenin
2666
<b>Kronstadt</b>, p. 146] The term itself derives from the Russian
2667
for <i>"fist,"</i> with appropriate overtones of grasping and meanness.
2668
In other words, a rural small-scale capitalist (employer of wage
2669
labour and often the renter of land and loaner of money as well)
2670
rather than a well-off peasant as such. Trotsky, however, muddies
2671
the water considerably by talking about the <i>"peasant petty
2672
bourgeoisie"</i> as well. Given that a peasant <b>is</b> <i>"petty"</i> (i.e.
2673
petit) bourgeois (i.e. own and use their own means of production),
2674
Trotsky is blurring the lines between rural capitalist (kulak)
2675
and the middle peasantry, as occurred so often under Bolshevik
2678
Secondly, we could just point to the eyewitness accounts of
2679
the anarchists Arshinov and Voline. Both stress that the
2680
Makhno movement was a mass revolutionary movement of the
2681
peasant and working poor in the Southern Ukraine. Arshinov
2682
states that after Denikin's troops had been broken in 1919,
2683
the Makhnovists <i>"literally swept through villages, towns
2684
and cities like an enormous broom"</i> and the <i>"returned
2685
<b>pomeshchiks</b> [landlords], the <b>kulaks</b> , the police,
2686
the priests"</i> were destroyed, so refuting the <i>"the myth
2687
spread by the Bolsheviks about the so-called <b>kulak</b>
2688
character of the Makhnovshchina."</i> Ironically, he states
2689
that <i>"wherever the Makhnovist movement developed, the
2690
<b>kulaks</b> sought the protection of the Soviet authorities,
2691
and found it there."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 145] Yossif the Emigrant,
2692
another anarchist active in the movement, told anarchist
2693
Alexander Berkman that while there was a <i>"kulak"</i> element
2694
within it, <i>"the great majority are not of that type."</i>
2695
[quoted by Berkman, <b>The Bolshevik Myth</b>, p. 187] According
2696
to Gallina Makhno (Makhno's wife), when entering a town
2697
or village it was <i>"always Makhno's practice to compel
2698
the rich peasants, the <b>kulaki</b> , to give up their surplus
2699
wealth, which was then divided among the poor, Makhno keeping
2700
a share for his army. Then he would call a meeting of the
2701
villagers, address them on the purposes of the <b>povstantsi</b>
2702
[partisan] movement, and distribute his literature."</i> [Emma
2703
Goldman, <b>My Disillusionment in Russia</b>, p. 149]
2705
However, this would be replying to Trotsky's assertions
2706
with testimony which was obviously pro-Makhnovist. As such,
2707
we need to do more than this, we need to refute Trotsky's
2708
assertions in depth, drawing on as many non-anarchist
2709
sources and facts as possible.
2711
The key to refuting Trotsky's argument that the Makhnovists
2712
were just kulaks is to understand the nature of rural life
2713
before and during 1917. Michael Malet estimates that in 1917,
2714
the peasantry could be divided into three broad categories.
2715
About 40 percent could no longer make a living off their land
2716
or had none, another 40 per cent who could make ends meet,
2717
except in a bad year, and 20 per cent who were relatively
2718
well off, with a fraction at the very top who were very well
2719
off. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 117] Assuming that <i>"kulak"</i> simply meant
2720
<i>"rich"</i> or <i>"well-off"</i> peasant, then Trotsky is arguing that
2721
the Makhnovist movement represented and was based on this
2722
top 20 per cent. However, if we take the term <i>"kulak"</i> to
2723
mean <i>"small rural capitalist"</i> (i.e. employer of wage labour)
2724
then this figure would be substantially smaller as few within
2725
this group would employ hired labour or rent land. In fact,
2726
the percentage of peasant households in Russia employing
2727
permanent wage-labour was 3.3% in 1917, falling to 1% in
2728
1920. [Teodor Shanin, <b>The Awkward Class</b>, p. 171]
2730
In 1917, the peasants all across the Russian Empire took
2731
back the land stolen by the landlords. This lead to two
2732
developments. Firstly, there was a <i>"powerful levelling
2733
effect"</i> in rural life. [Shanin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 159] Secondly,
2734
the peasants would only support those who supported their
2735
aspirations for land reform (which was why the Bolsheviks
2736
effectively stole the Socialist-Revolutionary land policy
2737
in 1917). The Ukraine was no different. In 1917 the class
2738
structure in the countryside changed when the Hulyai Pole
2739
peasants were amongst the first to seize the landlords'
2740
land. In August 1917 Makhno assembled all the landed gentry
2741
(<i>"<b>pomeshchiks</b>"</i>) of the region <i>"and made them give him
2742
all the documents relating to lands and buildings."</i> After
2743
making an exact inventory of all this property and
2744
presenting a report to the local and then district
2745
congress of soviets, he <i>"proceeded to equalise the rights
2746
of the <b>pomeshchiks</b> and <b>kulaks</b> with those of the poor
2747
peasant labourers in regard to the use of the land . . .
2748
the congress decided to let the <b>pomeshchiks</b> and <b>kulaks</b>
2749
have a share of the land, as well as tools and livestock,
2750
equal to that of the labourers."</i> Several other peasant
2751
congresses nearby followed this example and adopted the
2752
same measure. [Peter Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 53-4]
2754
Most of this land, tools and livestock was distributed to poor
2755
peasants, the rest was used to set up voluntary communes where
2756
the peasants themselves (and not the state) self-managed the
2757
land. Thus the peasants' <i>"economic conditions in the region of
2758
the Makhno movement were greatly improved at the expense of
2759
the landlords, the church, monasteries, and the richest
2760
peasants."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 214] This redistribution was
2761
based on the principle that every peasant was entitled to as
2762
much land as their family could cultivate without the use of
2763
hired labour. The abolition of wage labour in the countryside
2764
was also the method the anarchists were to use in Spain to
2765
divide up the land some 20 years later.
2767
We should also note that the Makhnovist policy of land reform
2768
based on the abolition of wage labour was, as we noted in
2769
<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,
2770
the position agreed at the second regional congress called
2771
in 1919. The Makhnovists specifically argued with regards to
2774
"We are sure that . . . the kulak elements of the village will
2775
be pushed to one side by the very course of events. The toiling
2776
peasantry will itself turn effortlessly on the kulaks, first by
2777
adopting the kulak's surplus land for general use, then naturally
2778
drawing the kulak elements into the social organisation."</i> [cited
2779
by Michael Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 118-9]
2781
As such, when Trotsky talks about the <i>"downtrodden village poor
2782
whom the October revolution first awakened,"</i> he is wrong. In the
2783
area around Hulyai Pole it was <b>not</b> the October revolution which
2784
<i>"first awakened"</i> them into action, it was the activities of
2785
Makhno and the anarchists during the summer and autumn of 1917
2786
which had done that (or, more correctly, it was their activities
2787
which aided this process as the poor peasants and landless workers
2788
needed no encouragement to expropriate the landlords).
2790
Needless to say, this land redistribution reinforced Makhno's
2791
popularity with the people and was essential for the army's
2792
later popularity and its ability to depend on the peasants for
2793
support. However, the landlords and richer kulaks did not
2794
appreciate it and, unsurprisingly, tried to crush the movement
2795
when they could. Once the Austro-Germans invaded, the local
2796
rich took the opportunity to roll back the social revolution
2797
and the local <b>pomeshchiks</b> and <b>kulaks</b> formed a <i>"special
2798
volunteer detachment"</i> to fight Makhno once he had returned
2799
from exile in July 1918. [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59]
2801
This system of land reform did not seek to divide the village.
2802
Indeed, the Makhnovist approach is sometimes called the <i>"united
2803
village"</i> theory. Rather than provoke unnecessary and damaging
2804
conflict behind the frontlines, land reform would be placed
2805
in the hands of the village community, which would ensure that
2806
even the kulaks would have a fair stake in the post-revolutionary
2807
society as everyone would have as much land as they could till
2808
without using hired labour. The Bolshevik policy, as we will see,
2809
aimed at artificially imposing "class conflict" upon the villages
2810
from without and was a disaster as it was totally alien to the
2811
actual socio-economic situation. Unsurprisingly, peasant
2812
communities <b>as a whole</b> rose up against the Bolsheviks all
2815
As such, the claim that the Makhnovists were simply <i>"kulaks"</i>
2816
is false as it fails to, firstly, acknowledge the actual
2817
pre-revolutionary composition of the peasantry and, secondly,
2818
to understand the social-revolution that had happened in
2819
the region of Hulyai Pole in 1917 and, thirdly, totally ignores
2820
the actual Makhnovist position on land reform. As Michael Malet
2821
argues, the Bolsheviks <i>"totally misconstrued the nature of the
2822
Makhno movement. It was not a movement of kulaks, but of the
2823
broad mass of the peasants, especially the poor and middle
2824
peasants."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 122]
2826
This was sometimes acknowledged by Bolsheviks themselves.
2827
IAkovlev acknowledged in 1920 that in 1919 Makhno <i>"was a
2828
real peasant idol, an expression of all peasant spontaneity
2829
against . . . Communists in the cities and simultaneously
2830
against city capitalists and landowners. In the Makhno movement
2831
it is difficult to distinguish where the poor peasant begins
2832
[and] the 'kulak' ends. It was a spontaneous peasant movement
2833
.. . . In the village we had no foothold, there was not one
2834
element with which we could join that would be our ally in
2835
the struggle against the bandits [sic!]."</i> [quoted by Palij,
2836
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 157]
2838
According to a Soviet author present at the Makhnovist regional
2839
congresses on January 23 and February 12: <i>"In 1919 when I asked
2840
the chairman of the two Congresses (a Jewish farmer) whether
2841
the 'kulaks' were allowed to participate in the Congress, he
2842
angrily responded: 'When will you finally stop talking about
2843
kulaks? Now we have no kulaks among us: everybody is tilling
2844
as much land as he wishes and as much as he can.'"</i> [quoted
2845
by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 293]
2847
According to Christian Rakovskii, the Bolshevik ruler of
2848
Ukraine, <i>"three-fourths of the membership of the [partisan]
2849
bands were poor peasants."</i> He presented a highly original
2850
and inventive explanation of this fact by arguing that <i>"rich
2851
peasants stayed in the village and paid poor ones to fight.
2852
Poor peasants were the hired army of the kulaks."</i> [Vladimir
2853
N. Brovkin, <b>Behind the Front the Lines of the Civil War</b>,
2856
Even Trotsky (himself the son of a rich peasant!) let the cat
2857
out of the bag in 1919:
2859
"The liquidation of Makhno does not mean the end of the
2860
Makhnovschyna, which has its roots in the ignorant popular
2861
masses."</i> [quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 122]
2863
Ultimately, all sources (including Bolshevik ones) accept that
2864
in the autumn of 1919 (at the very least) Makhno's support was
2865
overwhelming and came from all sections of the population.
2867
Even ignoring the fact there was a social revolution and the
2868
eye-witness Bolshevik accounts (including Trotsky's!) which
2869
contradict Trotsky's assertions, Trotsky can be faulted for
2872
The most important issue is simply that the Makhnovist movement
2873
could not have survived four years if (at best) 20 per cent of
2874
the population supported it. As Christopher Reed notes, when
2875
the Makhnovists were <i>"in retreat they would abandon their weapons
2876
and merge with the local population. The fact that they were able
2877
to succeed shows how closely they were linked with the ordinary
2878
peasants because such tactics made Makhno's men very vulnerable
2879
to informers. There were very few examples of betrayal."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
2880
p. 260] If Makhno's social base was as weak as claimed there
2881
would have been no need for the Bolsheviks to enter into alliances
2882
with him, particularly in the autumn of 1920 when the Makhnovists
2883
held no significant liberated area. Even after the defeat of
2884
Wrangel and the subsequent Bolshevik betrayal and repression,
2885
Makhno's mass base allowed him to remain active for months.
2886
Indeed, it was only when the peasants themselves had become
2887
exhausted in 1921 due to worsening economic conditions and
2888
state repression, were the Makhnovists finally forced into
2891
In the attempt to <i>"eradicate his influence in the countryside"</i> the
2892
Bolsheviks <i>"by weight of numbers and consistent ruthlessness they
2893
achieved a partial success."</i> This was achieved by state terrorism:
2895
"On the occupation of a village by the Red Army the <b>Cheka</b> would
2896
hunt out and hang all active Makhnovist supporters; an amenable
2897
Soviet would be set up; officials would be appointed or imported
2898
to organise the poor peasants . . . and three or four Red militia
2899
men left as armed support for the new village bosses."</i> [David
2900
Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 292]
2902
Moreover, in these <i>"military operations the Bolsheviks shot all
2903
prisoners. The Makhnovists shot all captured officers unless the
2904
Red rank and file strongly interceded for them. The rank and file
2905
were usually sent home, though a number volunteered for service
2906
with the Insurgents. Red Army reports complain of poor morale . . .
2907
The Reds used a number of Lettish and Chinese troops to decrease
2908
the risk of fraternisation."</i> [Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 293] If the
2909
Makhnovists were made up of kulaks, why would the Bolsheviks
2910
fear fraternisation? Equally, if the Makhnovists
2911
were "kulaks" then how could they have such an impact on
2912
Red Army troops (who were mostly poor peasants)? After all,
2913
Trotsky had been complaining that "Makhnovism" had been
2914
infecting nearby Red Army troops and in August 1919 was
2915
arguing that it was <i>"still a poison which has infected
2916
backward units in the Ukrainian army."</i> In December 1919,
2917
he noted that <i>"disintegration takes place in unstable
2918
units of our army when they came into contact with
2919
Makhno's forces."</i> It seems unlikely that a movement
2920
made up of "kulaks" could have such an impact. Moreover,
2921
as Trotsky noted, not all Makhnovists were anarchists,
2922
<i>"some of them wrongly regard themselves as Communists."</i>
2923
Again, why would people who regarded themselves as
2924
Communists join a movement of "kulaks"? [<b>How the
2925
Revolution Armed</b>, vol. II, p. 367, p. 110 and p. 137]
2927
In addition, it seems highly unlikely (to say the least!) that a
2928
movement which is alleged to be either made up of or supported
2929
by the kulaks could have had a land policy which emphasised and
2930
implemented an equal share for the poorest peasantry, not just
2931
of land but also of live and dead stock as well as opposing the
2932
hiring of labour. This fact is reinforced when we look at the
2933
peasant reaction to the Bolshevik (and, presumably, anti-kulak
2934
and pro-"downtrodden village poor") land policy. Simply put,
2935
their policies resulted in massive peasant unrest directed
2936
against the Bolsheviks.
2938
The Bolshevik land decrees of the 5th and 11th of February,
2939
1919, stated that large landlord holdings would become
2940
state farms and all stock was to be taken over by the
2941
Ministry of Agriculture, with only between one third and
2942
one half of the land being reserved for poor peasants.
2943
This was <i>"largely irrelevant, since the peasantry had
2944
expected, and in some cases already controlled, all
2945
of it. To them, the government was taking away their
2946
land, and not seizing it from the landlords, then keeping
2947
some of it and handing the rest over to its rightful
2948
owners."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 134] Thus the land was
2949
to expropriated by the state, <b>not</b> by the peasants.
2950
The result of this policy soon became clear:
2952
"The Bolsheviks expropriation policy was countervailed by
2953
the peasants' resistance based upon their assumption that
2954
'the land belongs to nobody . . . it can be used only by
2955
those who care about it, who cultivate it.' Thus the
2956
peasants maintained that all the property of the former
2957
landlords was now by right their own. This attitude was
2958
shared not only by the rich and middle peasants but also
2959
the poor and landless, for they all wished to be independent
2960
farmers. The poorer the areas, the more dissatisfied were
2961
the peasants with the Bolshevik decrees.
2963
"Thus Communist agricultural policy and terrorism brought
2964
about a strong reaction against the new Bolshevik regime.
2965
By the middle of 1919, all peasants, rich and poor,
2966
distrusted the Bolsheviks."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156]
2968
The Bolshevik inspired Poor Peasant Committees were
2969
<i>"associated with this disastrous policy, were discredited,
2970
and their reintroduction would need the aid of troops."</i>
2971
[Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 135] The Makhnovists, in contrast,
2972
did not impose themselves onto the villages, nor did they
2973
attempt to tell the peasants what to do and how to divide
2974
the land. Rather they advocated the formation of Free Soviets
2975
through which these decisions could be made. This, along
2976
with their support for land reform, helped win them mass
2979
After evacuating the Ukraine in mid-1919 due to the success
2980
of Denikin's counter-revolution, the Ukrainian Communists
2981
took time to mull over what had happened. The Central
2982
Committee's November 1919 resolution on the Ukraine
2983
<i>"gave top priority to the middle peasant -- so often and
2984
so conveniently lumped in together with the kulak and
2985
dealt with accordingly -- the transfer of landlord land
2986
to the poor peasants with only minimum exceptions for
2987
state farms."</i> These points were the basis of the new
2988
Ukrainian land law of 5th of February, 1920. [Malet,
2989
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 135] This new law reflected long standing
2990
Makhnovist theory <b>and</b> practice. Therefore, the changing
2991
nature of Bolshevik land policy in the Ukraine indicates
2992
that Trotsky's claims are false. The very fact that the
2993
Bolsheviks had to adjust their policies in line with
2994
Makhnovist theory indicates that the later appealed to
2995
the middle and poor peasants.
2997
Equally, it seems strange that the <i>"kulaks"</i> who apparently
2998
dominated the movement should have let themselves be led
2999
by poor peasants and workers. Voline presents a list of
3000
some of the participants of the movement and the vast
3001
majority are either peasants or workers. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
3002
pp. 688-91] As historian Michael Palij notes, <i>"[a]lmost
3003
to a man, they [the Makhnovist leadership] were of poor
3004
peasant origin, with little formal education."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
3005
p. 254] Exceptions to the general rule were usually
3006
workers. Most were Anarchists or Socialist-Revolutionaries.
3007
[Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 254-62]
3009
Of course, it can be argued that the leadership of a
3010
movement need not come from the class which it claims to
3011
lead. The leadership of the Bolsheviks, for example, had
3012
very few actual proletarians within it. However, it seems
3013
unlikely that a class would select as its leaders members
3014
of the population it oppressed! Equally, it seems as unlikely
3015
that poor peasants and workers would let themselves lead a
3016
movement of kulaks, whose aims would be alien to theirs.
3017
After all, poor peasants would seek land reform while kulaks
3018
would view this as a threat to their social position. As
3019
can be seen from the Makhnovist land policy, they argued
3020
for (and implemented) radical land reform, placing the land
3021
into the hands of peasants who worked the land without hiring
3022
labour (see <a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>)
3024
As regards Trotsky's argument that the Makhnovists had to be
3025
kulaks because they originally formed a cavalry unit, it is
3026
easy to refute. Makhno himself was the son of poor peasants,
3027
an agricultural labourer and a worker in a factory. He was
3028
able to ride a horse, so why could other poor peasants not do
3029
so? Ultimately, it simply shows that Trotsky knew very little
3030
of Ukrainian peasant life and society.
3032
Given that the Bolshevik government was meant to be a "worker-peasant"
3033
power, it seems strange that Trotsky dismisses the concerns of the
3034
peasantry so. He should have remembered that peasant uprisings
3035
against the Bolshevik government occurred constantly under the
3036
Bolsheviks, forcing them (eventually) to, first, recognise the
3037
false nature of their peasant policies in 1919 and, second, to
3038
introduce the NEP in 1921. As such, it seems somewhat ironic for
3039
Trotsky to attack the Makhnovists for not following flawed Bolshevik
3040
ideology as regards the peasantry!
3042
The Bolsheviks, as Marxists, saw the peasants as "petit bourgeoisie"
3043
and uninterested in the revolution except as a means to grab their
3044
own plot of land. Their idea of land collectivisation was limited to
3045
state ownership. The initial Bolshevik land strategy can be summed up
3046
as mobilising the poor peasantry against the rest on the one hand and
3047
mobilising the city worker against the peasants (through forced grain
3048
confiscation on the other). The lack of knowledge of peasant life
3049
was the basis of this policy, which was abandoned in 1919 when it
3050
was soon proven to be totally wrong. Rather than see wealth extremes
3051
rise, the 1917 revolution saw a general levelling.
3053
As regards the peasantry, here as elsewhere the Bolsheviks claimed
3054
their strategy was the objectively necessary (only possible) one
3055
in the circumstances. And here again the Makhnovists demonstrate
3056
this to be false, as the Bolsheviks themselves acknowledged in
3057
practice by changing their agricultural policies and bringing
3058
them closer to the Makhnovist position.
3060
Clearly, both factually and logically, Trotsky's arguments
3061
are false. Ultimately, like most Bolsheviks, Trotsky uses
3062
the term <i>"kulak"</i> as a meaningless term of abuse, with no
3063
relation to the actual class structure of peasant life. It
3064
simply means a peasant opposed to the Bolsheviks rather than
3065
an actual social strata. Essentially, he is using the standard
3066
Leninist technique of specifying a person's class (or ideas)
3067
based on whether they subscribe to (or simply follow without
3068
question) Leninist ideology (see
3069
<a href="secH2.html#sech212">section H.2.12</a> for further
3070
discussion of this). This explains why the Makhnovists went
3071
from being heroic revolutionaries to kulak bandits (and back
3072
again!) depending on whether their activity coincided with
3073
the needs of Bolshevik power or not. Expediency is not a sound
3074
base to build a critique, particularly one based simply on
3075
assertions like Trotsky's.
3077
<a name="app9"><h2>9 Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists?</h2>
3079
No, they were not. Anyone who claims that the Mahnovist
3080
movement was anti-Semitic or conducted pogroms against
3081
Jews simply shows ignorance or a desire to deceive. As
3082
we will show, the Makhnovists were both theoretically
3083
and practically opposed to anti-Semitism and progroms.
3085
Unsurprisingly, many Leninists slander the Makhnovists on
3086
this score. Trotsky, for example, asserted in 1937 that
3087
Makhno's followers expressed <i>"a militant anti-Semitism."</i>
3088
[Lenin and Trotsky, <b>Kronstadt</b>, p. 80] Needless to say, the
3089
Trotskyist editors of the book in question did not indicate
3090
that Trotsky was wrong in the accusation. In this way a
3091
slander goes unchecked and becomes "accepted" as being
3092
true. As the charge of <i>"militant anti-Semitism"</i> is a
3093
serious one, so it is essential that we (unlike Trotsky)
3094
provide evidence to refute it.
3096
To do so we will present a chronological overview of the
3097
evidence against it. This will, to some degree, result in
3098
some duplication as well as lengthy quotations, however
3099
it is unavoidable. We are sorry to labour this point,
3100
but this allegation is sadly commonplace and it is
3101
essential to refute it fully.
3103
Unsurprisingly, Arshinov's 1923 account of the movement takes
3104
on the allegations that the Makhnovists were anti-Semitic. He
3105
presents extensive evidence to show that the Makhnovists opposed
3106
anti-Semitism and pogroms. It is worth quoting him at length:
3108
"In the Russian press as well as abroad, the Makhnovshchina was
3109
often pictured as a very restricted guerrilla movement, foreign
3110
to ideas of brotherhood and international solidarity, and even
3111
tainted with anti-Semitism. Nothing could be more criminal than
3112
such slanders. In order to shed light on this question, we will
3113
cite here certain documented facts which relate to this subject.
3115
"An important role was played in the Makhnovist army by
3116
revolutionaries of Jewish origin, many of whom had been
3117
sentenced to forced labour for participation in the 1905
3118
revolution, or else had been obliged to emigrate to Western
3119
Europe or America. Among others, we can mention:
3121
"<b>Kogan</b> -- vice-president of the central organ of the
3122
movement, the Regional Revolutionary Military Council of
3123
Hulyai Pole. Kogan was a worker who, for reasons of principle,
3124
had left his factory well before the revolution of 1917, and
3125
had gone to do agricultural work in a poor Jewish agricultural
3126
colony. Wounded at the battle of Peregonovka, near Uman, against
3127
the Denikinists, he was seized by them at the hospital at Uman
3128
where he was being treated, and, according to witnesses, the
3129
Denikinists killed him with sabres.
3131
"<b>L. Zin'kovsky (Zadov)</b> -- head of the army's counter espionage
3132
section, and later commander of a special cavalry regiment. A
3133
worker who before the 1917 revolution was condemned to ten years
3134
of forced labour for political activities. One of the most active
3135
militants of the revolutionary insurrection.
3137
"<b>Elena Keller</b> -- secretary of the army's cultural and
3138
educational section. A worker who took part in the syndicalist
3139
movement in America. One of the organisers of the 'Nabat'
3142
"<b>Iosif Emigrant (Gotman)</b> -- Member of the army's cultural and
3143
educational section. A worker who took an active part in the
3144
Ukrainian anarchist movement. One of the organisers of the 'Nabat'
3145
Confederation, and later a member of its secretariat.
3147
"<b>Ya. Alyi (Sukhovol'sky)</b> -- worker, and member of the army's
3148
cultural and educational section. In the Tsarist period he was
3149
condemned to forced labor for political activity. One of the
3150
organisers of the 'Nabat' Confederation and a member of its
3153
"We could add many more names to the long list of Jewish
3154
revolutionaries who took part in different areas of the Makhnovist
3155
movement, but we will not do this, because it would endanger their
3158
"At the heart of the revolutionary insurrection, the Jewish working
3159
population was among brothers. The Jewish agricultural colonies
3160
scattered throughout the districts of Mariupol, Berdyansk,
3161
Aleksandrovsk and elsewhere, actively participated in the regional
3162
assemblies of peasants, workers and insurgents; they sent delegates
3163
there, and also to the regional Revolutionary Military Council.
3165
"Following certain anti-Semitic incidents which occurred in the
3166
region in February, 1919, Makhno proposed to all the Jewish colonies
3167
that they organise their self-defence and he furnished the necessary
3168
guns and ammunition to all these colonies. At the same time Makhno
3169
organised a series of meetings in the region where he appealed to the
3170
masses to struggle against anti-Semitism.
3172
"The Jewish working population, in turn, expressed profound
3173
solidarity and revolutionary brotherhood toward the revolutionary
3174
insurrection. In answer to the call made by the Revolutionary
3175
Military Council to furnish voluntary combatants to the Makhnovist
3176
insurgent army, the Jewish colonies sent from their midst a large
3177
number of volunteers.
3179
"In the army of the Makhnovist insurgents there was an exclusively
3180
Jewish artillery battery which was covered by an infantry detachment,
3181
also made up of Jews. This battery, commanded by the Jewish insurgent
3182
Shneider, heroically defended Hulyai Pole from Denikin's troops in
3183
June, 1919, and the entire battery perished there, down to the last
3184
man and the last shell.
3186
"In the extremely rapid succession of events after the uprising of
3187
1918-19, there were obviously individuals who were hostile to Jews,
3188
but these individuals were not the products of the insurrection; they
3189
were products of Russian life. These individuals did not have any
3190
importance in the movement as a whole. If people of this type took
3191
part in acts directed against Jews, they were quickly and severely
3192
punished by the revolutionary insurgents.
3194
"We described earlier the speed and determination with which the
3195
Makhnovists executed Hryhoriyiv and his staff, and we mentioned
3196
that one of the main reasons for this execution was their
3197
participation in pogroms of Jews.
3199
"We can mention other events of this nature with which we are
3202
"On May 12, 1919, several Jewish families - 20 people in all -
3203
were killed in the Jewish agricultural colony of Gor'kaya, near
3204
Aleksandrovsk. The Makhnovist staff immediately set up a special
3205
commission to investigate this event. This commission discovered that
3206
the murders had been committed by seven peasants of the neighbouring
3207
village of Uspenovka. These peasants were not part of the
3208
insurrectionary army. However, the Makhnovists felt it was impossible
3209
to leave this crime unpunished, and they shot the murderers. It was
3210
later established that this event and other attempts of this nature
3211
had been carried out at the instigation of Denikin's agents, who had
3212
managed to infiltrate the region and had sought by these means to
3213
prepare an atmosphere favourable for the entry of Denikin's troops
3216
"On May 4th or 5th, 1919, Makhno and a few commanders hurriedly
3217
left the front and went to Hulyai Pole, where they were awaited by
3218
the Extraordinary Plenipotentiary of the Republic, L. Kamenev, who
3219
had arrived from Khar'kov with other representatives of the Soviet
3220
government. At the Verkhnii Tokmak station, Makhno saw a poster with
3221
the words: 'Death to Jews, Save the Revolution, Long Live Batko
3224
"'Who put up that poster?' Makhno asked.
3226
"He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom
3227
Makhno knew personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle
3228
against Denikin's troops, a person who was in general decent. He
3229
presented himself immediately and was shot on the spot.
3231
"Makhno continued the journey to Hulyai Pole. During the rest of
3232
the day and during his negotiations with the Plenipotentiary of the
3233
Republic, he could not free himself from the influence of this event.
3234
He realised that the insurgent had been cruelly dealt with, but he
3235
also knew that in conditions of war and in view of Denikin's advance,
3236
such posters could represent an enormous danger for the Jewish
3237
population and for the entire revolution if one did not oppose them
3238
quickly and resolutely.
3240
"When the insurrectionary army retreated toward Uman in the summer
3241
of 1919, there were several cases when insurgents plundered Jewish
3242
homes. When the insurrectionary army examined these cases, it was
3243
learned that one group of four or five men was involved in all
3244
these incidents -- men who had earlier belonged to Hryhoriyiv's
3245
detachments and who had been incorporated into the Makhnovist
3246
army after Hryhoriyiv was shot. This group was disarmed and
3247
discharged immediately. Following this, all the combatants who
3248
had served under Hryhoriyiv were discharged from the Makhnovist
3249
army as an unreliable element whose re-education was not possible
3250
in view of the unfavorable conditions and the lack of time. Thus
3251
we see how the Makhnovists viewed anti-Semitism. Outbursts of
3252
anti-Semitism in various parts of the Ukraine had no relation
3253
to the Makhnovshchina.
3255
"Wherever the Jewish population was in contact with the
3256
Makhnovists, it found in them its best protectors against
3257
anti-Semitic incidents. The Jewish population of Hulyai Pole,
3258
Aleksandrovsk, Berdyansk, Mariupol, as well as all the Jewish
3259
agricultural colonies scattered throughout the Donets region, can
3260
themselves corroborate the fact that they always found the
3261
Makhnovists to be true revolutionary friends, and that due to the
3262
severe and decisive measures of the Makhno visits, the anti-Semitic
3263
leanings of the counter-revolutionary forces in this region were
3266
"Anti-Semitism exists in Russia as well as in many other countries.
3267
In Russia, and to some extent in the Ukraine, it is not a result of
3268
the revolutionary epoch or of the insurrectionary movement, but is on
3269
the contrary a vestige of the past. The Makhnovists always fought it
3270
resolutely in words as well as deeds. During the entire period of the
3271
movement, they issued numerous publications calling on the masses to
3272
struggle against this evil. It can firmly be stated that in the
3273
struggle against anti-Semitism in the Ukraine and beyond its borders,
3274
their accomplishment was enormous."</i> [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 211-215]
3276
Arshinov then goes on to quote an appeal published by Makhnovists
3277
together with anarchists referring to an anti-Semitic incident
3278
which took place in the spring of 1919. It is called <b>WORKERS,
3279
PEASANTS AND INSURGENTS FOR THE OPPRESSED, AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS
3282
"During the painful days of reaction, when the situation
3283
of the Ukrainian peasants was especially difficult and
3284
seemed hopeless, you were the first to rise as fearless and
3285
unconquerable fighters for the great cause of the liberation
3286
of the working masses. . . This was the most beautiful and
3287
joyful moment in the history of our revolution. You marched
3288
against the enemy with weapons in your hands as conscious
3289
revolutionaries, guided by the great idea of freedom and
3290
equality. . . But harmful and criminal elements succeeded
3291
in insinuating themselves into your ranks. And the
3292
revolutionary songs, songs of brotherhood and of the
3293
approaching liberation of the workers, began to be disrupted
3294
by the harrowing cries of poor Jews who were being tormented
3295
to death. . . On the clear and splendid foundation of the
3296
revolution appeared indelible dark blots caused by the
3297
parched blood of poor Jewish martyrs who now, as before,
3298
continue to be innocent victims of the criminal reaction,
3299
of the class struggle . . . Shameful acts are being carried
3300
out. Anti-Semitic pogroms are taking place.
3302
"Peasants, workers and insurgents! You know that the workers
3303
of all nationalities -- Russians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Armenians,
3304
etc. -- are equally imprisoned in the abyss of poverty. You know
3305
that thousands of Jewish girls, daughters of the people, are sold
3306
and dishonoured by capital, the same as women of other nationalities.
3307
You know how many honest and valiant revolutionary Jewish fighters
3308
have given their lives for freedom in Russia during our whole
3309
liberation movement. . . The revolution and the honour of workers
3310
obliges all of us to declare as loudly as possible that we make war
3311
on the same enemies: on capital and authority, which oppress all
3312
workers equally, whether they be Russian, Polish, Jewish, etc. We
3313
must proclaim everywhere that our enemies are exploiters and
3314
oppressors of various nationalities: the Russian manufacturer,
3315
the German iron magnate, the Jewish banker, the Polish aristocrat
3316
.. . . The bourgeoisie of all countries and all nationalities is
3317
united in a bitter struggle against the revolution, against the
3318
labouring masses of the whole world and of all nationalities.
3320
"Peasants, workers and insurgents! At this moment when the
3321
international enemy -- the bourgeoisie of all countries --
3322
hurries to the Russian revolution to create nationalist hatred
3323
among the mass of workers in order to distort the revolution and
3324
to shake the very foundation of our class struggle - the solidarity
3325
and unity of all workers -- you must move against conscious and
3326
unconscious counter-revolutionaries who endanger the emancipation
3327
of the working people from capital and authority. Your revolutionary
3328
duty is to stifle all nationalist persecution by dealing ruthlessly
3329
with all instigators of anti-Semitic pogroms.
3331
"The path toward the emancipation of the workers can be reached by
3332
the union of all the workers of the world."</i> [quoted by Arshinov,
3333
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 215-7]
3335
Arshinov also quotes an order issued by Makhno to <i>"all
3336
revolutionary insurgents without exception"</i> which states,
3337
in part, that the <i>"goal of our revolutionary army, and
3338
of every insurgent participating in it, is an honourable
3339
struggle for the full liberation of the Ukrainian workers
3340
from all oppression."</i> This was <i>"why every insurgent should
3341
constantly keep in mind that there is no place among
3342
us for those who, under the cover of the revolutionary
3343
insurrection, seek to satisfy their desires for personal
3344
profit, violence and plunder at the expense of the peaceful
3345
Jewish population."</i> [quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 217-8]
3347
Unsurprisingly, as an anarchist, Makhno presents a class
3348
analysis of the problem of racism, arguing as follows:
3350
"Every revolutionary insurgent should remember that his
3351
personal enemies as well as the enemies of all the people
3352
are the rich bourgeoisie, regardless of whether they be
3353
Russian, or Jewish, or Ukrainian. The enemies of the
3354
working people are also those who protect the unjust
3355
bourgeois regime, i.e., the Soviet Commissars, the
3356
members of repressive expeditionary corps, the Extraordinary
3357
Commissions which go through the cities and villages
3358
torturing the working people who refuse to submit to
3359
their arbitrary dictatorship. Every insurgent should
3360
arrest and send to the army staff all representatives
3361
of such expeditionary corps, Extraordinary Commissions
3362
and other institutions which oppress and subjugate the
3363
people; if they resist, they should be shot on the spot.
3364
As for any violence done to peaceful workers of whatever
3365
nationality - such acts are unworthy of any revolutionary
3366
insurgent, and the perpetrator of such acts will be punished
3367
by death."</i> [quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 218]
3369
It should also be noted that the chairmen of three Makhnovist
3370
regional congresses were Jewish. The first and second congresses
3371
had a Jewish chairman [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 293], while Voline
3372
was the chair for the fourth one held at Aleksandrovsk.
3373
Similarly, one of the heads of the army's counter-espionage
3374
section was Jewish. [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 212] Little wonder
3375
both Arshinov and Voline stress that an important role was
3376
played by Jews within the movement.
3378
The Jewish American anarchists Alexander Berkman and Emma
3379
Goldman were also in Russia and the Ukraine during the
3380
revolution. Between 1920 and 1921, they were in contact
3381
with anarchists involved with the Makhnovists and were
3382
concerned to verify what they had heard about the movement
3383
from Bolshevik and other sources. Berkman recounts meeting
3384
the Jewish anarchist Yossif the Emigrant (shot by the
3385
Bolsheviks in late 1920). Yossif stated that <i>"Nestor
3386
is merciless toward those guilty of Jew-baiting. Most
3387
of you have read his numerous proclamations against
3388
pogroms, and you know how severely he punishes such
3389
things."</i> He stressed that any stories of atrocities and
3390
pogroms committed by the Makhnovists were <i>"lies wilfully
3391
spread by the Bolsheviks"</i> who <i>"hate Nestor worse than
3392
they do Wrangel."</i> For Yossif, <i>"Makhno represents the
3393
real spirit of October."</i> [quoted by Berkman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
3394
pp. 187-9] He also notes that Gallina Makhno, Nestor's
3395
wife, would <i>"slightly raise her voice in indignation
3396
when reports of Jew-baiting by <b>povstantsi</b> [partisans]
3397
were mentioned. These stories were deliberately spread
3398
by the Bolsheviki, she averred. No-one could be more
3399
severe in punishing such excesses than Nestor. Some of
3400
his best comrades are Jews; there are a number of them
3401
in the Revolutionary Soviet and in other branches of
3402
the army. Few men are so loved and respected by the
3403
<b>povstantsi</b> as Yossif the Emigrant, who is a Jew, and
3404
Makhno's best friend."</i> [Berkman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 238-9]
3405
Both Goldman and Berkman became friends with Makhno
3406
during his exile in Paris.
3408
After his exile, Makhno himself spent time refuting
3409
allegations of anti-Semitism. Two articles on this
3410
subject are contained in <b>The Struggle Against the
3411
State and other Essays</b>, a collection of Makhno's
3412
exile writings. In the article <i>"The Makhnovshchina
3413
and Anti-Semitism"</i> he recounts various examples of
3414
the <i>"uncompromising line on the anti-Semitism of
3415
pogromists"</i> which the Makhnovists took <i>"throughout
3416
its entire existence."</i> This was <i>"because it was
3417
a genuinely revolutionary toilers' movement in the
3418
Ukraine."</i> He stressed that <i>"[a]t no time did the
3419
movement make it its business to carry out pogroms
3420
against Jews nor did it ever encourage any."</i> [<b>The
3421
Struggle Against the State and Other Essays</b>, p. 38
3422
and p. 34] He wrote another article (called <i>"To the
3423
Jews of All Countries"</i>):
3425
"In my first 'Appeal to Jews, published in the French
3426
libertarian newspaper, <b>Le Libertaire</b>, I asked Jews in
3427
general, which is to say the bourgeois and the socialist
3428
ones as well as the 'anarchist' ones like Yanovsky, who
3429
have all spoken of me as a pogromist against Jews and
3430
labelled as anti-Semitic the liberation movement of the
3431
Ukrainian peasants and workers of which I was the leader,
3432
to detail to me the specific facts instead of blathering
3433
vacuously away: just where and just when did I or the
3434
aforementioned movement perpetrate such acts? . . .
3435
Thus far, no such evidence advanced by Jews has come to
3436
my attention. The only thing that has appeared thus far
3437
in the press generally, certain Jewish anarchist organs
3438
included, regarding myself and the insurgent movement I
3439
led, has been the product of the most shameless lies and
3440
of the vulgarity of certain political mavericks and their
3441
hirelings."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 28]
3443
It should be noted that Yanovsky, editor of the Yiddish language
3444
anarchist paper <b>Freie Arbeiter Stimme</b> later admitted that
3445
Makhno was right. Yanovsky originally believed the charges of
3446
anti-Semitism made against Makhno, going so far as ignoring
3447
Makhno's appeal to him out of hand. However, by the time of
3448
Makhno's death in 1934, Yanovsky had learned the truth:
3450
"So strongly biased was I against him [Makhno] at that time I did
3451
not think it necessary to find out whether my serious accusation
3452
was founded on any real facts during the period of his great
3453
fight for real freedom in Russia. Now I know that my accusations
3454
of anti-Semitism against Makhno were built entirely on the lies
3455
of the Bolsheviks and to the rest of their crimes must be added
3456
this great crime of killing his greatness and the purity of
3457
this fighter for freedom."</i>
3459
Due to this, he could not forgive himself for <i>"so misjudg[ing]
3460
a man merely on the basis of calumny by his bitter enemies who
3461
more than once shamefully betrayed him, and against whom he
3462
fought so heroically."</i> He also notes that it had <i>"become
3463
known to me that a great many Jewish comrades were heart and
3464
soul with Makhno and the whole Makhno movement. Amongst them
3465
was one whom I knew well personally, Joseph Zutman of Detroit,
3466
and I know that he would not have had anything to do with
3467
persons, or a movement, which possessed the slightest leaning
3468
towards anti-Semitism."</i> [<i>"appendix,"</i> <b>My Visit to the Kremlin</b>,
3471
However, by far the best source to refute claims of anti-Semitism
3472
the work of the Jewish anarchist Voline. He summarises the
3473
extensive evidence against such claims:
3475
"We could cover dozens of pages with extensive and irrefutable
3476
proofs of the falseness of these assertions. We could mention
3477
articles and proclamations by Makhno and the Council of
3478
Revolutionary Insurgents denouncing anti-Semitism. We could
3479
tell of spontaneous acts by Makhno himself and other insurgents
3480
against the slightest manifestation of the anti-Semitic spirit
3481
on the part of a few isolated and misguided unfortunates in
3482
the army and the population. . . One of the reasons for the
3483
execution of Grigoriev by the Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism
3484
and the immense pogrom he organised at Elizabethgrad . . .
3486
"We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do not
3487
find it necessary . . . and will content ourselves with
3488
mentioning briefly the following essential facts:
3490
"1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was
3491
played by revolutionists of Jewish origin.
3493
"2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission
3496
"3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the
3497
army, there was a battery composed entirely of Jewish
3498
artillery men and a Jewish infantry unit.
3500
"4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers
3501
to the Insurrectionary Army.
3503
"5. In general the Jewish population, which was very numerous
3504
in the Ukraine, took an active part in all the activities of
3505
the movement. The Jewish agricultural colonies which were
3506
scattered throughout the districts of Mariupol, Berdiansk,
3507
Alexandrovsk, etc., participated in the regional assemblies
3508
of workers, peasants and partisans; they sent their delegates
3509
to the regional Revolutionary Military Council.
3511
"6. Rich and reactionary Jews certainly had to suffer from
3512
the Makhnovist army, not as Jews, but just in the same way
3513
as non-Jewish counter-revolutionaries."</i> [<b>The Unknown
3514
Revolution</b>, pp. 967-8]
3516
However, it could be claimed that these accounts are from
3517
anarchists and so are biased. Ignoring the question of why
3518
so many Jewish anarchists should defend Makhno if he was, in
3519
fact, a pogromist or anti-Semite, we can turn to non-anarchist
3520
sources for confirmation of the fact that Makhno and the
3521
Makhnovist movement were not anti-Semites.
3523
First, we turn to Voline, who quotes the eminent Jewish
3524
writer and historian M. Tcherikover about the question
3525
of the Makhnovists and anti-Semitism. Tcherikover had, for
3526
a number of years, had specialised in research on the
3527
persecutions of the Jews in Russia. The Jewish historian
3528
states <i>"with certainty that, on the whole, the behaviour of
3529
Makhno's army cannot be compared with that of the other armies
3530
which were operating in Russian during the events 1917-21.
3531
Two facts I can certify absolutely explicitly.
3533
"1. It is undeniable that, of all these armies, including
3534
the Red Army, the Makhnovists behaved best with regard
3535
the civil population in general and the Jewish population
3536
in particular. I have numerous testimonies to this. The
3537
proportion of <b>justified</b> complaints against the Makhnovist
3538
army, in comparison with the others, is negligible.
3540
"2. Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have been organised by
3541
Makhno himself. That is a slander or an error. Nothing of the
3542
sort occurred. As for the Makhnovist Army, I have had hints
3543
and precise denunciations on this subject. But, up to the
3544
present, every time I have tried to check the facts, I have
3545
been obliged to declare that on the day in question no
3546
Makhnovist unit could have been at the place indicated, the
3547
whole army being far away from there. Upon examining the
3548
evidence closely, I established this fact, every time, with
3549
absolute certainty, at the place and on the date of the
3550
pogrom, no <b>Makhnovist</b> unit was operating or even located
3551
in the vicinity. <b>Not once</b> have I been able to prove the
3552
existence of a Makhnovist unit at the place a pogrom
3553
against the Jews took place. Consequently, the pogroms
3554
in question could not have been the work of the Makhnovists."</i>
3555
[quoted by Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 699]
3557
This conclusion is confirmed by later historians. Paul
3558
Avrich notes that <i>"[c]harges of Jew-baiting and of
3559
anti-Jewish pogroms have come from every quarter, left,
3560
right, and centre. Without exception, however, they are
3561
based on hearsay, rumour, or intentional slander, and
3562
remain undocumented and unproved."</i> He adds that the
3563
<i>"Soviet propaganda machine was at particular pains to
3564
malign Makhno as a bandit and pogromist."</i> Wishing to
3565
verify the conclusions of Tcherikover proved by Voline,
3566
Avrich examined several hundred photographs in the
3567
Tcherikover Collection, housed in the YIVO Library in
3568
New York and depicting anti-Jewish atrocities in the
3569
Ukraine during the Civil War. He found that <i>"only one
3570
[was] labelled as being the work of the Makhnovists,
3571
though even here neither Makhno himself nor any of his
3572
recognisable subordinates are to be seen, nor is there
3573
any indication that Makhno had authorised the raid or,
3574
indeed, that the band involved was in fact affiliated
3575
with his Insurgent Army."</i> Avrich then states that
3576
<i>"there is evidence that Makhno did all in his power
3577
to counteract anti-Semitic tendencies among his
3578
followers"</i> and that <i>"a considerable number of Jews took
3579
part in the Makhnovist movement."</i> He also points out
3580
that the Jewish anarchists Alexander Berkman, Emma
3581
Goldman, Sholem Schwartzbard, Voline, Senya Fleshin,
3582
and Mollie Steimer did not criticise Makhno as an
3583
anti-Semite, they also <i>"defended him against the
3584
campaign of slander that persisted from all sides."</i>
3585
[<b>Anarchist Portraits</b>, pp. 122-3] It should be noted
3586
that Schwartzbard assassinated the Nationalist leader
3587
Petliura in 1926 because he considered him responsible
3588
for pogroms conducted by Nationalist troops during the
3589
civil war. He shot Petliura the day after he, Makhno
3590
and Berkman had seen him at a Russian restaurant in
3591
Paris. [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 189]
3593
Michael Malet, in his account of the Makhnovists, states
3594
that <i>"there is overwhelming evidence that Makhno himself
3595
was not anti-Semitic."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 168] He indicates
3596
that in the period January to September 1919, the Central
3597
Committee of Zionist Organisations in Russia listed the
3598
Nationalists as creating 15,000 victims of pogroms, then
3599
the Denikinists with 9,500 followed by Hryhoriyiv,
3600
Sokolovsky, Struk, Yatsenko and Soviet troops (500
3601
victims). Makhno is not mentioned. Of the pogroms listed,
3602
almost all took place on the western Ukraine, where the
3603
local otamany (warlords) and the Nationalists were strong.
3604
Very few took place where Makhno's influence predominated,
3605
the nearest being in Katerinoslav town and Kherson province;
3606
none in the provinces of Katerinoslav or Tavria. It should
3607
also be noted that the period of January to June of that
3608
year was one of stability within the Makhnovist region,
3609
so allowing them the space to apply their ideas. Malet
3612
"Even granted the lower level of Jewish involvement in
3613
left-bank trade, the almost total lack of anti-Semitic
3614
manifestations would show that Makhno's appeals, at a
3615
time when anti-Semitism was fast becoming fashionable,
3616
did not go unheeded by the population. There were a
3617
number of Jewish colonies in the south-east Ukraine."</i>
3618
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 169]
3620
Unsurprisingly, Malet notes that apart from certain
3621
personal considerations (such as his friendship with
3622
a number of Jews, including Voline and Yossif the
3623
Emigrant), <i>"the basis of Makhno's hostility to
3624
anti-Semitism was his anarchism. Anarchism has always
3625
been an international creed, explicitly condemning
3626
all forms of racial hatred as incompatible with the
3627
freedom of individuals and the society of equals."</i>
3628
And like other serious historians, he points to <i>"the
3629
continual participation in the movement of both
3630
intellectual Jews from outside, and Jews from the
3631
local colonies"</i> as <i>"further proof . . . of the low
3632
level of anti-Semitism within the Makhnovshchina."</i>
3633
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 171 and pp. 171-2]
3635
Anarchist Serge Cipko summarises the literature by
3636
stating that the <i>"scholarly literature that discusses
3637
Makhno's relationships with the Jewish population
3638
is of the same opinion [that the Makhnovists were
3639
not anti-Semitic] and concur that unlike the Whites,
3640
Bolsheviks and other competing groups in Ukraine
3641
during the Revolution, the Makhnovists did not engage
3642
in pogroms."</i> [<i>"Nestor Makhno: A Mini-Historiography of
3643
the Anarchist Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1921,"</i> pp. 57-75,
3644
<b>The Raven</b>, no. 13, p. 62]
3646
Historian Christopher Reed concurs, noting that <i>"Makhno
3647
actively opposed anti-Semitism . . . Not surprisingly,
3648
many Jews held prominent positions in the Insurgent
3649
movement and Jewish farmers and villagers staunchly
3650
supported Makhno in the face of the unrestrained
3651
anti-Semitism of Ukrainian nationalists like Grigoriev
3652
and of the Great Russian chauvinists like the Whites."</i>
3653
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 263-4] Arthur E. Adams states that
3654
<i>"Makhno protected Jews and in fact had many serving
3655
on his own staff."</i> [<b>Bolsheviks in the Urkaine</b>, p. 402]
3657
We apologise again for labouring this point, but the lie
3658
that Makhno and the Makhnovists were anti-Semitic is
3659
relatively commonplace and needs to be refuted. As noted,
3660
Trotskyists repeat Trotsky's false assertions without
3661
correction. Other repeat the lie from other sources.
3662
It was essential, therefore, to spend time making the
3663
facts available and to nail the lie of Makhnovist anti-
3664
Semitism once and for all!
3666
<a name="app10"><h2>10 Did the Makhnovists hate the city and city workers?</h2>
3668
For some reason the Makhnovists have been portrayed as being
3669
against the city and even history as such. This assertion is
3670
false, although sometimes made. For example, historian Bruce
3671
Lincoln states that Makhno <i>"had studied the anarchist writings
3672
of Bakunin, whose condemnation of cities and large-scale
3673
industries fit so well with the anti-urban, anti-industrial
3674
feelings of the Ukrainian peasants, and his program was
3675
precisely the sort that struck responsive chords in peasant
3676
hearts."</i> [<b>Red Victory</b>, p. 325] Lincoln fails to present
3677
any evidence for this claim. This is unsurprising as it is
3678
doubtful that Makhno read such condemnations in Bakunin as
3679
they do not, in fact, exist. Similarly, the Makhnovist
3680
<i>"program"</i> (like anarchism in general) was not <i>"anti-urban"</i>
3681
or <i>"anti-industrial."</i>
3683
However, Lincoln's inventions are mild compared to Trotsky's.
3684
According to Trotsky, <i>"the followers of Makhno"</i> were marked by
3685
<i>"hatred for the city and the city worker."</i> He later gives some
3686
more concrete examples of this <i>"hostility to the city"</i> which,
3687
as with the general peasant revolt, also <i>"nourished the movement
3688
of Makhno, who seized and looted trains marked for the factories,
3689
the plants, and the Red Army; tore up railway tracks, shot
3690
Communists, etc."</i> [Lenin and Trotsky, <b>Kronstadt</b>, p. 80 and
3693
Unsurprisingly, Trotsky simply shows his ignorance of the
3694
Makhno movement by these statements. To refute Trotsky's
3695
claim we can simply point to how the Makhnovists acted
3696
once they occupied a city. As we discuss in
3697
<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,
3698
the first thing the Makhnovists did was to call a conference
3699
of workers and urge them to organise their own affairs
3700
directly, using their own class organs of self-management
3701
(soviets, unions, etc.). Hardly the activity of a group of
3702
people who allegedly <i>"hated"</i> city workers!
3704
We can also point to the fact that the Makhnovists arranged
3705
direct exchanges of goods between the towns and country. In early
3706
1918, for example, corn was shipped directly to a Moscow factory
3707
in return for textiles (without state interference). In 1919, 1500
3708
tons of grain (and a small amount of coal) was sent by train to
3709
Petrograd and Moscow where the commander of the train was to
3710
exchange it again for textiles. The initiative in both cases
3711
came from the Hulyai Pole peasants. Again, hardly the work of
3712
city-hating peasants.
3714
Peter Arshinov indicates the underlying theory behind the
3715
Makhnovists as regards the relations between city and
3718
"The Makhnovshchina . . . understands that the victory and
3719
consolidation of the revolution . . . cannot be realised
3720
without a close alliance between the working classes of
3721
the cities and those of the countryside. The peasants
3722
understand that without urban workers and powerful
3723
industrial enterprises they will be deprived of most
3724
of the benefits which the social revolution makes possible.
3725
Furthermore, they consider the urban workers to be their
3726
brothers, members of the same family of workers.
3728
"There can be no doubt that, at the moment of the victory
3729
of the social revolution, the peasants will give their
3730
entire support to the workers. This will be voluntary and
3731
truly revolutionary support given directly to the urban
3732
proletariat. In the present-day situation [under the
3733
Bolsheviks], the bread taken by force from the peasants
3734
nourishes mainly the enormous governmental machine. The
3735
peasants see and understand perfectly that this expensive
3736
bureaucratic machine is not in any way needed by them or
3737
by the workers, and that in relation to the workers it
3738
plays the same role as that of a prison administration
3739
toward the inmates. This is why the peasants do not have
3740
the slightest desire to give their bread voluntarily to
3741
the State. This is why they are so hostile in their
3742
relations with the contemporary tax collectors -- the
3743
commissars and the various supply organs of the State.
3745
"But the peasants always try to enter into <b>direct</b> relations
3746
with the urban workers. The question was raised more than
3747
once at peasant congresses, and the peasants always resolved
3748
it in a revolutionary and positive manner."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
3751
Simply put, Trotsky misinterprets hostility to the repressive
3752
policies of the Bolshevik dictatorship with hostility to the
3755
Moreover, ignoring the <b>actual</b> relationships of the Makhnovists
3756
with the city workers, we can fault Trotsky's arguments without
3757
resource to such minor things as facts. This is because every one
3758
of his "examples" of <i>"hatred for the city and the city worker"</i>
3759
can be explained by more common sense arguments.
3761
As regards the destruction of trains and railway tracks,
3762
a far simpler and more plausible explanation can be found
3763
than Trotsky's <i>"hostility to the city."</i> This is the fact
3764
that a civil war was taking place. Both the Reds and Whites
3765
used armoured trains to move troops and as bases of operations.
3766
To destroy the means by which your enemy attacks you is
3767
common sense! Equally, in the chaotic times of the war,
3768
resources were often in low supply and in order to survive
3769
the Makhnovists had to <i>"loot"</i> trains (needless to say, Trotsky
3770
does not explain how the Makhnovists knew the trains were
3771
<i>"marked for the factories."</i>). It should be noted that the
3772
Bolsheviks <i>"looted"</i> the countryside, can we surmise that
3773
the Bolsheviks simply expressed <i>"hostility to the village"</i>?
3775
As regards the shooting of Communists, a far simpler and more
3776
plausible explanation also exists. Rather than show <i>"hostility
3777
to the city,"</i> it shows <i>"hostility"</i> to the Communist Party,
3778
its policies and its authoritarian ideas. Given that the
3779
Bolsheviks had betrayed the Makhnovists on
3780
<i><b>three</b></i> occasions
3782
<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>) and attacked them, <i>"hostility"</i> to
3783
Communists seems a sensible position to take! Equally, the
3784
first Bolshevik attack on the Makhnovists occurred in
3785
mid-1919, when the Bolsheviks began justifying their party
3786
dictatorship as essential for the success of the revolution.
3787
The other two occurred in 1920, when the Bolsheviks were announcing
3788
to the whole world at the Communist International (to quote
3789
Zinoviev) that <i>"the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the
3790
same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party."</i> [<b>Proceedings
3791
and Documents of the Second Congress 1920</b>, vol. 1, p. 152]
3792
Given this, perhaps the fact that the Makhnovists shot Communists
3793
can be explained in terms of defence against
3794
Bolshevik betrayal and opposition to the dictatorship of the
3795
Communist Party rather than <i>"hostility to the city."</i> Needless to
3796
say, the Communists shot Makhnovists and anarchists. What does
3797
that suggest a <i>"hostility"</i> to by the Bolsheviks? Working-class
3798
autonomy and freedom?
3800
Clearly, Trotsky was clutching at straws in his smearing of
3801
the Makhnovist movement as haters of the city worker. The
3802
<i>"hostility"</i> Trotsky speaks of can be far more easily explained
3803
in terms of the necessities imposed upon the Makhnovists by
3804
the civil war and the betrayals of the Bolsheviks. As such,
3805
it would be fairer to state that the Makhnovists showed
3806
<i>"hostility"</i> or <i>"hatred"</i> to the city or city workers only if
3807
you equate both with the Bolshevik party dictatorship. In
3808
other words, the Makhnovists showed <i>"hostility"</i> to the new
3809
ruling class of the Communist Party hierarchy.
3811
All this does not mean that there were not misunderstandings
3812
between the Makhno movement, a predominantly rural movement,
3813
and the workers in the cities. Far from it. Equally, it can
3814
be said that the Makhnovists did not understand the workings
3815
of an urban economy and society as well as they understood
3816
their own. However, they made no attempt to <b>impose</b> their
3817
world-view on the city workers (unlike the Bolsheviks, who
3818
did so on both urban and rural workers). However, ignorance of
3819
the city and its resulting misunderstandings do not constitute
3820
<i>"hostility"</i> or <i>"hatred."</i>
3822
Moreover, where these misunderstandings developed show that the
3823
claims that the Makhnovists hated the city workers are simply
3824
false. Simply put, the misunderstanding occurred when the
3825
Makhnovists had liberated cities from the Whites. As we
3827
<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>, the first thing the Makhnovists
3828
did was to call a conference of workers' delegates to discuss
3829
the current situation and to urge them to form soviets, unions
3830
and co-operatives in order to manage their own affairs. This
3831
hardly shows <i>"hatred"</i> of the city worker. In contrast, the
3832
first thing the Bolsheviks did in taking a city was to
3833
form a <i>"revolutionary committee"</i> to govern the town and
3834
implement Bolshevik policy.
3836
This, needless to say, shows a distinct <i>"hostility"</i> to the
3837
city workers on the part of the Bolsheviks. Equally, the
3838
Bolshevik advocacy of party dictatorship to overcome the
3839
<i>"wavering"</i> of the working class. In the words of Trotsky
3842
"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous
3843
slogans, making a fetish of democratic principles!
3844
They place the workers' right to elect representatives
3845
above the Party, as if the party were not entitled
3846
to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship
3847
temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers'
3848
democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the
3849
awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party.
3850
which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless
3851
of temporary wavering even in the working classes. This
3852
awareness is for us the indispensable element. The
3853
dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment
3854
on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."</i>
3855
[quoted by Samuel Farber, <b>Before Stalinism</b>, p. 209]
3857
Opposing workers' democracy because working people could
3858
make decisions that the party thought were wrong shows a
3859
deep <i>"hostility"</i> to the <b>real</b> city workers and their
3860
liberty and equality. Equally, Bolshevik repression of
3861
workers' strikes, freedom of speech, assembly, organisation
3862
and self-determination shows far more <i>"hostility"</i> to the
3863
city worker than a few Makhnovist misunderstandings!
3865
All in all, any claim that the Makhnovists <i>"hated"</i> city
3866
workers is simply false. While some Makhnovists may not
3867
have liked the city nor really understood the complexities
3868
of an urban economy, they did recognise the importance of
3869
encouraging working-class autonomy and self-organisation
3870
within them and building links between the rural and urban
3871
toilers. While the lack of a large-scale anarcho-syndicalist
3872
movement hindered any positive construction, the Makhnovists
3873
at least tried to promote urban self-management. Given
3874
Bolshevik authoritarianism and its various rationalisations, it
3875
would be fairer to say that it was the Bolsheviks who expressed
3876
<i>"hostility"</i> to the city workers by imposing their dictatorship
3877
upon them rather than supporting working-class self-management
3878
as the Makhnovists did!
3880
<a name="app11"><h2>11 Were the Makhnovists nationalists?</h2>
3882
Some books on the Makhnovist movement try to present the
3883
Makhnovists as being Ukrainian nationalists. A few discuss
3884
the matter in order, perhaps, to increase the respectability
3885
of the Makhnovist movement by associating it with a more
3886
<i>"serious"</i> and <i>"respectable"</i> political theory than anarchism,
3887
namely <i>"Nationalism."</i> Those who seriously investigate the
3888
issue come to the same conclusion, namely that neither
3889
Makhno nor the Makhnovist movement was nationalist (see,
3890
for example, Frank Sysyn's essay <b>Nestor Makhno and the
3891
Ukrainian Revolution</b> which discusses this issue).
3893
Therefore, any claims that the Makhnovists were nationalists
3894
are incorrect. The Makhnovist movement was first and foremost
3895
an internationalist movement of working people. This is to be
3896
expected as anarchists have long argued that nationalism is a
3897
cross-class movement which aims to maintain the existing class
3898
system but without foreign domination (see
3899
<a href="secD6.html">section D.6</a> for
3900
details). As such, the Makhnovists were well aware that
3901
nationalism could not solve the social question and would
3902
simply replace a Russian ruling class and state with a
3905
This meant that the aims of the Makhnovists went further
3906
than simply national liberation or self-determination.
3907
Anarchists, rather, aim for working-class self-liberation
3908
and self-determination, both as individuals and as groups,
3909
as well as politically, economically and socially. To quote
3910
Makhno's wire to Lenin in December 1918, the Makhnovist
3911
<i>"aims are known and clear to all. They are fighting against
3912
the authority of all political governments and for liberty
3913
and independence of the working people."</i> [quoted by Palij,
3914
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 80]
3916
From this class and anti-hierarchical perspective, it is
3917
not unsurprising that the Makhnovists were not nationalists.
3918
They did not seek Ukrainian independence but rather working-
3919
class autonomy. This, of necessity, meant they opposed all
3920
those who aimed to govern and/or exploit the working class.
3923
"Composed of the poorest peasants, who were united by the
3924
fact that they all worked with their own hands, the Makhnovist
3925
movement was founded on the deep feeling of fraternity which
3926
characterises only the most oppressed. During its entire history
3927
it did not for an instant appeal to national sentiments. The
3928
whole struggle of the Makhnovists against the Bolsheviks was
3929
conducted solely in the name of the rights and interests of
3930
the workers. Denikin's troops, the Austro-Germans, Petliura,
3931
the French troops in Berdyansk, Wrangel -- were all treated by
3932
the Makhnovists as enemies of the workers. Each one of these
3933
invasions represented for them essentially a threat to the
3934
workers, and the Makhnovists had no interest in the national
3935
flag under which they marched."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210]
3937
He stressed that <i>"national prejudices had no place in the
3938
Makhnovshchina. There was also no place in the movement
3939
for religious prejudices . . . Among modern social movements,
3940
the Makhnovshchina was one of the few in which an individual had
3941
absolutely no interest in his own or his neighbour's religion or
3942
nationality, in which he respected only the labour and the
3943
freedom of the worker."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 211]
3945
The Makhnovists made their position on nationalism clear
3946
in the 'Declaration' published by the Revolutionary Military
3947
Council of the army in October, 1919:
3949
"When speaking of Ukrainian independence, we do not mean national
3950
independence in Petliura's sense but the social independence of
3951
workers and peasants. We declare that Ukrainian, and all other,
3952
working people have the right to self-determination not as an
3953
'independent nation' but as 'independent workers'"</i> [quoted by
3954
Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210]
3956
In other words, the Makhnovists <i>"declared, that in their
3957
option <b>Petlurovtchina</b> [the Petliura movement, Petliura
3958
being the leader of the Nationalists] was a bourgeois
3959
nationalist movement whose road was entirely different from
3960
that of the revolutionary peasants, that the Ukraine should
3961
be organised on a basis of free labour and the independence
3962
of the peasants and the workers . . . and that nothing but
3963
struggle was possible between the <b>Makhnovitchina</b> , the
3964
movement of the workers, and the <b>Petlurovtchina</b> , the
3965
movement of the bourgeoisie."</i> [Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 572]
3967
This does not mean that anarchists are indifferent to
3968
cultural and national domination and oppression. Far from
3969
it! As we discussed in sections
3970
<a href="secD6.html">D.6</a> and
3971
<a href="secD7.html">D.7</a>, anarchists
3972
are against foreign domination and cultural imperialism,
3973
believing that every community or national group has the
3974
right to be itself and develop as it sees fit. This means
3975
that anarchists seek to transform national liberation
3976
struggles into <b>human</b> liberation struggles, turning any
3977
struggle against foreign oppression and domination into
3978
a struggle against <b>all</b> forms of oppression and domination.
3980
This means that the Makhnovists, like anarchists in general,
3981
seek to encourage local culture and language while opposed
3982
nationalism. As Frank Sysyn argues, it <i>"would be a mistake
3983
. . . to label the Makhnivtsi as 'anti-Ukrainian.' Although
3984
they opposed the political goals of most 'svidomi ukraintsi'
3985
(nationally conscious Ukrainians), they accepted the existence
3986
of a Ukrainian nation and used the terms 'Ukraine' and
3987
'Ukrainian.'"</i> [<b>Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian Revolution</b>,
3988
p. 288] It should be noted that opponents of Ukrainian
3989
independence generally called it the <i>"south of Russia"</i> or
3990
<i>"Little Russia."</i>
3992
Thus an opposition to nationalism did not imply a rejection
3993
or blindness to foreign domination and free cultural expression.
3994
On the question of the language to be taught in schools, the
3995
Cultural-Educational Section of the Makhnovist Insurgent Army
3996
wrote the following in October, 1919:
3998
"The cultural-educational section of the Makhnovist army
3999
constantly receives questions from school teachers asking
4000
about the language in which instruction should be given in
4001
the schools, now that Denikin's troops have been expelled.
4003
"The revolutionary insurgents, holding to the principles of
4004
true socialism, cannot in any field or by any measure do
4005
violence to the natural desires and needs of the Ukrainian
4006
people. This is why the question of the language to be
4007
taught in the schools cannot be solved by our army, but can
4008
only be decided by the people themselves, by parents, teachers
4011
"It goes without saying that all the orders of Denikin's
4012
so-called 'Special Bureau' as well as General Mai-Maevsky's
4013
order No. 22, which forbids the use of the mother tongue
4014
in the schools, are null and void, having been forcibly
4015
imposed on the schools.
4017
"In the interest of the greatest intellectual development
4018
of the people, the language of instruction should be that
4019
toward which the local population naturally tends, and
4020
this is why the population, the students, the teachers
4021
and the parents, and not authorities or the army, should
4022
freely and independently resolve this question."</i> [quoted by
4023
Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 210-1]
4025
They also printed a Ukrainian version of their paper (<i>"The
4026
Road to Freedom"</i>).
4028
Clearly their opposition to Ukrainian nationalism did not
4029
mean that the Makhnovists were indifferent to imperialism
4030
and foreign political or cultural domination. This explains
4031
why Makhno criticised his enemies for anti-Ukrainian actions
4032
and language. Michael Malet summarises, for the Makhnovists
4033
<i>"Ukrainian culture was welcome, but political nationalism
4034
was highly suspect."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 143]
4036
Given anarchist support for federal organisation from below
4037
upwards, working-class self-determination and autonomy, plus
4038
a healthy respect for local culture, it is easy to see why
4039
some historians have fostered a nationalist perspective onto
4040
the Makhnovists where none existed. This means that when
4041
they agitated with the slogan <i>"All to whom freedom and
4042
independence are dear should stay in the Ukraine and
4043
fight the Denikinists,"</i> it should be noted that <i>"[n]owhere
4044
.. . . nationalism openly advocated, and the line of
4045
argument put forward can more easily be interpreted as
4046
libertarian and, above all, anti-White."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
4049
In 1928, Makhno wrote a rebuttal to a Soviet historian's
4050
claim that Makhno became a Ukrainian Nationalist during
4051
the 1920-21 period. He <i>"totally dismissed the charges"</i>
4052
and argued that the historian <i>"distorted anarchism's
4053
espousal of local autonomy so as to create trumped-up
4054
charges of nationalism."</i> As Sysyn argues, while Makhno
4055
<i>"never became a nationalist, he did to a degree become
4056
a Ukrainian anarchist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 292 and p. 303]
4058
Thus while neither Makhno nor the movement were nationalists,
4059
they were not blind to national and cultural oppression. They
4060
considered nationalism as too narrow a goal to satisfy the
4061
<b>social</b> aspirations of the working classes. As Makhno
4062
argued in exile, the Ukrainian toilers had <i>"asserted their
4063
rights to use their own language and their entitlement
4064
to their own culture, which had been regarded before the
4065
revolution as anathema. They also asserted their right to
4066
conform in their lives to their own way of life and specific
4067
customs."</i> However, <i>"[i]n the aim of building an independent
4068
Ukrainian State, certain statist gentlemen would dearly love
4069
to arrogate to themselves all natural manifestations of
4070
Ukrainian reality."</i> Yet the <i>"healthy instincts of the
4071
Ukrainian toilers and their baleful life under the Bolshevik
4072
yoke has not made them oblivious of the State danger in
4073
general"</i> and so they <i>"shun the chauvinist trend and do not
4074
mix it up with their social aspirations, rather seeking their
4075
own road to emancipation."</i> [<b>The Struggle Against the State
4076
and Other Essays</b>, pp. 24-5]
4078
In summary, the Makhnovists were opposed to nationalism
4079
but supported culture diversity and self-determination
4080
within a free federation of toilers communes and councils.
4081
They did not limit their aims to national liberation, but
4082
rather sought the self-liberation of the working classes
4083
from every oppression -- foreign or domestic, economic or
4084
political, cultural or social.
4086
<a name="app12"><h2>12 Did the Makhnovists support the Whites?</h2>
4088
No, they did not. However, black propaganda by the Bolsheviks
4089
stated they did. Victor Serge wrote about the <i>"strenuous
4090
calumnies put out by the Communist Party"</i> against him
4091
<i>"which went so far as to accuse him of signing pacts with
4092
the Whites at the very moment when he was engaged in a
4093
life-and-death struggle against them."</i> [<b>Memoirs of a
4094
Revolutionary</b>, p. 122]
4096
According to Arshinov, <i>"Soviet newspapers spread the false
4097
news of an alliance between Makhno and Wrangel"</i> and in the
4098
summer of 1920, a representative of the Kharkov government
4099
<i>"declared at the Plenary Session of the Ekaterinoslav
4100
Soviet, that Soviet authorities had written proof of the
4101
alliance between Makhno and Wrangel. This was obviously
4102
an intentional lie."</i> Wrangel, perhaps believing these
4103
lies had some basis, sent a messenger to Makhno in July,
4104
1920. <i>"Wrangel's messenger was immediately executed"</i>
4105
and the <i>"entire incident was reported in the Makhnovist
4106
press. All this was perfectly clear to the Bolsheviks.
4107
They nevertheless continued to trumpet the alliance
4108
between Makhno and Wrangel. It was only after a
4109
military-political agreement had been concluded between
4110
the Makhnovists and the Soviet power that the Soviet
4111
Commissariat of War announced that there had never been
4112
an alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, that earlier
4113
Soviet assertions to this effect were an error."</i>
4114
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 173-5]
4116
Needless to say, while the Bolsheviks spread the rumour
4117
to discredit Makhno, the Whites spread it to win the
4118
confidence of the peasants. Thus when Trotsky stated
4119
that Wrangel had <i>"united with the Ukrainian partisan
4120
Makhno,"</i> he was aiding the efforts of Wrangel to learn
4121
from previous White mistakes and build some kind of
4122
popular base. [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 220] By
4123
October, Trotsky had retracted this statement:
4125
"Wrangel really tried to come into direct contact with
4126
Makhno's men and dispatched to Makhno's headquarters
4127
two representatives for negotiations . . . [However]
4128
Makhno's men not only did not enter into negotiations
4129
with the representatives of Wrangel, but publicly
4130
hanged them as soon as they arrived at the headquarters."</i>
4131
[quoted by Palij, <b>Ibid.</b>]
4133
Trotsky, of course, still tried to blacken the Makhnovists.
4134
In the same article he argued that <i>"[u]ndoubtedly Makhno
4135
actually co-operated with Wrangel, and also with the Polish
4136
<b>szlachta</b>, as he fought with them against the Red Army.
4137
However, there was no formal alliance between them. All
4138
the documents mentioning a formal alliance were fabricated
4139
by Wrangel . . . All this fabrication was made to deceive
4140
the protectors of Makhno, the French, and other imperialists."</i>
4141
[quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 225]
4143
It is hard to know where to start in this amazing piece of
4144
political story-telling. As we discuss in more detail in
4145
<a href="append46.html#app13">section 13</a>,
4146
the Makhnovists were fighting the Red Army
4147
from January to September 1920 because the Bolsheviks had
4148
engineered their outlawing! As historian David Footman points
4149
out, the attempt by the Bolsheviks to transfer Makhno to Polish
4150
front was done for political reasons:
4152
"it is admitted on the Soviet side that this order was primarily
4153
'dictated by the necessity' of liquidating <b>Makhnovshchina</b> as an
4154
independent movement. Only when he was far removed from his home
4155
country would it be possible to counteract his influence"</i> [<b>Op.
4158
Indeed, it could be argued that by attacking Makhno in January
4159
helped the Whites to regroup under Wrangel and return later
4160
in the year. Equally, it seems like a bad joke for Trotsky to
4161
blame the victim of Bolshevik intrigues for defending themselves.
4162
And the idea that Makhno had <i>"protectors"</i> in any imperialist
4163
nation is a joke, which deserves only laughter as a response!
4165
It should be noted that it is <i>"agreed that the initiative for
4166
joint action against Wrangel came from the Makhnovites."</i> This was
4167
ignored by the Bolsheviks until after <i>"Wrangel started his big
4168
offensive"</i> in September 1920 [Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 294 and
4171
So while the Bolsheviks claimed that the Makhnovists had made a
4172
pact with General Wrangel, the facts are that Makhnovists fought
4173
the Whites with all their energy. Indeed, they considered the
4174
Whites so great a threat to the revolution they even agreed to
4175
pursue a pact with the Bolsheviks, who had betrayed them twice
4176
already and had subjected both them and the peasantry to
4177
repression. As such, it could be argued that the Bolsheviks
4178
were the only counter-revolutionaries the Makhnovists can be
4179
accurately accused of collaborating with.
4181
Every historian who has studied the movement has refuted
4182
claims that the Makhnovist movement made any alliance with
4183
the counter-revolutionary White forces. For example, Michael
4184
Palij notes that Denikin <i>"was the main enemy that Makhno fought,
4185
stubbornly and uncompromising, from the end of 1918 to the end
4186
of 1919. Its social and anti-Ukrainian policies greatly
4187
antagonised all segments of Ukrainian society. The result
4188
of this was an increased resistance to the Volunteer Army
4189
and its regime and a substantial strengthening of the Makhno
4190
movement."</i> He also notes that after several months of <i>"hard
4191
fighting"</i> Denikin's troops <i>"came to regard Makhno's army as
4192
their most formidable enemy."</i> Makhno's conflict with Wrangel
4193
was equally as fierce and <i>"[a]lthough Makhno had fought both
4194
the Bolsheviks and Wrangel, his contribution to the final
4195
defeat of the latter was essential, as is proved by the
4196
efforts of both sides to have him as an ally."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
4197
p. 177, p. 202 and p. 228] According to Footman, Makhno
4198
<i>"remained to the end the implacable enemy of the Whites."</i>
4199
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 295] Malet just states the obvious: <i>"The
4200
Makhnovists were totally opposed to the Whites."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
4203
We will leave the last word to the considered judgement of
4204
the White General Denikin who, in exile, stated that the
4205
Makhno movement was <i>"the most antagonistic to the idea of
4206
the White movement."</i> [quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 140]
4208
In summary, the Makhnovists fought the White counter-revolution
4209
with all their might, playing a key role in the struggle and
4210
defeat of both Denikin and Wrangel. Anyone who claims that
4211
they worked with the Whites is either ignorant or a liar.
4213
<a name="app13"><h2>13 What was the relationship of the Bolsheviks to the movement?</h2>
4215
The Makhnovists worked with the Bolsheviks in three periods. The
4216
first (and longest) was against Denikin after the Red Army had
4217
entered the Ukraine after the withdrawal of the Austro-Germans.
4218
The second was an informal agreement for a short period after
4219
Denikin had been defeated. The third was a formal political and
4220
military agreement between October and November 1920 in the
4221
struggle against Wrangel. Each period of co-operation ended
4222
with Bolshevik betrayal and conflict between the two forces.
4224
As such, the relationship of the Bolsheviks to the
4225
Makhnovists was one of, at best, hostile co-operation
4226
against a common enemy. Usually, it was one of conflict.
4227
This was due, fundamentally, to two different concepts of
4228
social revolution. While the Makhnovists, as anarchists,
4229
believed in working-class self-management and autonomy,
4230
the Bolsheviks believed that only a centralised state
4231
structure (headed by themselves) could ensure the success
4232
of the revolution. By equating working-class power with
4233
Bolshevik party government (and from 1919 onwards, with
4234
the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party), they could not
4235
help viewing the Makhnovist movement as a threat to their
4237
<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>
4238
for a discussion of the political
4239
differences and the evolving nature of the Bolshevik's
4240
conception of party rule).
4242
Such a perspective ensured that they could only co-operate
4243
during periods when the White threat seemed most dangerous.
4244
As soon as the threat was defeated or they felt strong enough,
4245
the Bolsheviks turned on their former allies instantly. This
4246
section discusses each of the Bolshevik betrayals and the
4247
subsequent conflicts. As such, it is naturally broken up into
4248
three parts, reflecting each of the betrayals and their
4251
Michael Malet sums up the usual Bolshevik-Makhnovist relationship
4252
by arguing that it <i>"will be apparent that the aim of the Soviet
4253
government from the spring of 1919 onwards was to destroy the
4254
Makhnovists as an independent force, preferably killing Makhno
4255
himself in the process . . . Given the disastrous nature of
4256
Bolshevik land policy . . . this was not only unsurprisingly,
4257
it was inevitable."</i> He also adds that the <i>"fact that Makhno
4258
had a socio-political philosophy to back up his arguments only
4259
made the Bolsheviks more determined to break his hold over
4260
the south-east Ukraine, as soon as they realised that Nestor
4261
would not surrender that hold voluntarily."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 128
4264
The first betrayal occurred in June 1919. The Makhnovists had
4265
been integrated with the Red Army in late January 1919,
4266
retaining their internal organisation (including the election
4267
of commanders) and their black flags. With the Red Army they
4268
fought against Denikin's Volunteer Army. Before the arrival
4269
of Red forces in their region and the subsequent pact, the
4270
Makhnovists had organised a successful regional insurgent,
4271
peasant and worker congress which had agreed to call a
4272
second for February 12th. This second congress set up a
4273
Revolutionary Military Soviet to implement the decisions
4274
of this and following congresses. This congress (see
4275
<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>)
4276
passed an anti-Bolshevik resolution, which
4277
urged <i>"the peasants and workers to watch vigilantly the
4278
actions of the Bolshevik regime that cause a real danger
4279
to the worker-peasant revolution."</i> Such actions included
4280
the monopolisation of the revolution, centralising power
4281
and overriding local soviets, repressing anarchists and
4282
Left Socialist Revolutionaries and <i>"stifling any
4283
manifestation of revolutionary expression."</i> [quoted by
4284
Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 154]
4286
This change from the recent welcome was simply the behaviour
4287
of the Bolsheviks since their arrival. The (unelected)
4288
Ukrainian Bolshevik government had tried to apply the
4289
same tactics as its Russian equivalent, particularly as
4290
regards the peasants. In addition, the Bolshevik land
4291
policy (as indicated in
4292
<a href="append46.html#app8">section 8</a>) was a complete
4293
disaster, alien to the ideas and needs of the peasants
4294
and, combined with grain requisitioning, alienating them.
4296
The third congress was held on the 10th of April. By
4297
this time, Communist agricultural policy and terrorism
4298
had alienated all the peasantry, who <i>"rich and poor alike"</i>
4299
were <i>"united in their opposition"</i> to the Bolsheviks.
4300
[Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 269] Indeed, the <i>"poorer the
4301
areas, the more dissatisfied were the peasants with the
4302
Bolshevik decrees."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156]
4304
<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>,
4305
the third congress was informed that it was
4306
<i>"counter-revolutionary"</i> and banned by the Bolshevik
4307
commander Dybenko, provoking a famous reply which stressed
4308
the right of a revolutionary people to apply the gains
4309
of that revolution when they see fit. It is worth re-quoting
4310
the relevant section:
4312
"Can there exist laws made by a few people who call
4313
themselves revolutionaries which permit them to
4314
outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary
4315
than they are themselves? . . .
4317
"Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should
4318
come to the country to establish laws of violence,
4319
to subjugate a people who have just overthrown all
4320
lawmakers and all laws?
4322
"Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary
4323
has the right to apply the most severe penalties to a
4324
revolutionary mass, of which he calls himself the
4325
defender, simply because this mass has taken the good
4326
things which the revolution promised them, freedom
4327
and equality, without his permission?
4329
"Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be
4330
silent when such a revolutionary takes away the
4331
freedom which they have just conquered?
4333
"Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of
4334
a delegate because he believes he ought to carry out
4335
the mandate given him by the revolutionary mass
4338
"Whose interests should the revolutionary defend;
4339
those of the Party or those of the people who set
4340
the revolution in motion with their blood?"</i> [quoted
4341
by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 103]
4343
After the 3rd congress, the Bolsheviks started to turn
4346
"It was now that favourable mention of Makhno ceased to
4347
appear in the Soviet Press; an increasingly critical
4348
note became apparent. Supplies failed to get through to
4349
Makhnovite units and areas."</i> [Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 271]
4351
Lenin himself advised local Bolshevik leaders on Makhno,
4352
stating in early May that <i>"temporarily, while Rostov is
4353
not yet captured, it is necessary to be diplomatic."</i>
4354
[quoted by Arthur E. Adams, <b>Bolsheviks in the Ukraine</b>,
4355
pp. 352-3] Thus, as long as the Bolsheviks needed cannon
4356
fodder, Makhno was to be tolerated. Things changed when
4357
Trotsky arrived. On May 17th he promised a <i>"radical and
4358
merciless liquidation of partisanshchina [the partisan
4359
movement], independence, hooliganism, and leftism."</i>
4360
[quoted by Adams, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 360] According to one
4361
historian, Trotsky <i>"favoured a thorough-going annihilation
4362
of the partisan's ideological leaders as well as men like
4363
Hryhoriyov who wielded political power."</i> [Adams, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
4364
p. 360] Unsurprisingly, given Trotsky's stated mission,
4365
Bolshevik hostility towards the Makhnovists became more
4366
than mere words. It took the form of both direct and
4367
indirect aggression. <i>"In the latter part of May,"</i> states
4368
Footman, <i>"the <b>Cheka</b> sent over two agents to assassinate
4369
Makhno."</i> Around the same time, the Red <i>"hold-back of supplies
4370
for the Insurgents developed into a blockade of the area.
4371
Makhnovite units at the front ran short of ammunition."</i>
4372
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 271 and p. 272] This, obviously, had a
4373
negative impact the Makhnovists' ability to fight the
4376
Due to the gravity of the military and political situations both
4377
at and behind the front, the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military
4378
Soviet decided to call an extraordinary congress of peasants,
4379
workers, insurgents and Red soldiers. This congress was to
4380
determine the immediate tasks and the practical measures to
4381
be taken by the workers to remedy the mortal danger represented
4382
by the Whites. On May 31st, a call was sent out which stated,
4383
in part, <i>"that only the working masses themselves can find a
4384
solution [to the current problem], and not individuals or
4385
parties."</i> The congress would be based as follows: <i>"elections of
4386
delegates of peasants and workers will take place at general
4387
assemblies of villages, towns, factories and workshops."</i>
4388
[quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 121]
4390
The Bolshevik reply came quickly, with Trotsky issuing his
4391
infamous Order no. 1824 on June 4th:
4393
"This Congress is directed squarely against the Soviet Power
4394
in the Ukraine and against the organisation of the southern
4395
front, where Makhno's brigade is stationed. This congress can
4396
have no other result then to excite some new disgraceful revolt
4397
like that of Grigor'ev, and to open the front to the Whites,
4398
before whom Makhno's brigade can only retreat incessantly on
4399
account of the incompetence, criminal designs and treason of
4402
"1. By the present order this congress is forbidden, and will
4403
in no circumstances be allowed to take place.
4405
"2. All the peasant and working class population shall be warned.
4406
orally and in writing, that participation in the said congress
4407
will be considered an act of high treason against the Soviet
4408
Republic and the Soviet front.
4410
"3. All delegates to the said Congress shall be arrested
4411
immediately and bought before the Revolutionary Military
4412
Tribunal of the 14th, formerly 2nd, Army of the Ukraine.
4414
"4. The persons spreading the call of Makhno and the Hulyai
4415
Pole Executive Committee to the Congress shall likewise be
4418
"5. The present order shall have the force of law as soon as
4419
it is telegraphed. It should be widely distributed, displayed
4420
in all public places, and sent to the representatives of the
4421
executive committees of towns and villages, as well as to all
4422
the representatives of Soviet authority, and to commanders and
4423
commissars of military units."</i> [quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
4426
Arshinov argues that this <i>"document is truly classic"</i> and
4427
<i>"[w]hoever studies the Russian revolution should learn it by
4428
heart."</i> He compares Trotsky's order to the reply the Makhnovists
4429
had sent to the Bolsheviks' attempt to ban the third congress.
4430
Clearly, Order No. 1824 shows that laws did exist <i>"made by a
4431
a few people who call themselves revolutionaries which permit
4432
them to outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary than
4433
they are themselves"</i>! Equally, the order shows that <i>"a
4434
revolutionary has the right to apply the most severe penalties
4435
to a revolutionary mass . . . simply because this mass has
4436
taken the good things which the revolution has promised them,
4437
freedom and equality, without his permission"</i>! Little wonder
4438
Arshinov states that this order meant that the <i>"entire peasant
4439
and labouring population are declared guilty of high treason
4440
if they dare to participate in their own free congress."</i>
4441
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 123]
4443
According to Voline, in Alexandrovsk <i>"all workers meetings
4444
planned for the purpose of discussing the call of the
4445
Council and the agenda of the Congress were forbidden under
4446
pain of death. Those which were organised in ignorance of
4447
the order were dispersed by armed force. In other cities
4448
and towns, the Bolsheviks acted in the same way. As for
4449
the peasants in the villages, they were treated with still
4450
less ceremony; in many places militants and even peasants
4451
'suspected of acting in favour of the insurgents and the
4452
Congress' were seized and executed after a semblance of
4453
a trial. Many peasants carrying the call were arrested,
4454
'tried' and shot, before they could even find out about
4455
Order No. 1824."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 599-600]
4457
As Arshinov summarises:
4459
"This entire document represents such a crying usurpation of
4460
the rights of the workers that it is pointless to comment
4461
further on it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 124]
4463
Trotsky continued his usurpation of the rights of the workers
4464
in a later order on the congress. In this, Trotsky called
4465
this openly announced workers, peasant and insurgent congress
4466
a <i>"conspiracy against Soviet power"</i> and a <i>"congress of
4467
Anarchist-kulaks delegates for struggle against the Red
4468
Army and the Soviet power"</i> (which explains why the congress
4469
organisers had asked that hotbed of kulakism, the Red Army
4470
troops, to send delegates!). Trotsky indicated the fate of
4471
those workers and peasants who dared participate in their
4472
own revolution: <i>"There can be only one penalty for these
4473
individuals: shooting."</i> [<b>How the Revolution Armed</b>,
4476
Trotsky also ordered the arrest of Makhno, who escaped but who
4477
ordered his troops to remain under Bolshevik command to ensure
4478
that the front against Denikin was maintained. However, five
4479
members of his staff were shot for having distributed literature
4480
concerning the banned fourth congress. This order was the first
4481
step in the Bolshevik attempt to <i>"liquidate the Makhnovist
4482
movement."</i> This campaign saw Bolshevik regiments invade the
4483
insurgent area, shooting militants on the spot and destroying
4484
the free communes and other Makhnovist organisations. [Arshinov,
4485
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 121] It should be noted that during the Spanish
4486
Revolution, the Stalinists acted in the same way, attacking
4487
rural collectives while the anarchist troops fought against
4488
Franco at the front.
4490
Thus the participating event for the break between the
4491
Makhnovists and Bolsheviks was Trotsky's banning of the
4492
fourth regional congress. However, this was preceded by
4493
an intense press campaign against the Makhnovists as well
4494
as holding back of essential supplies from the frontline
4495
troops. Clearly the Bolsheviks considered that the soviet
4496
system was threatened if soviet conferences were called
4497
and that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was undermined
4498
if the proletariat took part in the revolutionary process!
4500
With the Makhnovist front weakened, they could not hold against
4501
Denikin's attacks, particularly when Red Army troops retreated on
4502
their flank. Thus, the front which the Makhnovists themselves had
4503
formed and held for more than six months was finally broken.
4504
[Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 124] The Red Army was split into three
4505
and the Whites entered the Ukraine, which the Bolsheviks promptly
4506
abandoned to its fate. The Makhnovists, drawing stray Red Army
4507
and other forces to it, continued to fight the Whites, ultimately
4508
inflicting a decisive defeat on them at Peregonovka, subsequently
4509
destroying their supply lines and ensuring Denikin's defeat
4510
(see <a href="append46.html#app4">section 4</a>).
4512
The Red Army re-entered the Ukraine at the end of 1919.
4513
Bolshevik plans with regard to the Makhnovists had already
4514
been decided in a secret order written by Trotsky on
4515
December 11th. Red Army troops had to <i>"be protected
4516
against infection by guerrilla-ism and Makhnovism"</i> by
4517
various means, including <i>"extensive agitation"</i> which
4518
used <i>"examples from the past to show the treacherous role
4519
played by the Makhnovites."</i> A <i>"considerable number of
4520
agents"</i> would be sent <i>"ahead"</i> of the main forces
4522
guerrilla detachments"</i> and would agitate against <i>"guerrilla-ism."</i>
4523
Once partisan forces meet with Red Army troops, the former
4524
<i>"ceases to be a military unit after it has appeared on our
4525
side of the line . . . From that moment it becomes merely
4526
material for processing, and for that purpose is to be sent
4527
to our rear."</i> To <i>"secure complete subordination of the
4528
detachments,"</i> the Red forces <i>"must make use of the agents
4529
previously set to these detachments."</i> The aim, simply put,
4530
was to ensure that the partisans became <i>"fully subordinate
4531
to our command."</i> If the partisans who had been fighting for
4532
revolution and against the Whites opposed becoming <i>"material
4533
for processing"</i> (i.e cannon fodder), <i>"refuses to submit to
4534
orders, displays unruliness and self-will,"</i> then it <i>"must
4535
be subjected to ruthless punishment."</i> Recognising the
4536
organic links the partisans had with the peasants, Trotsky
4537
argues that <i>"in the Ukraine, guerrilla detachments appear
4538
and disappear with ease, dissolving themselves into the
4539
mass of the armed peasant population"</i> and so <i>"a fundamental
4540
condition for the success against guerrilla-ism is
4541
<b>unconditional disarmament of the rural population,
4542
without exception.</b>"</i> [Trotsky, <b>How the Revolution Armed</b>,
4543
vol. II, pp. 440-2] As events would show, the Bolsheviks
4544
implemented Trotsky's order to the letter.
4546
On December 24th, Makhno's troops met with the Bolshevik 14th
4547
army and its commander <i>"admitted Makhno's service in defeating
4548
Denikin."</i> However, while <i>"the Bolsheviks fraternised with the
4549
Makhno troops . . . they distrusted Makhno, fearing the
4550
popularity he had gained as a result of his successful
4551
fighting against Denikin."</i> The Bolsheviks had <i>"no intention
4552
of tolerating Makhno's independent policy, but hoped first to
4553
destroy his army by removing it from its own base. With this
4554
in mind, on January 8th, 1920, the Revolutionary Military
4555
Council of the Fourteenth Army ordered Makhno to move to the
4556
Polish Front . . . The author of the order realised that there
4557
was no real war between the Poles and the Bolsheviks at the
4558
time and he also knew that Makhno would not abandon his region.
4559
.. . . Uborevich [the author] explained that 'an appropriate
4560
reaction by Makhno to this order would give us the chance
4561
to have accurate grounds for our next steps' . . . [He]
4562
concluded: 'The order is a certain political manoeuvre and,
4563
at the very least, we expect positive results from Makhno's
4564
realisation of this.'"</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 209 and p. 210]
4565
As can be seen, these actions fit perfectly with Trotsky's
4566
secret order and with Bolshevik desire for a monopoly of
4567
power for itself (see
4568
<a href="append46.html#app14">next section</a>).
4570
As expected, the Makhnovists refused to leave their territory.
4571
They realised the political motivations behind the order. As
4572
Arshinov notes, <i>"[s]ending the insurrectionary army to the
4573
Polish front meant removing from the Ukraine the main nerve
4574
centre of the revolutionary insurrection. This was precisely
4575
what the Bolsheviks wanted: they would then be absolute masters
4576
of the rebellious region, and the Makhnovists were perfectly
4577
aware of this."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 163] As well as political
4578
objections, the Makhnovists listed practical reasons for
4579
not going. Firstly, <i>"the Insurrectionary Army was subordinate
4580
neither to the 14th Corps nor to any other unit of the Red Army.
4581
The Red commander had no authority to give orders to the
4582
Insurrectionary Army."</i> Secondly, <i>"it was materially impossible
4583
to carry it out, since half the men, as well as nearly all
4584
the commanders and staff, and Makhno himself, were sick
4585
[with typhus]."</i> Thirdly, <i>"the fighting qualities and
4586
revolutionary usefulness of the Insurrectionary Army were
4587
certainly much greater on their own ground."</i> [Voline, <b>Op.
4588
Cit.</b>, pp. 650-1]
4590
The Bolsheviks refused to discuss the issue and on the 14th
4591
of January, they declared the Makhnovists outlawed. They
4592
then <i>"made a great effort to destroy"</i> Makhno. [Palij,
4593
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210] In summary, the Bolsheviks <b>started</b> the
4594
conflict in order to eliminate opposition to their power.
4595
This led to nine months of bitter fighting between the
4596
Red Army and the Makhnovists. To prevent fraternisation,
4597
the Bolsheviks did not use local troops and instead imported
4598
Latvian, Estonian and Chinese troops. They also used other
4599
<i>"new tactics,"</i> and <i>"attacked not only Makhno's partisans,
4600
but also the villages and towns in which the population
4601
was sympathetic toward Makhno. They shot ordinary soldiers
4602
as well as their commanders, destroying their houses,
4603
confiscating their properties and persecuting their families.
4604
Moreover the Bolsheviks conducted mass arrests of innocent
4605
peasants who were suspected of collaborating in some way
4606
with the partisans. It is impossible to determine the
4607
casualties involved."</i> They also set up <i>"Committees of
4608
the Poor"</i> as part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus,
4609
which acted as <i>"informers helping the Bolshevik secret police
4610
in its persecution of the partisans, their families and
4611
supporters, even to the extent of hunting down and executing
4612
wounded partisans."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 212-3]
4614
This conflict undoubtedly gave time for the Whites to
4615
reorganise themselves and encouraged the Poles to invade
4616
the Ukraine, so prolonging the Civil War. The Makhnovists
4617
were threatened by both the Bolsheviks <b>and</b> Wrangel. By
4618
mid-1920, Wrangel appeared to be gaining the upper hand
4619
and the Makhnovists <i>"could not remain indifferent to
4620
Wrangel's advance . . . Everything done to destroy him
4621
would in the last analysis benefit the revolution."</i> This
4622
lead the Makhnovists to consider allying with the Bolsheviks
4623
as <i>"the difference between the Communists and Wrangel
4624
was that the Communists had the support of the masses
4625
with faith in the revolution. It is true that these masses
4626
were cynically misled by the Communists, who exploited
4627
the revolutionary enthusiasm of the workers in the interests
4628
of Bolshevik power."</i> With this in mind, the Makhnovists
4629
agreed at a mass assembly to make an alliance with the
4630
Bolsheviks against Wrangel as this would eliminate the
4631
White threat and end the civil war. [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
4634
The Bolsheviks ignored the Makhnovist offer using
4635
mid-September, when <i>"Wrangel's success caused the Bolsheviks
4636
leaders to reconsider."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 223] Sometime
4637
between the 10th and 15th of October the final agreement was
4640
"Part I -- Political Agreement.
4642
"1. Immediate release of all Makhnovists and anarchists imprisoned
4643
or in exile in the territories of the Soviet Republic; cessation
4644
of all persecutions of Makhnovists or anarchists, except those
4645
who carry on armed conflict against the Soviet Government.
4647
"2. Complete freedom in all forms of public expression and
4648
propaganda for all Makhnovists and anarchists, for their
4649
principles and ideas, in speech and the press, with the
4650
exception of anything that might call for the violent
4651
overthrow of the Soviet Government, and on condition that
4652
the requirements of military censorship be respected. For
4653
all kinds of publications, the Makhnovists and anarchists,
4654
as revolutionary organisations recognised by the Soviet
4655
Government may make use of the technical apparatus of the
4656
Soviet State, while naturally submitting to the technical
4657
rules for publication.
4659
"3. Free participation in elections to the Soviets; and the
4660
right of Makhnovists and anarchists to be elected thereto.
4661
Free participation in the organisation of the forthcoming
4662
Fifth Pan-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets . . .
4664
"Part II -- Military Agreement.
4666
"1. The Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovist)
4667
will join the armed forces of the Republic as a partisan army,
4668
subordinate, in regard to operations, to the supreme command of
4669
the Red Army; it will retain its established internal structure,
4670
and does not have to adopt the bases and principles of the
4673
"2. When crossing Soviet territory at the front, or going between
4674
fronts, the Insurrectionary Army will not accept into its ranks
4675
neither any detachments of, nor deserters from, the Red Army . . .
4677
"3. For the purpose of destroying the common enemy -- the White
4678
Army -- the Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army
4679
(Makhnovists) will inform the working masses that collaborate
4680
with it the agreement that has been concluded; it will call upon
4681
the people to cease all military actions hostile to the Soviet
4682
power; and for its part, the Soviet power will immediately
4683
publish the clauses of the agreement.
4685
"4. The families of combatants of the Makhnovist Revolutionary
4686
Insurrectionary Army living in the territory of the Soviet
4687
Republic shall enjoy the same rights as those of soldiers of
4688
the Red Army . . ."</i> [quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 178]
4690
This agreement was agreed by both sides, although the Bolsheviks
4691
immediately broke it by publishing the military agreement first,
4692
followed by the political agreement a week later, so obscuring
4693
the real meaning of the pact. As it stands, the political clause
4694
simply gave anarchists and Makhnovists the rights they should
4695
have already had, according to the constitution of the Soviet
4696
state. This shows how far the Bolsheviks had applied that
4699
The agreement is highly significant as in itself it disproves
4700
many of the Bolsheviks slanders about the Makhnovists and it
4701
proves the suppression of the anarchist press to have been on
4704
However, the Makhnovists desired to add a fourth clause to
4705
the Political Agreement:
4707
"Since one of the essential principles of the Makhnovist movement
4708
is the struggle for the self-management of the workers, the
4709
Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovist) believes it should insist on
4710
the following fourth point of the political agreement: in the
4711
region where the Makhnovist Army is operating, the population
4712
of workers and peasants will create its own institutions of
4713
economic and political self-management; these institutions will
4714
be autonomous and joined in federation, by means of agreement,
4715
with the government organs of the Soviet Republic,"</i> [quoted by
4716
Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 179-80]
4718
Unsurprisingly, the Bolsheviks refused to ratify this clause.
4719
As one Bolshevik historian pointed out, the <i>"fourth point was
4720
fundamental to both sides, it meant the system of free Soviets,
4721
which was in total opposition to the idea of the dictatorship
4722
of the proletariat."</i> [quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 108] As
4724
<a href="append46.html#app14">next section</a>,
4725
the Bolsheviks had equated
4726
the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> with the dictatorship
4727
of their party and so working-class self-management could not
4728
be allowed. It should be noted that this fourth clause was the
4729
cause of Lenin and Trotsky's toying with the idea of allowing
4730
the Makhnovists south-eastern Ukraine as an anarchist
4731
experiment (as mentioned by both Victor Serge and Trotsky in
4734
Once Wrangel had been defeated by Makhnovist and Red Army
4735
units, the Bolsheviks turned on the movement. Makhno had
4736
<i>"assumed that the coming conflict with the Bolsheviks could
4737
be limited to the realm of ideas, feeling that the strong
4738
revolutionary ideas and feelings of the peasants, together
4739
with their distrust of the foreign invaders, were the best
4740
guarantees for the movement's territory. Moreover, Makhno
4741
believed that the Bolsheviks would not attack his movement
4742
immediately. A respite of some three months would have
4743
allowed him to consolidate his power [sic!] and to win
4744
over much of the Bolshevik rank and file."</i> [Palij,
4745
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231] From the wording of the second clause
4746
of the military agreement (namely, to refuse Red Army
4747
deserters or units), it is clear that the Bolsheviks were
4748
aware of the appeal of Makhnovist politics on the Red
4749
Army soldiers. As soon as Wrangel was defeated, the Red
4750
Army attacked. Makhnovist commanders were invited to
4751
meetings, arrested and then shot. The Red Army surrounded
4752
Makhnovist units and attacked them. At the same time,
4753
anarchists were arrested all across the Ukraine. Hulyai
4754
Pole itself was attacked (Makhno, despite overwhelming
4755
odds, broke out). [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 71-2]
4757
In the words of Makhno:
4759
"In this difficult and responsible revolutionary position
4760
the Makhno movement made one great mistake: alliance with
4761
the Bolsheviks against a common enemy, Wrangel and the
4762
Entente. In the period of this alliance that was morally
4763
right and of practical value for the revolution, the Makhno
4764
movement mistook Bolshevik revolutionism and failed to
4765
secure itself in advance against betrayal. The Bolsheviks
4766
and their experts treacherously circumvented it."</i> [quoted
4767
by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 234]
4769
While the Bolsheviks continuously proclaimed the final defeat
4770
of the Makhnovists, they held out for nearly a year before
4771
being forced to leave the Ukraine in August 1921. Indeed,
4772
by the end of 1920 his troops number ten to fifteen thousand
4773
men and the <i>"growing strength of the Makhno army and its
4774
successes caused serious concern in the Bolshevik regime."</i>
4775
More Red troops were deployed, <i>"stationing whole regiments,
4776
primarily cavalry, in the occupied villages to terrorise
4777
the peasants and prevent them from supporting Makhno. . .
4778
Cheka punitive units were constantly trailing the partisans,
4779
executing Makhno's sympathisers and the partisans' families."</i>
4780
[Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 237 and p. 238] Combined with this
4781
state terrorism, economic conditions in the villages got
4782
worse. The countryside was exhausted and 1921 was a famine
4783
year. With his rural base itself barely surviving, the
4784
Makhnovists could not survive long.
4786
It should be noted that during the periods after the Bolsheviks
4787
had turned on the Makhnovists, the latter appealed to rank-and-file
4788
Red Army troops not to attack them. As one of their leaflets
4789
put it: <i>"Down with fratricidal war among the working people!"</i>
4790
They urged the Red Army troops (with some success) to rebel
4791
against the commissars and appointed officers and join with
4792
the Makhnovists, who would <i>"greet [them] as our own brothers
4793
and together we will create a free and just life for workers
4794
and peasants and will struggle against all tyrants and
4795
oppressors of the working people."</i> [contained in Arshinov,
4796
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 276 and p. 283]
4798
Even after the defeat of the Makhnovists, the Bolsheviks did not
4799
stop their campaign of lies. For example, Trotsky reported to
4800
the Ninth Congress of Soviets on December 26th, 1921, that
4801
the Makhnovists were <i>"in Romania,"</i> where Makhno had <i>"received
4802
a friendly welcome"</i> and was <i>"liv[ing] comfortably in Bucharest."</i>
4803
The Makhnovists had picked Romania because it was, like Poland,
4804
<i>"a country where they . . . felt secure"</i> due to the way they
4805
treated <i>"Russian counter-revolutionary bands."</i> [<b>How the
4806
Revolution Armed</b>, vol. IV, p. 404] In reality, the <i>"Romanian
4807
authorities put Makhno, his wife, and his followers in an
4808
internment camp."</i> The Bolsheviks were not unaware of this,
4809
as they <i>"sent a series of sharp diplomatic notes demanding
4810
Makhno's extradiction."</i> They expelled Makhno and his wife
4811
to Poland on April 11, 1922. The Poles also interned them
4812
and, again, the Bolsheviks demanded Makhno's extradition
4813
<i>"on the ground that he was a criminal and not entitled to
4814
political asylum."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 242] Trotsky's lies
4815
come as no surprise, given his and his party's track record
4816
on slandering anarchists.
4818
As can be seen, the relationship of the Makhnovists to the
4819
Bolsheviks was one of constant betrayal of the former by the
4820
latter. Moreover, the Bolsheviks took every opportunity to
4821
slander the Makhnovists, with Trotsky going so far as to
4822
report Makhno was living well while he was rotting in a
4823
capitalist prison. This is to be expected, as the aims of the
4824
two groups were at such odds. As we discuss in the
4825
<a href="append46.html#app14">next section</a>,
4826
while the Makhnovists did whatever they could to encourage
4827
working-class self-management and freedom, the Bolsheviks had
4828
evolved from advocating the government of their party as the
4829
expression of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" to stating
4830
that only the dictatorship of their party could ensure the success of
4831
a social revolution and so <b>was</b> "the dictatorship of the
4832
proletariat." As the Makhnovist movement shows, if need be,
4833
the party would happily exercise its dictatorship <b>over</b> the
4834
proletariat (and peasantry) if that was needed to retain its
4837
<a name="app14"><h2>14 How did the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks differ?</h2>
4839
Like chalk and cheese.
4841
Whereas the Bolsheviks talked about soviet democracy while
4842
exercising a party dictatorship, the Makhnovists not only
4843
talked about <i>"free soviets,"</i> they also encouraged them with
4844
all their ability. Similarly, while Lenin stated that
4845
free speech was <i>"a bourgeois notion"</i> and that there could
4846
be <i>"no free speech in a revolutionary period,"</i> the Makhnovists
4847
proclaimed free speech for working people. [Lenin quoted by
4848
Goldman, <b>My Disillusionment in Russia</b>, p. 33] While the
4849
Bolsheviks ended up arguing for the necessity of party
4850
dictatorship during a revolution, the Makhnovists introduced
4851
free soviets and organised peasant, worker and insurgent
4852
congresses to conduct the revolution.
4854
We have discussed the Makhnovist ideas in both theory and
4855
practice in sections
4856
<a href="append46.html#app5">5</a>,
4857
<a href="append46.html#app6">6</a> and
4858
<a href="append46.html#app7">7</a>. In spite of
4859
the chaos and difficulties imposed upon the movement by
4860
having to fight the counter-revolution, the Makhnovists
4861
applied their ideals constantly. The Makhnovists were a mass
4862
movement and its constructive efforts showed that there was
4863
an alternative route the Russian revolution could have followed
4864
other than the authoritarian dictatorship that Leninists, then
4865
and now, claimed was inevitable if the revolution was to be saved.
4867
To see why, we must compare Bolshevik ideology and practice
4868
to that of the Makhnovists in three key areas. Firstly, on
4869
how a revolution should be defended. Secondly, on the role of
4870
the soviets and party in the revolution. Thirdly, on the question
4871
of working-class freedom.
4873
Early in 1918, after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty the
4874
Bolsheviks re-introduced Tsarist officers into the army alongside
4875
bourgeois military discipline. As Maurice Brinton correctly
4878
"Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after
4879
Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The
4880
death penalty for disobedience under fire had been restored. So,
4881
more gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate
4882
living quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic
4883
forms of organisation, including the election of officers, had
4884
been quickly dispensed with."</i> [<b>The Bolsheviks and Workers'
4887
Officers were appointed rather then elected. They argued this had to
4888
be done to win the war. The <i>"principle of election,"</i> stated Trotsky,
4889
<i>"is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient and has been,
4890
in practice, abolished by decree."</i> Thus the election of officers
4891
and the creation of soldiers' committees was abolished from the top,
4892
replaced by appointed officers. Trotsky's rationale for this was
4893
simply that <i>"political power is in the hands of the same working
4894
class from whose ranks the Army is recruited."</i> In other words, the
4895
Bolshevik Party held power as power was actually held by it, <b>not</b>
4896
the working class. Trotsky tried to answer the obvious objection:
4898
"Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system
4899
under which the government is headed by persons who have been
4900
directly elected by the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and
4901
Soldiers' Deputies, there can be no antagonism between the
4902
government and the mass of the workers, just as there is no
4903
antagonism between the administration of the union and the
4904
general assembly of its members, and, therefore, there cannot
4905
be any grounds for fearing the <b>appointment</b> of members of the
4906
commanding staff by the organs of the Soviet Power."</i> [<b>Work,
4907
Discipline, Order</b>]
4909
He repeated this argument in his 1919 diatribe against the
4912
"The Makhnovites shout raucously: 'Down with appointed commanders!'
4913
This they do only so as to delude the ignorant element among their
4914
own soldiers. One can speak of 'appointed' persons only under the
4915
bourgeois order, when Tsarist officials or bourgeois ministers
4916
appointed at their own discretion commanders who kept the soldier
4917
masses subject to the bourgeois classes. Today there is no authority
4918
in Russia but that which is elected by the whole working class and
4919
working peasantry. It follows that commanders appointed by the
4920
central Soviet Government are installed in their positions by the
4921
will of the working millions. But the Makhnovite commanders reflect
4922
the interests of a minute group of Anarchists who rely on the kulaks
4923
and the ignorant."</i> [<b>The Makhno Movement</b>]
4925
Of course, most workers are well aware that the administration
4926
of a trade union usually works against them during periods of struggle.
4927
Indeed, so are most Trotskyists as they often denounce the betrayals
4928
by that administration. Thus Trotsky's own analogy indicates the
4929
fallacy of his argument. Equally, it was not <i>"the will of the working
4930
millions"</i> which appointed anyone, it was a handful of leaders of the
4931
Bolshevik party (which had manipulated the soviets to remain in
4932
power). Needless to say, this was a vast change from Lenin's
4933
comments in <b>State and Revolution</b> opposing appointment and calling
4934
for election of <b>all</b> officials!
4936
Moreover, the explanation that <i>"the ignorant"</i> were to blame for
4937
Makhnovist opposition to appointed officers had a long legacy
4938
with Trotsky. In April 1918, when justifying Bolshevik introduction
4939
of appointed officers, he had argued that the <i>"Soviet government
4940
is the same as the committee of a trade union. It is elected by
4941
the workers and peasants and you can at the All-Russian Congress
4942
of Soviets, at any moment you like, dismiss that government and
4943
appoint another. But once you have appointed it, you must give
4944
it the right to choose the technical specialists."</i> He stressed
4945
that this applied <i>"in military affairs, in particular."</i> Using the
4946
trade union analogy, he argued that the workers had <i>"entrusted
4947
us [the Bolshevik leaders] with the direction of the union"</i> and
4948
this meant that the Bolshevik leaders, not the workers, should
4949
decide things as <i>"we are better able to judge in the matter"</i> than
4950
them! The workers role was stated clearly: <i>"if our way of conducting
4951
the business is bad, then throw us out and elect another committee!"</i>
4952
[<b>Leon Trotsky Speaks</b>, p. 113] In other words, like any bureaucrat,
4953
for Trotsky working-class participation in the affairs of the
4954
revolution was seen as irrelevant: the masses had voted and
4955
their role was now that of obeying those who <i>"are better able to
4958
Using an argument the Tsar could have been proud of, Trotsky defended
4959
the elimination of soldier democracy:
4961
"How could soldiers who have just entered the army choose the
4962
chiefs! Have they any vote to go by? They have none. And therefore
4963
elections are impossible."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
4965
Equally, how could workers and peasants who have just entered
4966
political or economic struggle in 1917 choose the chiefs? Had
4967
they any vote to go by? They had none. And therefore political
4968
and workplace elections are impossible. Unsurprisingly, Trotsky
4969
soon ended up applying this logic to politics as well, defending
4970
(like all the leaders of Bolshevism) the dictatorship of the
4971
party <b>over</b> working class. How could the <i>"ignorant"</i> workers
4972
be expected to elect the best <i>"chiefs"</i> never mind manage their
4975
Ironically, in 1936 the Stalinist Communist Party in Spain was
4976
to make very similar arguments about the need for a regular army
4977
and army discipline to win the war. As Aileen O'Carroll in her
4978
essay <i>"Freedom and Revolution"</i> argues:
4980
"The conventional army structure evolved when feudal kings or
4981
capitalist governments required the working class to fight its
4982
wars for them. These had to be authoritarian institutions, because
4983
although propaganda and jingoism can play a part initially in
4984
encouraging enlistment, the horrors of war soon expose the futility
4985
of nationalism. A large part of military organisation is aimed at
4986
ensuring that soldiers remain fighting for causes they do not
4987
necessarily believe in. Military discipline attempts to create an
4988
unthinking, unquestioning body of soldiers, as fearful of their
4989
own side as of the other."</i> [<b>Red & Black Revolution</b>, no. 1]
4991
In short in both Russia and Spain the Bolsheviks wanted an army
4992
that would obey them regardless of whether the individual soldiers
4993
felt they were doing the correct thing, indeed who would obey
4994
through fear of their officers even when they knew what they were
4995
doing was wrong. Such a body would be essential for enforcing
4996
minority rule over the wishes of the workers. Would a self-managed
4997
army be inclined to repress workers' and peasants' strikes and
4998
protests? Of course not.
5000
The Makhnovists show that another kind of revolutionary army
5001
was possible in the Russian Revolution and that the <i>"ignorant"</i>
5002
masses could choose their own officers. In other words, the
5003
latter-day justifications of the followers of Bolshevism are
5004
wrong when they assert that the creation of the top-down,
5005
hierarchical Red Army was a result of the <i>"contradiction
5006
between the political consciousness and circumstantial
5007
coercion"</i> and <i>"a retreat"</i> because <i>"officers were appointed
5008
and not elected,"</i> it was a conscript army and <i>"severe
5009
military discipline."</i> [John Rees, <i>"In Defence of October"</i>,
5010
<b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, pp. 3-82, p. 46] As can
5011
be seen, Trotsky did not consider it as a <i>"retreat"</i> or caused
5012
by <i>"circumstances."</i> Equally, the Makhnovists managed to
5013
organise themselves relatively democratically in the
5014
circumstances created by the same civil war.
5016
As such, the differences between the Makhnovists and the
5017
Bolsheviks as regards the internal organisation of a
5018
revolutionary army are clear. The Bolsheviks applied
5019
top-down, bourgeois methods of internal organisation and
5020
discipline. The Makhnovists applied democratic internal
5021
organisation and discipline as far as possible.
5023
From our discussion of the Bolshevik justifications for its
5024
system of appointed officers in the Red Army, it will come
5025
as no surprise that as regards the relationship of the
5026
soviets to the revolutionary organisation (party) the
5027
Makhnovists and Bolsheviks were (again) miles apart. While
5028
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.
5030
From the start, Lenin identified soviet (or working class)
5031
power with the power of their own party. In October 1917,
5032
Lenin was equating party and class: <i>"the power of the
5033
Bolsheviks -- that is, the power of the proletariat."</i>
5034
[<b>Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?</b>, p. 102] After the
5035
October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were clear that the
5036
soviets would not have <i>"all power."</i> Rather, the first act
5037
of soviet sovereignty was to alienate it into the hands of
5038
a Bolshevik government. In response to a few leading
5039
Bolsheviks who called for a coalition government, the
5040
Bolshevik Central Committee stated that it was <i>"impossible
5041
to refuse a purely Bolshevik government without treason
5042
to the slogan of the power of the Soviets, since a majority
5043
at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets . . .
5044
handed power over to this government."</i> [quoted by
5045
Robery V. Daniels, <b>A Documentary History of Communism</b>,
5046
vol. 1, pp. 127-8] How can the <i>"power of the Soviets"</i>
5047
exist when said soviets immediately <i>"handed power"</i> over
5048
to another body? Thus the only <i>"power"</i> the soviets had
5049
was simply the <i>"power"</i> to determine who actually held
5052
The question of who held power, the soviets or the party,
5053
came into focus when the soviet elections resulted
5054
in non-Bolshevik majorities being elected. After the
5055
initial honeymoon period, soviet elections started to go
5056
badly for the Bolsheviks. Ever since taking power in 1917,
5057
the Bolsheviks had become increasingly alienated from the
5058
working class. The spring and summer of 1918 saw <i>"great
5059
Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections"</i> in all provincial
5060
city elections that data is available for. The Mensheviks were
5061
the main beneficiaries of these election swings (Socialist
5062
Revolutionaries also gained) The Bolsheviks forcibly
5063
disbanded such soviets. They continually postponed elections
5064
and <i>"pack[ed] local soviets once they could no longer count
5065
on an electoral majority"</i> by giving representation to the
5066
organisations they dominated which made workplace elections
5067
meaningless. [Samuel Farber, <b>Before Stalinism</b>, pp. 22-4
5068
and p. 33] In Petrograd, such packing swamped the actual
5069
number of workplace delegates, transforming the soviets and
5070
making elections irrelevant. Of the 700-plus deputies to the
5071
"new" soviet, over half were elected by Bolshevik dominated
5072
organisations so ensuring a solid Bolshevik majority even
5073
before the factory voting began.
5075
Thus, the regime remained "soviet" in name only. Faced with a
5076
defeat in the soviets, the Bolsheviks simply abolished them
5077
or changed them to ensure their position. This process, it
5078
should be noted, started <b>before</b> the outbreak of Civil War
5079
in late May 1918, implying that Bolshevik authoritarianism
5080
cannot be explained as reactions to difficult objective
5083
Unsurprisingly, Bolshevik ideology started to adjust to the
5084
position the party found itself in. As Samuel Farber argues,
5085
in the <i>"period of March to June 1918, Lenin began to make
5086
frequent distinctions <b>within</b> the working class, singling
5087
out workers who could still be trusted, denouncing workers
5088
whom he accused of abandoning the working class and
5089
deserting to the side of the bourgeoisie, and complaining
5090
about how the working class had become 'infected with the
5091
disease of petty-bourgeois disintegration.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
5092
p. 25] Combined with the vision of "working-class" or
5093
"soviet" power expressed by the power of his party, this
5094
laid the foundations for what came next. In 1919 Lenin
5095
fully and explicitly argued that the "dictatorship of
5096
the proletariat" was, in fact, the dictatorship of the
5099
"we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of
5100
one party . . . we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one
5101
party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift
5102
from that position . . . '"</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 29,
5105
This quickly become Bolshevik orthodoxy. Trotsky argued in
5106
his infamous work <b>Terrorism and Communism</b> that there was
5107
<i>"no substitution at all"</i> when <i>"the power of the party"</i>
5108
replaces <i>"the power of the working class."</i> Zinoviev argued
5109
this point at the Second Congress of the Communist International.
5112
"Today, people like Kautsky come along and say that in Russia
5113
you do not have the dictatorship of the working class but the
5114
dictatorship of the party. They think this is a reproach against
5115
us. Not in the least! We have a dictatorship of the working
5116
class and that is precisely why we also have a dictatorship of
5117
the Communist Party. The dictatorship of the Communist Party
5118
is only a function, an attribute, an expression of the
5119
dictatorship of the working class . . . [T]he dictatorship
5120
of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of
5121
the Communist Party."</i> [<b>Proceedings and Documents of the
5122
Second Congress, 1920</b>, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]
5124
Neither Lenin nor Trotsky disagreed. By the end of the civil
5125
war, Lenin was arguing that <i>"the dictatorship of the proletariat
5126
cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole
5127
of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only
5128
over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still
5129
so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . . that
5130
an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly
5131
exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by
5132
a vanguard . . . the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be
5133
exercised by a mass proletarian organisation."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>,
5136
This places the Bolshevik betrayals of the Makhnovists in 1919
5137
and 1920 into <b>political</b> context. It also explains the Bolshevik
5138
opposition to the proposed fourth clause of the 1920 political
5139
and military agreement (see
5140
<a href="append46.html#app13">last section</a>). Simply put, at the
5141
time (and long afterwards) the Bolsheviks equated the revolution
5142
with their own power. As such, Makhnovist calls for soviet
5143
self-management threatened the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
5144
(i.e. dictatorship of the party) by encouraging working people
5145
to participate in the revolution and giving the radically false
5146
idea that working-class power could be exercised by working
5147
people and their own class organisations.
5149
Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev held this position until their deaths.
5150
Trotsky, for example, was arguing in 1923 that <i>"[i]f there is one
5151
question which basically not only does not require revision but
5152
does not so much as admit the thought of revision, it is the
5153
question of the dictatorship of the Party, and its leadership
5154
in all spheres of our work."</i> [<b>Leon Trotsky Speaks</b>, p. 158]
5155
Even after the rise of Stalinism, he was still arguing for the
5156
<i>"objective necessity"</i> of the <i>"revolutionary dictatorship of a
5157
proletarian party"</i> in 1937. He stressed that the <i>"revolutionary
5158
party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders
5159
the masses to the counter-revolution . . . Abstractly speaking,
5160
it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced
5161
by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling people without any
5162
party, but this presupposes such a high level of political
5163
development among the masses that it can never be achieved
5164
under capitalist conditions."</i> [Trotsky, <b>Writings 1936-37</b>,
5167
This suggests that the later Trotskyist argument that the Bolsheviks
5168
were forced by <i>"objective factors"</i> to replace the dictatorship of
5169
the proletariat by that of the party is false. At the time, and
5170
afterwards, the Bolsheviks did not argue in these terms. The
5171
end of soviet democracy was not considered a problem or a retreat
5172
for the revolution. The opposite was the case, with the elimination
5173
of democracy being raised to an ideological truism to be applied
5174
everywhere. Equally, the fact that the Makhnovists did all they
5175
could to promote soviet self-management and actually called
5176
regional congresses of workers, peasants and insurgents suggests
5177
that <i>"objective factors"</i> simply cannot explain Bolshevik actions.
5178
Simply put, like the Bolshevik betrayals of the Makhnovists, the
5179
Bolshevik elimination of soviet democracy by party dictatorship
5180
can only be fully understood by looking at Bolshevik ideology.
5182
Little wonder the Makhnovists argued as followed:
5184
"Since the arrival of the Bolsheviks the dictatorship of their
5185
party has been established here. As a party of statists, the
5186
Bolshevik Party everywhere has set up state organs for the
5187
purpose of governing the revolutionary people. Everything has
5188
to be submitted to their authority and take place under their
5189
vigilant eye. All opposition, protest, or even independent
5190
initiative has been stifled by their Extraordinary Commissions
5191
[the secret police, the Cheka]. Furthermore, all these
5192
institutions are composed of people who are removed from
5193
labour and from revolution. In other words, what has been
5194
created is a situation in which the labouring and
5195
revolutionary people have fallen under the surveillance
5196
and rule of people who are alien to the working classes,
5197
people who are inclined to exercise arbitrariness and
5198
violence over the workers. Such is the dictatorship of the
5199
Bolshevik-Communist Party . . .
5201
"We again remind the working people that they will liberate
5202
themselves from oppression, misery and violence only
5203
through their own efforts. No change in power will help
5204
them in this. Only by means of their own free worker-peasant
5205
organisations can the workers reach the summit of the
5206
social revolution -- complete freedom and real equality."</i>
5207
[quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b> pp. 116-7]
5209
Which brings us to the next issue, namely working-class
5210
freedom. For anarchists, the key point of a revolution is
5211
to increase working-class freedom. It means the end of
5212
hierarchy and the direct participation in the revolution
5213
by the working classes themselves. As Bakunin put it,
5214
<i>"revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands
5215
of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those
5216
of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately
5217
becomes reaction."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>,
5218
p. 237] For this reason, the Makhnovists (like Bakunin)
5219
argued for a revolutionary society based on free federations
5220
of worker and peasant organisations (free soviets).
5222
This means that actions which consolidated rule by a few
5223
cannot be revolutionary, even if the few are made up of
5224
the most revolutionary of the revolutionaries. Thus working
5225
class power cannot be equated to the power of a political
5226
party, no matter how <i>"socialist"</i> or <i>"revolutionary"</i> its
5227
ideas or rhetoric. This means that Bolshevik restrictions
5228
on working class freedom (of speech, assembly, press,
5229
organisation) struck at the heart of the revolution. It
5230
did not signify the defence of the revolution, but rather
5231
its defeat. Ultimately, as Emma Goldman quickly recognised,
5232
what the Bolsheviks called <i>"defence of the Revolution"</i>
5233
was <i>"really only the defence of [the] party in power."</i>
5234
[<b>My Disillusionment in Russia</b>, p. 57]
5236
Anarchists had long argued that, to quote Goldman again,
5237
there is <i>"no greater fallacy than the belief that aims
5238
and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics
5239
are another. This conception is a potent menace to social
5240
regeneration. All human experience teaches that methods
5241
and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim.
5242
The means employed become, through individual practice,
5243
part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it,
5244
modify it, and presently the aims and means become
5245
identical."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 260] The evolution of Bolshevik
5246
practice and theory reinforces this argument. The means
5247
used had an impact on the course of events, which in turn
5248
shaped the next set of means and the ideology used to
5251
This explains the Makhnovist and Bolshevik differences in
5252
relationship to working-class freedom. For anarchists, only
5253
freedom or the struggle for freedom can teach people to be
5254
free (and so is genuinely revolutionary). This explains why
5255
the Makhnovists not only proclaimed freedom of election, speech,
5256
press, assembly and organisation for working people, which
5257
was an essential revolutionary position, they also implemented
5259
<a href="append46.html#app7">section 7</a>). The Bolsheviks did the reverse, clamping
5260
down on the opposition at every occasion (including workers'
5261
strikes and protests). For the Makhnovists, working-class freedom
5262
was the key gain of the revolution, and so had to be introduced,
5263
practised and defended. Hence Makhno:
5265
"I consider it an inviolable right of the workers and peasants,
5266
a right won by the revolution, to call congresses on their
5267
own account, to discuss their affairs. That is why the
5268
prohibitions of such congresses, and the declaration
5269
proclaiming them illegal . . . , represent a direct and
5270
insolent violation of the rights of the workers."</i> [quoted
5271
by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 129]
5273
For the Bolsheviks, working-class freedom was something to
5274
fear. Back in 1903, Lenin laid the groundwork for this by
5275
arguing that the <i>"<b>spontaneous</b> development of the labour
5276
movement leads to it being subordinated to bourgeois ideology."</i>
5277
He stressed that <i>"the working class, exclusively by their own
5278
effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness . . .
5279
the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite
5280
independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement;
5281
it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of ideas among the
5282
revolutionary socialist intelligentsia."</i> This meant that <i>"Social
5283
Democratic [i.e. socialist] consciousness . . . could only be
5284
brought to them from without."</i> [<b>Essential Works of Lenin</b>,
5285
p. 82 and pp. 74-5] Clearly, if the workers turned against
5286
the party, then the workers were <i>"being subordinated to
5287
bourgeois ideology."</i> It was in their own interests, therefore,
5288
for the party to subordinate the workers and so soviet
5289
democracy became not an expression of working-class power
5290
but rather something which undermined it!
5292
This perspective can be seen when the Makhnovists liberated
5293
cities. In Alexandrovsk and Katerinoslav, the Bolsheviks
5294
proposed to the Makhnovists spheres of action - their <b>Revkom</b>
5295
(Revolutionary Committee) would handle political affairs and
5296
the Makhnovists military ones. Makhno advised them <i>"to go and
5297
take up some honest trade instead of seeking to impose their
5298
will on the workers."</i> Instead, the Makhnovists called upon
5299
<i>"the working population to participate in a general conference
5300
.. . . and it was proposed that the workers organise the life
5301
of the city and the functioning of the factories with their
5302
own forced and their organisations."</i> [Arshinov <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 154
5303
and p. 149] The differences between the Bolsheviks and
5304
Makhnovists could not be clearer.
5306
Lastly, we should note that while Lenin and the leading
5307
Bolsheviks wholeheartedly opposed working-class economic
5308
self-management by factory committees and instead urged
5309
"efficient" top-down one-man management, the Makhnovists
5310
supported working-class self-management of production.
5311
Under the Bolsheviks, as Arshinov argued, the
5312
<i>"nationalisation of industry, [while] removing the
5313
workers from the hands of individual capitalists,
5314
delivered them to the yet more rapacious hands of a
5315
single, ever-present capitalist boss, the State. The
5316
relations between the workers and this new boss are
5317
the same as earlier relations between labour and capital,
5318
with the sole difference that the Communist boss, the
5319
State, not only exploits the workers, but also punishes
5320
them himself . . . Wage labour has remained what it was
5321
before, except that it has taken on the character of an
5322
obligation to the State . . . It is clear that in all this
5323
we are dealing with a simple substitution of State
5324
capitalism for private capitalism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 71]
5325
The Makhnovist propaganda, in contrast, stressed the
5326
need for workers to socialise the means of production
5327
and place it under their direct management by their own
5328
class organs. In other words, the abolition of wage
5329
slavery by workers' self-management of production.
5331
Unsurprisingly, the Makhnovists supported the Kronstadt rebellion
5333
<a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt uprising?"</a>
5334
for more on Kronstadt). Indeed, there is
5335
significant overlap between the Kronstadt demands and the
5336
ideas of the Makhnovist movement. For example, the Makhnovist
5337
idea of free soviets is almost identical to the first three
5338
points of the Kronstadt programme and their land policy the
5339
same as point 11 of the Kronstadt demands. The Kronstadt
5340
rebels also raised the idea of <i>"free soviets"</i> and the <i>"third
5341
revolution,"</i> common Makhnovist slogans (see
5342
<a href="append42.html#app3">section 3</a> of the
5343
appendix <a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt uprising?"</a>
5344
for details). As one Bolshevik writer notes, it is <i>"characteristic
5345
that the anarchist-Makhnovists in the Ukraine reprinted the appeal
5346
of the Kronstadters, and in general did not hide their sympathy
5347
for them."</i> [quoted by Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 108] Voline also
5348
noted that the <i>"ideas and activities of the Makhnovist peasants
5349
were similar in all respects to those of the Kronstadt rebels
5350
in 1921."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 575]
5352
In summary, the major difference between the Makhnovists and
5353
the Bolsheviks is that the former stuck by and introduced their
5354
stated aims of <i>"soviet power"</i> and working-class freedom while
5355
the latter rejected them once they clashed with Bolshevik party
5358
<a name="app15"><h2>15 How do the modern followers of Bolshevism slander the Makhnovists?</h2>
5360
Many modern-day supporters of Bolshevism, on the rare occasions
5361
when they do mention the Makhnovist movement, simply repeat the
5362
old Bolshevik (and Stalinist) slanders against them.
5364
For example, this is what Joseph Seymour of the U.S. <b>Spartacus
5365
League</b> did. Their newspaper <b>Workers Vanguard</b> ran a series
5366
entitled <i>"Marxism vs. Anarchism"</i> and in part 7, during his
5367
discussion of the Russian Revolution, Seymour claimed:
5369
"The most significant counter-revolutionary force under the banner
5370
of anarchism was the Ukrainian peasant-based army of Nestor Makhno,
5371
which carried out pogroms against Jewish communities and collaborated
5372
with White armies against the Bolsheviks."</i> [<b>Workers Vanguard</b>,
5375
Seymour, needless to say, made these accusations without providing
5376
any documentation, and with good reason, for outside of Stalinist
5377
hagiographies, no evidence exists to support his claims. As we
5379
<a href="append46.html#app9">section 9</a>,
5380
the Makhnovists opposed anti-Semitism
5381
and did <b>not</b> conduct pogroms. Equally,
5382
<a href="append46.html#app12">section 12</a> proves
5383
that the Makhnovists did <b>not</b> collaborate with the Whites in
5384
any way (although this did not stop the Bolshevik press deliberately
5385
spreading the lie that they had).
5387
More recently, the UK Leninist <b>Revolutionary Communist Group</b>
5388
asserted in their paper that the Makhnovists <i>"joined with
5389
counter-revolutionary White and imperialist armies against
5390
socialist Russia. This band of brigands also carried out
5391
pogroms against Jewish communities in the Ukraine."</i> [<b>Fight
5392
Racism! Fight Imperialism!</b>, issue no. 174, p. 12] No evidence
5393
for such a claim was presented in the original review article.
5394
When an anarchist pointed out their assertion was <i>"falling
5395
back on a long tradition of Stalinist lies"</i> and asked
5396
for <i>"any historical references"</i> to support it, the
5397
paper replied by stating that while there were <i>"several"</i>
5398
references, it would
5399
give two: <i>"E.H. Carr refers to it in his history of the
5400
civil war. Also the anarchist historian Paul Avrich mentions
5401
it in his work <b>The anarchists in the Russian Revolution</b>."</i>
5402
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 175, p. 15]
5404
In reality, neither work says any such thing. Looking at the
5405
first (unnamed) one, assuming it is E.H. Carr's <b>The Bolshevik
5406
Revolution</B> there is no reference to pogroms carried out by the
5407
Makhnovists (looking in the index for "Makhno"). Which, perhaps,
5408
explains why the paper refused to provide a book title and
5409
page number. As far as the second reference goes, Avrich made
5410
no such claim in <b>The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution</b>.
5411
He <b>did</b> address the issue in his <b>Anarchist Portraits</b>,
5412
concluding such charges are false.
5414
And the name of the original article? Ironically, it was entitled
5415
<i>"The anarchist school of falsification"</i>!
5417
However, more sophisticated slanders, lies and distortions have
5418
been levelled at the Makhnovists by the supporters of Bolshevism.
5419
This is to be expected, as the experience of the Makhnovists
5420
effectively refute the claim that the Bolsheviks had no choice
5421
but to act as they did. It is hard to maintain a position that
5422
"objective conditions"</i> made the Bolsheviks act as they did
5423
when another mass revolutionary army, operating in the same
5424
environment, did not act in the same way. This means that the
5425
Makhnovists are strong evidence that Bolshevik politics played
5426
a key role in the degeneration of the Russian Revolution.
5427
Clearly such a conclusion is dangerous to Bolshevism and so
5428
the Maknovist movement must be attacked, regardless of the
5431
A recent example of this is John Rees' essay <i>"In Defence of
5432
October"</i> (<b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, pp. 3-82). Rees,
5433
a member of the UK Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) is at
5434
pains to downplay the role of Bolshevik ideology in the
5435
degeneration of the Russian Revolution. He argues that
5436
"objective factors"</i> ensured that the Bolsheviks acted
5437
as they did. The <i>"subjective factor"</i> was simply a choice
5438
between defeat and defence against the Whites: <i>"Within
5439
these limits Bolshevik policy was decisive."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
5440
p. 30] This explains his attack on the Makhnovist movement.
5441
Faced with the same <i>"objective factors"</i> as the Bolsheviks,
5442
the Makhnovists did not act in the same way. As such, the
5443
<i>"subjective factor"</i> amounts to more than Rees' stark
5444
choice and so objective conditions cannot explain everything.
5446
Clearly, then, the Makhnovists undermine his basic thesis.
5447
As such, we would expect a less than honest account of the
5448
movement and Rees does not disappoint. He talks about the
5449
<i>"muddled anarchism"</i> of Makhno, dismissing the whole movement
5450
as offering no alternative to Bolshevism and being without
5451
<i>"an articulated political programme."</i> Ultimately, for Rees,
5452
Makhno's <i>"anarchism was a thin veneer on peasant rebellion"</i>
5453
and while <i>"on paper"</i> the Makhnovists <i>"appeared to have a more
5454
democratic programme"</i> there were <i>"frauds."</i> [p. 57, p. 58, p. 61
5457
The reality of the situation is totally different. Ignoring
5458
the obvious contradiction (i.e. how can the Makhnovists have
5459
the appearance of a <i>"democratic programme"</i> and, simultaneously,
5460
not articulate it?) we shall analyse his account of the
5461
Makhnovist movement in order to show exactly how low the
5462
supporters of Bolshevism will go to distort the historical
5463
record for their own aims (see
5464
the appendix <a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt
5465
uprising?"</a> for Rees's
5466
distortions about the Kronstadt revolt). Once the selective
5467
and edited quotations provided by Rees are corrected, the
5468
picture that clearly emerges is that rather than the
5469
Makhnovists being <i>"frauds,"</i> it is Rees' account which
5470
is the fraud (along with the political tradition which
5473
Rees presents two aspects of his critique of the Makhnovists.
5474
The first is a history of the movement and its relationships
5475
(or lack of them) with the Bolsheviks. The second is a
5476
discussion of the ideas which the Makhnovists tried to put
5477
into practice. Both aspects of his critique are extremely
5478
flawed. Indeed, the errors in his history of the movement
5479
are so fundamental (and, indeed, so at odds with his
5480
references) that it suggests that ideology overcame objectivity
5481
(to be polite). The best that can be said of his account is that
5482
at least he does not raise the totally discredited accusation
5483
that the Makhnovists were anti-Semitic or <i>"kulaks."</i> However,
5484
he more than makes up for this by distorting the facts and
5485
references he uses (it would be no exaggeration to argue
5486
that the only information Rees gets correct about his sources
5487
is the page number).
5489
Rees starts by setting the tone, stating that the <i>"methods used
5490
by Makhno and Antonov [a leader of the "Greens" in Tambov]
5491
in their fight against the Red Army often mirrored those
5492
used by the Whites."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 57] Strangely enough,
5493
while he lists some for Antonov, he fails to specify any
5494
against Makhno. However, the scene is set. His strongest
5495
piece of evidence as regards Makhno's <i>"methods"</i> against
5496
the Red Army come from mid-1920 after, it should be noted,
5497
the Bolsheviks had engineered the outlawing of the
5498
Makhnovist movement and needlessly started the very conflict
5499
Rees uses as evidence against Makhno. In other words, he
5500
is attacking the Makhnovists for defending themselves
5501
against Bolshevik aggression!
5503
He quotes reports from the Ukrainian Front to blacken the
5504
Makhnovists, using them to confirm the picture he extracts
5505
from <i>"the diary of Makhno's wife."</i> These entries, from
5506
early 1920, he claims <i>"betray the nature of the movement"</i>
5507
(i.e. after, as we shall see, the Bolsheviks had engineered
5508
the outlawing of the Makhnovists). [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 58] The
5509
major problem for Rees' case is the fact that this diary
5510
is a fake and has been known to be a fake since Arshinov
5511
wrote his classic account of the Makhnovists in 1923:
5513
"After 1920, the Bolsheviks wrote a great deal about the
5514
personal defects of Makhno, basing their information on
5515
the diary of his so-called wife, a certain Fedora Gaenko
5516
.. . . But Makhno's wife is Galina Andreevna Kuz'menko. She
5517
has lived with him since 1918. She <b>never</b> kept, and therefore
5518
never lost, a diary. Thus the documentation of the Soviet
5519
authorities is based on a fabrication, and the picture
5520
these authorities draw from such a diary is an ordinary
5521
lie."</i> [Arshinov, <b>History of the Makhnovist Movement</b>,
5524
Ironically enough, Rees implicitly acknowledges this by lamely
5525
admitting (in an end note) that <i>"Makhno seems to have had two
5526
'wives'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 78] And we should note that the source
5527
Rees uses for the fake diary entries (W.H. Chamberlin's <b>The
5528
Russian Revolution</b>) uses as <b>his</b> source the very Bolshevik
5529
documentation that Arshinov quite correctly denounced over
5530
70 years before Rees put pen to paper. Little wonder Michael
5531
Palij, in his detailed account of the movement (<b>The Anarchism
5532
of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921</b>), fails to use it. So, in summary,
5533
a major part of his account is based on falsehoods, falsehoods
5534
exposed as such decades ago. This indicates well the quality
5535
of his case against the Makhnovist movement.
5537
As regards the "evidence" he extracts from this fake diary
5538
and Red Army reports, it simply shows that Bolsheviks were
5539
shot by Makhno's troops and Red Army troops died in combat.
5540
This went both ways, of course. In <i>"military operations the
5541
Bolsheviks shot all prisoners. The Makhnovists shot all
5542
captured officers unless the Red rank and file strongly
5543
interceded for them. The rank and file were usually sent
5544
home, though a number volunteered for service with the
5545
Insurgents."</i> Equally, <i>"[o]n the occupation of a village by
5546
the Red Army the Cheka would hunt out and hang all active
5547
Makhnovite supporters; an amenable Soviet would be set up;
5548
officials would be appointed or imported to organise the
5549
poor peasants . . . and three or four Red militia men left
5550
as armed support for the new village bosses."</i> [David Footman,
5551
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 292-3] As such, Rees' account of Makhnovist
5552
"terror" against the Bolsheviks seems somewhat hypocritical.
5553
We can equally surmise that the methods used by the Bolsheviks
5554
against the Makhnovists also <i>"often mirrored those used by the
5555
Whites"</i>! And Rees lambastes socialist Samuel Farber for
5556
mentioning the <i>"Red Terror, but not the Green Terror"</i> in
5557
Farber's discussion of the Tambov revolt! All in all, pretty
5560
Rees' concern for the truth can be seen from the fact that
5561
he asserts that Makhno's <i>"rebellion"</i> was <i>"smaller"</i> than
5562
the Tambov uprising and distinguished from it <i>"only by
5563
the muddled anarchism of its leader."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 58]
5564
In fact, the Makhnovist movement was the bigger of the
5565
two. As Michael Malet notes:
5567
"The differences between them explain why the Makhnovshchina
5568
lasted over four years, the Antonovshchina less than one
5569
year. The initial area of the Makhno movement was larger,
5570
and later expanded, whereas the Antonov region was restricted
5571
to the southern half of one province throughout its existence.
5572
The Makhno movement became established earlier, and was
5573
well-known before its break with the soviet regime. A
5574
crucial factor was the period of peace between the Bolsheviks
5575
and Makhno during the first half of 1919, something Antonov
5576
never had. It allowed for political and social development
5577
as well as military build-up. It followed from this that
5578
Makhno attracted much more support, which was increased
5579
and deepened by the positive ideology of Makhno and the
5580
anarchists who came to help him. This was not a matter of
5581
being anti-State and anti-town -- all the Greens, including
5582
Antonov, shared this view in a less sophisticated form --
5583
but a positive land policy and a realisation of the need
5584
to link up with the towns on a federal basis in the
5585
post-revolutionary society."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155]
5587
Even in terms of troops, the Makhno movement was larger.
5588
The Antonov rebellion had <i>"a peak of around 20,000"</i> troops.
5589
[Read, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 268] Makhno, in comparison, had a peak
5590
of about 40,000 in late 1919 [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 112] (Read
5591
states a peak of around 30,000 [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 264]). Even by
5592
the end of 1920, a few months into the Tambov rebellion
5593
(it started in August of that year), the Makhnovists still
5594
had 10 to 15 thousand troops. [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 237]
5596
In summary, the movement which lasted longer, covered a
5597
larger area and involved more troops is classed by Rees
5598
as the smaller of the two! Incredible -- but it does give
5599
a flavour of the scholarship involved in his essay. Perhaps
5600
by <i>"smaller"</i> Rees simply meant that Makhno was physically
5601
shorter than Antonov?
5603
After getting such minor details as size wrong, Rees
5604
turns to the actual history of the movement. He looks at
5605
the relations between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks,
5606
accurately stating that they <i>"were chequered."</i> However,
5607
he is wrong when he tries to explain what happened by
5608
stating they <i>"reflect[ed] the fast changing military
5609
situation in the Ukraine throughout the civil war."</i>
5610
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 58] In fact, as we will prove, the
5611
relationships between the two forces reflected the
5612
military situation refracted through the ideology and
5613
needs of Bolshevik power. To ignore the ideological
5614
factor in the Makhnovist-Bolshevik relationships cannot
5615
be justified as the military situation does <b>not</b> fully
5616
explain what happened.
5618
The Makhnovists co-operated with the Red Army three times.
5619
Only two of these periods were formal alliances (the first
5620
and last). Discussing the first two pacts, Rees alleges that
5621
the Makhnovists broke with the Bolsheviks. The truth is the
5622
opposite -- the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists and
5623
betrayed them in order to consolidate their power. These
5624
facts are hardly unknown to Rees as they are contained in
5625
the very books he quotes from as evidence for his rewritten
5628
The first pact between the Makhnovists and the Red Army
5629
ended June 1918. According to Rees, <i>"[c]o-operation
5630
continued until June 1919 when the Insurgent Army broke
5631
from the Red Army"</i> and quotes Michael Palij's book <b>The
5632
Anarchism of Nestor Makhno</b> as follows: <i>"as soon as Makhno
5633
left the front he and his associates began to organise new
5634
partisan detachments in the Bolsheviks' rear, which
5635
subsequently attacked strongholds, troops, police, trains
5636
and food collectors."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 58] Rees is clearly
5637
implying that Makhno attacked the Bolsheviks, apparently
5638
for no reason. The truth is totally different. It is easy
5639
to show this -- all we need to do is look at the book he
5642
Rees quotes Palij on page 177. This page is from chapter
5643
16, which is called <i>"The Bolsheviks Break with Makhno."</i>
5644
As this was not enough of a clue, Palij presents some
5645
necessary background for this Bolshevik break. He notes
5646
that before the break, <i>"the Bolsheviks renewed their
5647
anti-Makhno propaganda. Trotsky, in particular, led a
5648
violent campaign against the Makhno movement."</i> He also
5649
mentions that <i>"[a]t the same time, the supplies of arms
5650
and other war materials to Makhno were stopped, thus
5651
weakening the Makhno forces vis-a-vis the Denikin troops."</i>
5652
In this context, the Makhnovists Revolutionary Military
5653
Council <i>"decided to call a fourth congress of peasants,
5654
workers, and partisans"</i> for June 15th, 1919, which Trotsky
5655
promptly banned, warning the population that <i>"participation
5656
in the Congress shall be considered an act of state treason
5657
against the Soviet Republic and the front."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 175
5660
The Bolsheviks had, of course, tried to ban the third
5661
congress in April but had been ignored. This time, they
5662
made sure that they were not. Makhno and his staff
5663
were not informed of Trotsky's dictatorial order and
5664
learned of it three days later. On June 9th, Makhno
5665
sent a telegram informing the Bolsheviks that he was
5666
leaving his post as leader of the Makhnovists. He
5667
<i>"handed over his command and left the front with a
5668
few of his close associates and a cavalry detachment"</i>
5669
while calling upon the partisans to <i>"remain at the
5670
front to hold off Denikin's forces."</i> Trotsky ordered
5671
his arrest, but Makhno was warned in advance and
5672
escaped. On June 15-16th, members of Makhno's staff
5673
<i>"were captured and executed the next day."</i> <b>Now</b> Palij
5674
recounts how <i>"[a]s soon as Makhno left the front he
5675
and his associates began to organise new partisan
5676
detachments in the Bolsheviks' rear, which
5677
subsequently attacked strongholds, troops, police,
5678
trains and food collectors."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 177]
5680
Palij <i>"subsequently"</i> refers to Makhno after Denikin's
5681
breakthrough and his occupation of the Ukraine. <i>"The
5682
oppressive policy of the Denikin regime,"</i> he notes,
5683
<i>"convinced the population that it was as bad as the
5684
Bolshevik regime, and brought a strong reaction that
5685
led able young men . . . to leave their homes and join
5686
Makhno and other partisan groups."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 190]
5687
As Makhno put it, <i>"[w]hen the Red Army in south Ukraine
5688
began to retreat . . . as if to straighten the front
5689
line, but in reality to evacuate Ukraine . . . only
5690
then did my staff and I decide to act."</i> [quoted by
5691
Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 190] After trying to fight Denikin's
5692
troops, Makhno retreated and called upon his troops to leave
5693
the Red Army and rejoin the fight against Denikin. He <i>"sent
5694
agents amongst the Red troops"</i> to carry out propaganda
5695
urging them to stay and fight Denikin with the Makhnovists,
5696
which they did in large numbers. This propaganda was
5697
<i>"combined with sabotage."</i> Between these two events,
5698
Makhno had entered the territory of pogromist warlord
5699
Hryhoryiv (which did <b>not</b> contain Red troops as they
5700
were in conflict) and assassinated him. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 191
5703
It should also be noted that Palij states that it was the
5704
Whites who <i>"were the main enemy that Makhno fought, stubbornly
5705
and uncompromisingly, from the end of 1918 to the end of 1919."</i>
5706
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 177]
5708
Clearly, Rees's summary leaves a lot to be desired! Rather
5709
than Makhno attacking the Bolsheviks, it was they who broke
5710
with him -- as Palij, Rees's source, makes clear. Indeed,
5711
Makhno made no attempt to undermine the Red Army's campaign
5712
against Denikin (after all, that would have placed his troops
5713
and region in danger). Rather, he waited until the Bolsheviks
5714
showed that they would not defend the Ukraine against the
5715
Whites before he acted. As such, Rees misuses his source
5716
material and used Palij as evidence for a viewpoint which is
5717
the exact opposite of the one he recounts. The dishonesty is
5718
obvious. But, then again, it is understandable, as Trotsky
5719
banning a worker, peasant and partisan congress would
5720
hardly fit into Rees' attempt to portray the Bolsheviks
5721
as democratic socialists overcome by objective circumstances!
5722
Given that the Makhnovists had successfully held three such
5723
congresses to discuss the war against reaction, how could
5724
objective circumstances be blamed for the dictatorial
5725
actions of Trotsky and other leading Red Army officers in
5726
the Ukraine? Better not to mention this and instead rewrite
5727
history by making Makhno break with the Bolsheviks and attack
5730
Rees moves onto the period of co-operation between the
5731
insurgents and the Bolsheviks. His version of what happened
5732
is that <i>"Denikin's advance against Makhno's territory in
5733
autumn 1919 quickly forced a renewal of the treaty with the
5734
Bolsheviks. Makhno harassed Denikin's troops from the
5735
rear, making their advance more difficult."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
5738
A more accurate account of what happened would be that
5739
Makhno reorganised his troops after the Bolsheviks had
5740
retreated and evacuated the Ukraine. These troops included
5741
those that had been left in the Red Army in June, who now
5742
left to rejoin him (and brought a few Red Army units along
5743
too). After conducting quick and demoralising raids against
5744
Denikin's forces, the Makhnovists were forced to retreat to
5745
the West (followed by White forces). In late September, near
5746
Peregonovka, Makhno inflicted a major defeat against the
5747
following Whites and allowed the Makhnovists to attack
5748
across Denikin's supply lines (which stopped his attack
5749
on Moscow thus, ironically, saving the Bolshevik regime).
5750
Makhno's swift attack on the rear of the Whites ensured
5751
their defeat. As the correspondent of <b>Le Temps</b> observed:
5753
"There is no doubt that Denikin's defeat is explained
5754
more by the uprising of the peasants who brandished
5755
Makhno's black flag, then by the success of Trotsky's
5756
regular army. The partisan bands of 'Batko' tipped
5757
the scales in favour of the Reds."</i> [quoted by Palij,
5758
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 208]
5760
Palij argues that it was the <i>"rapidly changing military
5761
situation [which] soon caused a change in the Bolsheviks'
5762
attitude toward Makhno."</i> The two forces meet up on
5763
December 24th, 1919. However, <i>"[a]lthough the Bolsheviks
5764
fraternised with the Makhno troops and the commander
5765
even offered co-operation, they distrusted Makhno,
5766
fearing the popularity he had gained as a result of
5767
his successful fight against Denikin."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 209]
5768
It should also be stressed that <b>no</b> formal treaty
5771
Clearly, Rees' summary leaves a lot to be desired!
5773
This is not the end of it. Rees even attempts to blame
5774
the Makhnovists for the attack of General Wrangel. He
5775
argues that <i>"by the end of 1919 the immediate White
5776
threat was removed. Makhno refused to move his troops to
5777
the Polish front to meet the imminent invasion and
5778
hostilities with the Red Army began again on an even
5779
more widespread scale."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 58]
5781
This, needless to say, is a total distortion of the facts.
5782
Firstly, it should be noted that the <i>"imminent"</i> invasion
5783
by Poland Rees mentions did not, in fact, occur until
5784
<i>"the end of April"</i> (the 26th, to be precise). The break
5785
with Makhno occurred as a result of an order issued in
5786
early January (the 8th, to be precise). [Michael Palij,
5787
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 219 and p. 210] Clearly, the excuse of
5788
<i>"imminent"</i> invasion was a cover, as recognised by a
5789
source Rees himself uses, namely Palij's work:
5791
"The author of the order realised at that time there was no
5792
real war between the Poles and the Bolsheviks at that time
5793
and he also knew that Makhno would not abandon his region
5794
.. . . Uborevich [the author] explained that 'an appropriate
5795
reaction by Makhno to this order would give us the chance
5796
to have accurate grounds for our next steps' . . . [He]
5797
concluded: 'The order is a certain political manoeuvre and,
5798
at the very least, we expect positive results from Makhno's
5799
realisation of this.'"</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210]
5801
This is confirmed by Rees' other references. David Footman,
5802
whom Rees also uses for evidence against the Makhnovist
5803
movement, notes that while it was <i>"true there were military
5804
reasons for reinforcing"</i> the Polish frontier (although he
5805
also notes the significant fact that the war <i>"was not to
5806
break out for another four months"</i>), it was <i>"admitted on
5807
the Soviet side that this order was primarily 'dictated
5808
by the necessity' of liquidating <b>Makhnovshchina</b> as an
5809
independent movement. Only when he was far removed from
5810
his home country would it be possible to counteract his
5811
influence, and to split up and integrate his partisans
5812
into various Red Army formations."</i> He notes that there
5813
were <i>"other occasions (notably in Siberia) of the Soviet
5814
authorities solving the problem of difficult partisan
5815
leaders by sending them off to fight on distant fronts"</i>
5816
and, of course, that <i>"Makhno and his staff . . . were
5817
perfectly aware of the underlying Soviet motives."</i> Footman
5818
recounts how the Makhnovist staff sent a <i>"reasoned reply"</i> to
5819
the Bolsheviks, that there <i>"was no immediate response"</i> from
5820
them and in <i>"mid-January the Central Committee of the
5821
Ukrainian Communist Party declared Makhno and his force
5822
to be outside the law, and the Red Army attacked."</i> [<b>The
5823
Russian Civil War</b>, pp. 290-1]
5825
In other words, according to the sources Rees himself
5826
selects, the Bolsheviks <b>started</b> the conflict in order
5827
to eliminate opposition to their power!
5829
Needless to say, the Makhnovists <b>did</b> realise the political
5830
motivations behind the order. As Arshinov notes, <i>"[s]ending
5831
the insurrectionary army to the Polish front meant removing
5832
from the Ukraine the main nerve centre of the revolutionary
5833
insurrection. This was precisely what the Bolsheviks wanted:
5834
they would then be absolute masters of the rebellious region,
5835
and the Makhnovists were perfectly aware of this."</i> In addition,
5836
<i>"neither the 14th Corps nor any other unit of the Red Army
5837
had any ties with the Makhnovist army; least of all were
5838
they in a position to give orders to the insurrectionary
5839
army."</i> Nor does Rees mention that the Makhnovists considered
5840
the move <i>"physically impossible"</i> as <i>"half the men, the entire
5841
staff and the commander himself were in hospital with typhus."</i>
5842
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 163]
5844
Consider what Rees is (distortedly) accounting. The beginning
5845
of 1920 was a time of peace. The Civil War looked like it was
5846
over. The White Generals had been defeated. Now the Bolsheviks
5847
turn on their allies after issuing an ultimatum which they
5848
knew would never be obeyed. Under the circumstances, a stupider
5849
decision cannot be easily found! Moreover, the very logic of
5850
the order was a joke. Would be it wise to leave the Ukraine
5851
undefended? Of course not and if Red Army units were to stay
5852
to defend the region, why not the Makhnovists who actually
5853
came from the area in question? Why provoke a conflict when
5854
it was possible to transfer Red Army units to the Polish
5855
front? Simply put, Rees presents a distorted picture of
5856
what was happening in the Ukraine at the time simply so he
5857
can whitewash the Bolshevik regime and blacken the Makhnovists.
5858
As he himself later notes, the Bolshevik-Makhnovist conflict
5859
gave the White General Wrangel the space required to restart
5860
the Civil War. Thus the Bolshevik decision to attack the
5861
Makhnovists helped prolong the Civil War -- the very factor
5862
Rees blames the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and
5863
Bolshevik ideology and practice on!
5865
It is <b>now</b> that Rees presents his evidence of Makhnovist
5866
violence against the Bolsheviks (the Red Army reports and
5867
entries from the fake diary of Makhno's wife). Arguing
5868
that the entries from the fake diary <i>"betray the nature
5869
of the movement in this period,"</i> he tries to link them
5870
with Makhnovist theory. <i>"These actions,"</i> he argues, <i>"were
5871
consistent with an earlier resolution of the Insurgent
5872
Army which declared that it was 'the actions of the
5873
Bolshevik regime which cause a real danger to the
5874
worker-peasant revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59]
5876
Firstly, given a true account of the second break between the
5877
Makhnovists and Bolsheviks, it would be fair to conclude that
5878
the resolution was, in fact, correct! However, such facts
5879
are not mentioned by Rees, so the reader is left in ignorance.
5881
Secondly, to correct another of Rees' causal mistakes, it
5882
should be noted that this resolution was <b>not</b> passed by
5883
the Insurgent Army. Rather it was passed at the Second
5884
Regional Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents held
5885
at Hulyai Pole on February 12th, 1919. This congress had
5886
245 delegates, representing 350 districts and was one of
5887
four organised by the Makhnovists. Unsurprisingly, these
5888
regional congresses are not even mentioned by Rees in his
5889
account. This is for obvious reasons -- if the Makhnovists
5890
could organise congresses of workers, peasants and
5891
insurgents to discuss the progress of the revolution, then
5892
why could the Bolsheviks not manage it? Equally, to mention
5893
them would also mean mentioning that the Bolsheviks tried to
5894
ban one and succeeded in banning another.
5896
Thirdly, the tone of the congress was anti-Bolshevik simply
5897
because the Ukraine had had a taste of Bolshevik rule. As Rees
5898
himself acknowledges in a roundabout way, the Bolsheviks
5899
had managed to alienate the peasantry by their agricultural
5902
Fourthly, the Bolsheviks had engineered the outlawing of
5903
the Makhnovists. Thus the actions of the Makhnovists were
5904
<b>not</b> <i>"consistent"</i> with the earlier resolution. They were,
5905
in fact, <i>"consistent"</i> with self-defence against a repressive
5906
state which had attacked them first!
5908
Looking at the congress where the resolution was passed,
5909
we find that the list of <i>"real dangers"</i> was, quite
5910
simply, sensible and, in fact, in line with Leninist
5911
rhetoric. The resolution acknowledged the fact that
5912
the Bolshevik party was <i>"demanding a monopoly of the
5913
Revolution."</i> As we discussed in
5914
<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>, it
5915
was during this period that the Bolsheviks explicitly
5916
started to argue that the "dictatorship of the party"
5917
<b>was</b> the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The
5918
resolution also stated:
5920
"With deep regret the Congress must also declare that
5921
apart from external enemies a perhaps even greater danger,
5922
arising from its internal shortcomings, threatens the
5923
Revolution of the Russian and Ukrainian peasants and
5924
workers. The Soviet Governments of Russia and of the
5925
Ukraine, by their orders and decrees, are making efforts
5926
to deprive local soviets of peasants and workers'
5927
deputies of their freedom and autonomy."</i> [quoted by
5928
Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 267]
5932
"the political commissars are watching each step of the
5933
local soviets and dealing ruthlessly with those friends
5934
of peasants and workers who act in defence of peoples'
5935
freedom from the agency of the central government . . .
5936
The Bolshevik regime arrested left Socialist Revolutionaries
5937
and anarchists, closing their newspapers, stifling any
5938
manifestation of revolutionary expression."</i>
5940
Delegates also complained that the Bolshevik government
5941
had not been elected, that it was <i>"imposing upon us its
5942
party dictatorship"</i> and <i>"attempting to introduce its
5943
Bolshevik monopoly over the soviets."</i> [quoted by Palij,
5944
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 154]
5946
The resolution noted that the current situation was
5947
<i>"characterised by the seizure of power by the political
5948
party of Communists-Bolsheviks who do not balk at anything
5949
in order to preserve and consolidate their political power
5950
by armed force acting from the centre. The party is
5951
conducting a criminal policy in regard to the social
5952
revolution and in regard to the labouring masses."</i> To
5953
top it off, point number three read:
5955
"We protest against the reactionary habits of Bolshevik
5956
rulers, commissars, and agents of the Cheka, who are
5957
shooting workers, peasants, and rebels, inventing all
5958
kinds of excuses . . . The Cheka which were supposed to
5959
struggle with counterrevolution . . . have turned in the
5960
Bolsheviks' hands into an instrument for the suppression
5961
of the will of the people. They have grown in some cases
5962
into detachments of several hundred armed men with a
5963
variety of arms. We demand that all these forces be
5964
dispatched to the front."</i> [quoted by Vladimir N. Brovkin,
5965
<b>Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War</b>, pp. 109-10]
5967
We should also point out that Rees selectively quotes the
5968
resolution to distort its meaning. The resolution, in fact,
5969
<i>"urges the peasants and workers to watch vigilantly the
5970
actions of the Bolshevik regime that cause a real danger
5971
to the worker-peasant revolution."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Op.
5972
Cit.</b>, p. 154] We have listed some of the actions of the
5973
Bolsheviks that the congress considered as a <i>"real danger."</i>
5974
Considering the truth of these complaints, only someone
5975
blinded by Bolshevik ideology would consider it strange
5976
that worker and peasant delegates should agree to <i>"watch
5977
vigilantly"</i> those actions of the Bolsheviks which were
5978
a <i>"real danger"</i> to their revolution!
5980
Lenin (before taking power, of course) had argued that
5981
elections and recall to soviets were essential to ensure
5982
that the workers control the "workers' state" and that
5983
socialism required the elimination of <i>"special bodies of
5984
armed men"</i> by an armed population. To this day, his followers
5985
parrot his claims (while, simultaneously, justifying the exact
5986
opposite in Lenin's Russia). Now, is Rees <b>really</b> arguing
5987
that the Bolshevik monopoly of power, the creation of a
5988
secret police and the clamping down on working people's
5989
freedom were <b>not</b> dangers to the Russian Revolution
5990
and should not be watched <i>"vigilantly"</i>? If so, then his
5991
conception of revolution includes the strange notion that
5992
dictatorship by a party does not threaten a revolution!
5993
Then again, neither did the Bolsheviks (indeed, they
5994
thought calling worker, peasant and partisan congresses
5995
to discuss the development of the revolution as the real
5996
danger to it!). If not, then he cannot fault the regional
5997
congress resolution for pointing out the obvious. As such,
5998
Rees' misquoting of the resolution backfires on him.
6000
Significantly, Rees fails to mention that during this period
6001
(the first half of 1920), the Bolsheviks <i>"shot ordinary
6002
soldiers as well as their commanders, destroying their houses,
6003
confiscating their properties, and persecuting their families.
6004
Moreover the Bolsheviks conducted mass arrests of innocent
6005
peasants who were suspected of collaborating in some way
6006
with the partisans. It is impossible to determine the
6007
casualties involved."</i> The hypocrisy is clear. While Rees
6008
presents information (some of it, we stress, from a fake
6009
source) on Makhnovist attacks against the Bolshevik
6010
dictatorship, he remains silent on the Bolshevik tactics,
6011
violence and state terrorism. Given that the Bolsheviks had
6012
attacked the Makhnovists, it seems strange that that Rees
6013
ignores the <i>"merciless methods"</i> of the Bolsheviks (to use
6014
Palij's phrase) and concentrates instead on the acts of
6015
self-defence forced onto the Makhnovists. Perhaps this
6016
is because it would provide too strong a <i>"flavour"</i> of
6017
the Bolshevik regime? [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 212-3 and p. 213]
6019
Rees makes great play of the fact that White forces took
6020
advantage of the conflict between the Makhnovists and the
6021
Bolsheviks, as would be expected. However, it seems like
6022
an act of ideological faith to blame the victims of this
6023
conflict for it! In his attempts to demonise the Makhnovists,
6024
he argues that <i>"[i]n fact it was Makhno's actions against
6025
the Red Army which made 'a brief return of the Whites possible.'"</i>
6026
In defence of his claims, Rees quotes from W. Bruce Lincoln's
6027
<b>Red Victory</b>. However, looking at Lincoln's work we discover
6028
that Lincoln is well aware who is to blame for the return
6029
of the Whites. Unsurprisingly, it is <b>not</b> the Makhnovists:
6031
"Once Trotsky's Red Army had crushed Iudenich and Kolchak and
6032
driven Deniken's forces back upon their bases in the Crimea
6033
and the Kuban, it turned upon Makhno's partisan forces with
6034
a vengeance . . . [I]n mid-January 1920, after a typhus
6035
epidemic had decimated his forces, a re-established Central
6036
Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party declared Makhno
6037
an outlaw. Yet the Bolsheviks could not free themselves
6038
from Makhno's grasp so easily, and it became one of the
6039
supreme ironies of the Russian Civil War that his attacks
6040
against the rear of the Red Army made it possible for the
6041
resurrected White armies . . . to return briefly to the
6042
southern Ukraine in 1920."</i> [<b>Red Victory</b>, p. 327]
6044
Ignoring the fact that Rees does not bother to give the
6045
correct quote (a problem that re-occurs frequently in his
6046
essay), it can be seen that he does paraphrase the last
6047
sentence of Lincoln's work correctly. Strange, then, that
6048
he ignores the rest of his account which clearly indicates
6049
that the Bolsheviks <i>"turned upon"</i> the Makhnovists and
6050
<i>"declared Makhno an outlaw."</i> Obviously such trivial facts
6051
as the initial Bolshevik attacks against the Makhnovists
6052
are unimportant to understanding what actually happened in
6053
this period. Informing his readers that it was the Bolsheviks'
6054
betrayal of the Makhnovists which provoked the resistance
6055
that <i>"made it possible for . . . the White armies . . . to
6056
return briefly"</i> would confuse them with facts and so it
6059
Lincoln, it must be stressed, concurs with Rees's other main
6060
sources (Palij and Footman) on the fact that the Bolsheviks
6061
betrayed the Makhnovists! Clearly, Rees has rewritten history
6062
and distorted <b>all</b> of his main references on the Makhnovist
6063
movement. After reading the same fact in three different
6064
sources, you would think that the Bolshevik betrayal of the
6065
Makhnovists which provoked their resistance against them would
6066
warrant <b>some</b> mention, but no! In true Stalinist fashion,
6067
Rees managed to turn a Bolshevik betrayal of the Makhnovists
6068
into a stick with which to beat them with! Truly amazing.
6070
Simply put, if the Bolsheviks had not wanted to impose their
6071
rule over the Ukraine, then the conflict with the Makhnovists
6072
need not have taken place and Wrangel would not have been in a
6073
position to invade the Ukraine. Why did the Bolsheviks act
6074
in this way? There was no <i>"objective factor"</i> for this action
6075
and so we must turn to Bolshevik ideology.
6078
<a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>,
6079
Bolshevik ideology by this time
6080
identified Bolshevik party dictatorship as the only expression
6081
of "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Does Rees <b>really</b>
6082
believe that such perspectives had no impact on how the Bolsheviks
6083
acted during the Revolution? The betrayal of the Makhnovists can
6084
only be understood in terms of the <i>"subjective factor"</i> Rees seeks
6085
to ignore. If you think, as the Bolsheviks clearly did, that the
6086
dictatorship of the proletariat equalled the dictatorship of
6087
the party (and vice versa) then anything which threatened the
6088
rule of the party had to be destroyed. Whether this was soviet
6089
democracy or the Makhnovists did not matter. The Makhnovist idea
6090
of worker and peasant self-management, like soviet democracy,
6091
could not be reconciled with the Bolshevik ideology. As such,
6092
Bolshevik policy explains the betrayals of the Makhnovists.
6094
Not satisfied with distorting his source material to present
6095
the Makhnovists as the guilty party in the return of Wrangel,
6096
he decides to blame the initial success of Wrangel on them
6097
as well. He quotes Michael Palij as follows: <i>"As Wrangel
6098
advanced . . . Makhno retreated north . . . leaving behind
6099
small partisan units in the villages and towns to carry out
6100
covert destruction of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus
6101
and supply bases."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] He again sources Palij's
6102
work on the <i>"effective"</i> nature of these groups, stating
6103
that White Colonel Noga reported to headquarters that
6104
Makhno was critical to Wrangel's advance.
6106
As regards the claims that Makhno was <i>"critical"</i> to Wrangel's
6107
advance, Colonal Noga actually states that it was <i>"peasant
6108
uprisings under Makhno and many other partisan detachments"</i>
6109
which gave <i>"the Reds no rest."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6110
p. 214] However, what Rees fails to mention is that Palij
6111
argues that it was the Bolshevik <i>"policy of terror and
6112
exploitation"</i> which had <i>"turned almost all segments of
6113
Ukrainian society against the Bolsheviks, substantially
6114
strengthened the Makhno movement, and consequently
6115
facilitated the advance of the reorganised anti-Bolshevik
6116
force of General Wrangel from the Crimea into South Ukraine,
6117
the Makhno region."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 214] Again, Makhno
6118
is blamed for the inevitable results of Bolshevik policies
6121
It should also be reported that Noga's comments are dated
6122
25th March 1920, while Palij's summary of Makhno's activities
6123
retreating from Wrangel was about June 1920 -- 2 months
6124
later! As regards this advance by Wrangel, Palij argues
6125
that it was the <i>"outbreak of the Polish-Bolshevik war
6126
at the end of April"</i> which <i>"benefited Wrangel"</i> and
6127
<i>"enabled him to launch an offensive against the Bolsheviks
6128
in Tavriia on June 6th."</i> Indeed, it was after a <i>"series
6129
of battles"</i> that Wrangel <i>"penetrated north, forcing a
6130
general Bolshevik retreat."</i> Now, <i>"[a]s Wrangel advanced
6131
deeper into the Left Bank, Makhno retreated north to
6132
the Kharkiv region, leaving behind small partisan units
6133
in the villages and towns to carry on covert destruction
6134
of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus and supply
6135
bases."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 219] Again, Rees' account has
6136
little bearing to reality or the source material he
6139
Rees continues to re-write history by arguing that <i>"Makhno did
6140
not fight with the Reds again until October 1920 when Wrangel
6141
advanced on Makhno's base."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] In fact, it
6142
was the <b>Makhnovists</b> who contacted the Bolsheviks in July
6143
and August in 1920 with a view to suspending hostilities
6144
and co-operating in the fight against Wrangel. This decision
6145
was made at a mass assembly of insurgents. Sadly, the
6146
Bolsheviks made no response. Only in September, after
6147
Wrangel had occupied many towns, did the Bolsheviks
6148
enter into negotiations. [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 176-7]
6149
This is confirmed by Footman, who states that it is <i>"agreed
6150
that the initiative for joint action against Wrangel came
6151
from the Makhnovists"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 294], as well as by Palij,
6152
who notes that <i>"Makhno was compelled to seek an understanding
6153
with the Bolsheviks"</i> but <i>"no reply was received."</i> It was
6154
<i>"Wrangel's success [which] caused the Bolshevik leaders to
6155
reconsider Makhno's earlier proposal."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 222-3]
6156
Obviously indicating that the Makhnovists placed the struggle
6157
against the White counter-revolution above their own politics
6158
would place the Bolsheviks in a bad light, and so Rees fails
6159
to give the details behind the agreement of joint action
6162
As regards this third and final break, Rees states that it was
6163
(<i>"unsurprisingly"</i>) a <i>"treaty of convenience on the part of both
6164
sides and as soon as Wrangel was defeated at the end of the
6165
year the Red Army fought Makhno until he have up the struggle."</i>
6166
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] Which, as far as it goes, is true. Makhno,
6167
however, <i>"assumed [that] the forthcoming conflict with the
6168
Bolsheviks could be limited to the realm of ideas"</i> and that
6169
they <i>"would not attack his movement immediately."</i> [Palij,
6170
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231] He was wrong. Instead the Bolsheviks
6171
attacked the Makhnovists without warning and, unlike the
6172
other breaks, without pretext (although leaflets handed
6173
out to the Red Army stated that <b>Makhno</b> had <i>"violat[ed]
6174
the agreement"</i>! [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 236]).
6176
It would be a good idea to reproduce the agreement which the
6177
Bolsheviks ripped up. There were two parts, a military and a
6178
political one. The military one is pretty straight forward
6179
(although the clause on the Makhnovists refusing to accept
6180
Red Army detachments or deserters suggests that the
6181
Makhnovists' democratic army was seen by many Red Army
6182
soldiers as a better alternative to Trotsky's autocratic
6183
structure). The political agreement was as follows:
6185
"1. Immediate release, and an end to the persecution of
6186
all Makhno men and anarchists in the territories of the
6187
Soviet Republics, except those who carry on armed
6188
resistance against Soviet authorities.
6190
"2. Makhno men and anarchists were to have complete
6191
freedom of expression of their ideas and principles,
6192
by speech and the press, provided that nothing was
6193
expressed that tended to a violent overthrow of
6194
Soviet government, and on condition that military
6195
censorship be respected. . .
6197
"3. Makhno men and anarchists were to enjoy full rights
6198
of participation in elections to the soviets, including
6199
the right to be elected, and free participation in the
6200
organisation of the forthcoming Fifth All-Ukrainian
6201
Congress of Soviets . . ."</i> [cited by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6204
Needless to say, the Bolsheviks delayed the publication
6205
of the political agreement several until several days
6206
after the military one was published -- <i>"thus blurring
6207
its real meaning."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 225] Clearly,
6208
as it stands, the agreement just gave the Makhnovists
6209
and anarchists the rights they should have had according
6210
to the Soviet Constitution! Little wonder the Bolsheviks
6211
ignored it -- they also ignored their own constitution.
6212
However, it is the fourth point of the political agreement
6213
which gives the best insight into the nature of Bolshevism.
6214
This last point was never ratified by the Bolsheviks as
6215
it was <i>"absolutely unacceptable to the dictatorship of
6216
the proletariat."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Ibid.</b>] This clause
6219
"One of the basic principles of the Makhno movement
6220
being the struggle for the self-administration of the
6221
toilers, the Partisan Army brings up a fourth point:
6222
in the region of the Makhno movement, the worker and
6223
peasant population is to organise and maintain its
6224
own free institutions for economic and political
6225
self-administration; this region is subsequently
6226
federated with Soviet republics by means of agreements
6227
freely negotiated with the appropriate Soviet
6228
governmental organ."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6231
Clearly, this idea of worker and peasant self-management,
6232
like soviet democracy, could not be reconciled with the
6233
Bolshevik support for party dictatorship as the expression
6234
of <i>"the dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> which had become
6235
a Bolshevik ideological truism by that time. Little wonder
6236
the Bolsheviks failed to ratify the fourth clause and
6237
violated the other agreements. Simply put, a libertarian
6238
alternative to Bolshevism would give the Russian and
6239
Ukrainian working masses hope of freedom and make them
6240
harder to control. It is unsurprising that Rees fails to
6241
discuss the treaty -- it would, yet again, undermine his case
6242
that the Bolsheviks were forced by objective circumstances
6245
And, of course, let us not forget the circumstances in
6246
which this betrayal took place. The country was, as Rees
6247
reminds us, in a state of economic disruption and collapse.
6248
Indeed, Rees blames the anti-working class and dictatorial
6249
actions and policies of the Bolsheviks on the chaos caused
6250
by the civil war. Yet here are the Bolsheviks prolonging
6251
this very Civil War by turning (yet again!) on their allies.
6252
After the defeat of the Whites, the Bolsheviks preferred
6253
to attack the Makhnovists rather than allow them the freedom
6254
they had been fighting for. Resources which could have been
6255
used to aid the economic rebuilding of Russia and the Ukraine
6256
were used to attack their former allies. The talents and
6257
energy of the Makhnovists were either killed or wasted in a
6258
pointless conflict. Should we be surprised? After all, the
6259
Bolsheviks had preferred to compound their foes during the
6260
Civil War (and, indirectly, aid the very Whites they were
6261
fighting) by betraying their Makhnovist allies on two
6262
previous occasions (once, because the Makhnovists had
6263
dared call a conference of working people to discuss the
6264
civil war being fought in their name). Clearly, Bolshevik
6265
politics and ideology played a key role in all these
6266
decisions. They were <b>not</b> driven by terrible objective
6267
circumstances (indeed, they made them worse).
6269
Rees obviously distorted the truth about the first two
6270
agreements between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks. He
6271
portrayed the Makhnovists as the guilty party, "breaking"
6272
with the Bolsheviks when in fact it was (in both cases)
6273
the Bolsheviks who broke with and betrayed the Makhnovists.
6274
That explains why he fails to present any information on
6275
<b>why</b> the first break happened and why he distorts the
6276
events of the second. It cannot be said that he was unaware
6277
of these facts -- they are in the very books he himself
6278
references! As such, we have a clear and intended desire
6279
to deceive the reader. As regards the third agreement,
6280
while he makes no pretence that the Makhnovists were the
6281
guilty party however, he implies that the Bolsheviks had
6282
to act as they did before the Makhnovists turned on them.
6283
Little wonder, then, that he does not provide the details
6284
of the agreement made between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovists
6285
-- to do so would have been to expose the authoritarianism
6286
of the Bolsheviks. Simply put, Rees'distortions of the
6287
source material he uses comes as no surprise. It undermines
6288
his basic argument and so cannot be used in its original
6289
form. Hence the cherry-picking of quotations to support his
6292
After distorting Makhnovist relations with the Bolsheviks,
6293
Rees moves on to distorting the socio-political ideas and
6294
practice of the Makhnovists. As would be expected from his
6295
hatchet-job on the military history of the movement, his
6296
account of its social ideas leaves much to be desired.
6297
However, both aspects of his critique have much in common.
6298
His account of its theoretical ideas and its attempts to
6299
apply them again abuse the source material in disgraceful
6302
For example, Rees states that under the Makhnovists
6303
<i>"[p]apers could be published, but the Bolshevik and Left
6304
Socialist Revolutionary press were not allowed to call for
6305
revolution"</i> and references Michael Palij's book. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6306
p. 60] Looking at the page in question, we discover a somewhat
6307
different account. According to Palij's work, what the
6308
Makhnovists <b>actually</b> <i>"prohibited"</i> was that these parties
6309
should <i>"propagate armed uprisings against the Makhnovist
6310
movement."</i> A clear rewriting of the source material and an
6311
indication of how low Leninists will sink. Significantly,
6312
Palij also notes that this <i>"freedom of speech, press, assembly
6313
and association"</i> was implemented <i>"[i]n contrast to the Bolshevik
6314
regime"</i> and its policy of crushing such liberties. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>
6315
pp. 152-3] Ironically, the military-political agreement of
6316
late 1920 between the Reds and Makhnovists included a similar
6317
clause, banning expression that <i>"tended to a violent overthrow
6318
of the Soviet government."</i> [quoted by Palij, <B>OP. Cit.</b>, p. 224]
6319
Which means, to use Rees' distorted terminology, that the
6320
Bolsheviks banned calls for revolution!
6322
However, this distortion of the source material <b>does</b> give
6323
us an insight into the mentality of Leninism. After all,
6324
according to Palij, when the Makhnovists entered a city
6325
or town they <i>"immediately announced to the population that
6326
the army did not intend to exercise political authority."</i>
6327
The workers and peasants were to set up soviets <i>"that would
6328
carry out the will and orders of their constituents"</i> as well
6329
as <i>"organis[e] their own self-defence force against
6330
counter-revolution and banditry."</i> These political changes
6331
were matched in the economic sphere as well, as the
6332
<i>"holdings of the landlords, the monasteries and the state,
6333
including all livestocks and goods, were to be transferred
6334
to the peasants"</i> and <i>"all factories, plants, mines, and other
6335
means of production were to become property of all the workers
6336
under control of their professional unions."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6339
In such an environment, a call for <i>"revolution"</i> (or, more
6340
correctly, <i>"armed uprisings against the Makhno movement"</i>)
6341
could only mean a Bolshevik coup to install a Bolshevik party
6342
dictatorship. As the Makhnovists were clearly defending working-
6343
class and peasant self-government, then a Bolshevik call for
6344
<i>"armed uprisings"</i> against them also meant the end of such free
6345
soviets and their replacement with party dictatorship. Little
6346
wonder Rees distorts his source! Arshinov makes the situation
6349
"The only restriction that the Makhnovists considered
6350
necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks, the left
6351
Socialist Revolutionaries and other statists was a
6352
prohibition on the formation of those 'revolutionary
6353
committees' which sought to impose a dictatorship over
6354
the people. In Aleksandrovsk and Ekaterinoslav, right
6355
after the occupation of these cities by the Makhnovists,
6356
the Bolsheviks hastened to organise <b>Revkoms</b>
6357
(<b>Revolutionary Committees</b> ) seeking to organise their
6358
political power and govern the population . . .
6359
Makhno advised them to go and take up some honest trade
6360
instead of seeking to impose their will on the
6361
workers . . . In this context the Makhnovists' attitude
6362
was completely justified and consistent. To protect the
6363
full freedom of speech, press, and organisation, they
6364
had to take measures against formations which sought to
6365
stifle this freedom, to suppress other organisations,
6366
and to impose their will and dictatorial authority on
6367
the workers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 154]
6369
Little wonder Rees distorts the issues and transforms
6370
a policy to defend the <b>real</b> revolution into one which
6371
banned a <i>"call for revolution"</i>! We should be grateful
6372
that he distorted the Makhnovist message for it allows
6373
us to indicate the dictatorial nature of the regime
6374
and politics Rees is defending.
6376
All of which disproves Rees' assertion that <i>"the movement
6377
never had any real support from the working class. Neither
6378
was it particularly interested in developing a programme
6379
which would appeal to the workers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] Now,
6380
Rees had obviously read Palij's summary of Makhnovist ideas.
6381
Is he claiming that workers' self-management and the
6382
socialisation of the means of production do not <i>"appeal"</i>
6383
to workers? After all, most Leninists pay lip-service to
6384
these ideas. Is Rees arguing that the Bolshevik policies
6385
of the time (namely one-man management and the militarisation
6386
of labour) <i>"appealed"</i> to the workers more than workers'
6387
self-management of production? Equally, the Makhnovists
6388
argued that the workers should form their own free soviets
6389
which would <i>"carry out the will and orders of their
6390
constituents."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 151] Is Rees <b>really</b>
6391
arguing that the Bolshevik policy of party dictatorship
6392
<i>"appealed"</i> to the workers more than soviet democracy?
6393
If so, then heaven help us if the SWP ever get into power!
6395
Luckily, as Jonathan Aves' book <b>Workers Against Lenin</b> proves,
6396
this was not the case. Working-class resistance to Bolshevik
6397
policies was extremely widespread and was expressed by strikes.
6398
It should be noted that the wave of strikes all across Russia
6399
which preceded the Kronstadt revolt also raised the demand
6400
for soviet democracy. The call for <i>"free soviets"</i> was raised
6401
by the Kronstadt revolt itself and during the "mini-Kronstadt"
6402
in Katerinoslav in June 1921 where the demands of the workers
6403
<i>"were very similar in content with the resolutions of the
6404
Kronstadt rebels"</i> and telegraph operators sent <i>"messages
6405
throughout the Soviet Republic calling for 'free soviets.'"</i>
6406
[Jonathan Aves, <b>Workers Against Lenin</b>, p. 172 and p. 173]
6408
Clearly, the Makhnovists <b>did</b> create a <i>"programme that would
6409
appeal to the workers."</i> However, it is true that the Makhnovists
6410
did fail win over more than a minority of workers. This may
6411
have been due to the fact that the Makhnovists only freed two
6412
cities, both for short periods of time. As Paul Avrich notes,
6413
"he found little time to implement his economic programs."</i>
6414
[<b>Anarchist Portraits</b>, p. 121] Given how Rees bends over
6415
backwards to justify Bolshevik policies in terms of <i>"objective
6416
factors,"</i> it is significant that in his discussion of the
6417
Makhnovists such <i>"objective factors"</i> as time fail to get a
6420
Thus Rees's attempt to paint the Makhnovists as anti-working
6421
class fails. While this is the core of his dismissal of them
6422
as a possible <i>"libertarian alternative to the Bolsheviks,"</i>
6423
the facts do not support his assertions. He gives the example
6424
of Makhno's advice to railway workers in Aleksandrovsk <i>"who
6425
had not been paid for many weeks"</i> that they should <i>"simply
6426
charge passengers a fair price and so generate their own
6427
wages."</i> He states that this <i>"advice aimed at reproducing
6428
the petit-bourgeois patterns of the countryside."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6429
p. 59] Two points can be raised to this argument.
6431
Firstly, we should highlight the Bolshevik (and so,
6432
presumably, <i>"proletarian"</i>) patterns imposed on the
6433
railway workers. Trotsky simply <i>"plac[ed] the railwaymen
6434
and the personnel of the repair workshops under martial
6435
law"</i> and <i>"summarily ousted"</i> the leaders of the railwaymen's
6436
trade union when they objected."</i> The Central Administrative
6437
Body of Railways (Tsektran) he created was run by him
6438
<i>"along strictly military and bureaucratic lines."</i> In other
6439
words, he applied his ideas on the <i>"militarisation of
6440
labour"</i> in full. [M. Brinton, <b>The Bolsheviks and Workers'
6441
Control</b>, p. 67] Compared to the Bolshevik pattern, only
6442
an ideologue could suggest that Makhno's advice (and it
6443
was advice, not a decree imposed from above, as was
6444
Trotsky's) can be considered worse. Indeed, by being
6445
based on workers' self-management it was infinitely
6446
more socialist than the militarised Bolshevik state
6449
Secondly, Rees fails to understand the nature of
6450
anarchism. Anarchism argues that it is up to working
6451
class people to organise their own activities. This
6452
meant that, ultimately, it was up to the railway
6453
workers <b>themselves</b> (in association with other
6454
workers) to organise their own work and industry.
6455
Rather than being imposed by a few leaders, <b>real</b>
6456
socialism can only come from below, built by working
6457
people, through their own efforts and own class
6458
organisations. Anarchists can suggest ideas and solutions,
6459
but ultimately its up to workers (and peasants) to organise
6460
their own affairs. Thus, rather than being a source of
6461
condemnation, Makhno's comments should be considered as
6462
praiseworthy as they were made in a spirit of equality
6463
and were based on encouraging workers' self-management.
6465
Ultimately, the best reply to Rees is simply the fact
6466
that after holding a <i>"general conference of the workers
6467
of the city"</i> at which it was <i>"proposed that the workers
6468
organise the life of the city and the functioning of the
6469
factories with their own forces and their own organisations"</i>
6470
based on <i>"the principles of self-management,"</i> the <i>"[r]ailroad
6471
workers took the first step in this direction"</i> by <i>"form[ing]
6472
a committee charged with organising the railway network of
6473
the region."</i> [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 149]
6475
Even more amazing (if that is possible) is Rees' account of
6476
the revolution in the countryside. Rees argues that the <i>"real
6477
basis of Makhno's support was not his anarchism, but his
6478
opposition to grain requisitioning and his determination not
6479
to disturb the peasant economy"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] and quotes
6482
"Makhno had not put an end to the agricultural inequalities.
6483
His aim was to avoid conflicts with the villages and to
6484
maintain a sort of united front of the entire peasantry."</i>
6485
[M. Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 214]
6487
However, here is the actual context of the (corrected) quote:
6489
"Peasants' economic conditions in the region of the Makhno
6490
movement were greatly improved at the expense of the estates
6491
of the landlords, the church, monasteries, and the richest
6492
peasants, but Makhno had not put an end to the agricultural
6493
inequalities. His aim was to avoid conflicts within the
6494
villages and to maintain a sort of united front of the
6495
entire peasantry."</i> [M. Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 214]
6497
Clearly, Rees has distorted the source material, conveniently
6498
missing out the information that Makhno had most definitely
6499
"disturbed"</i> the peasant economy at the expense of the rich!
6500
And, we are sure that Rees would have a fit if it were suggested
6501
that the real basis of Bolshevik support was not their socialism,
6502
but their opposition to the war and the Whites!
6504
Amazingly, Rees also somehow manages to forget to mention the
6505
peasant revolution which had started in 1917 in his attack
6508
"Makhno and his associates brought socio-political issues
6509
into the daily life of the people, who in turn supported the
6510
expropriation of large estates . . . On the eve of open
6511
conflict [in late 1917], Makhno assembled all the landowners
6512
and rich peasants (kulaks) of the area and took from them
6513
all official documents relating to their land, livestock,
6514
and equipment. Subsequently an inventory of this property
6515
was taken and reported to the people at the session of
6516
the local soviet, and then at the regional meeting, It
6517
was decided to allow the landlords to share the land,
6518
livestock, and tools equally with the peasants."</i> [Palij,
6519
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 71]
6521
Obviously, Rees considers the expropriating of the
6522
landlords and kulaks as an act which <i>"did not disturb
6523
the age-old class structure of the countryside"</i>!
6525
Let us not forget that the official Makhnovist position was
6526
that the <i>"holdings of the landlords, the monasteries, and
6527
the state, including all livestock and goods, were to be
6528
transferred to the peasants."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 151]
6529
At the second congress of workers, peasants and insurgents
6530
held in February, 1919, it was resolved that <i>"all land be
6531
transferred to the hands of toiling peasants . . . according
6532
to the norm of equal distribution."</i> [quoted by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6533
p. 155] This meant that every peasant family had as much
6534
land as they could cultivate without the use of hired labour.
6535
The Makhnovists argued with regards to the kulaks:
6537
"We are sure that . . . the kulak elements of the village
6538
will be pushed to one side by the very course of events.
6539
The toiling peasantry will itself turn effortlessly on the
6540
kulaks, first by adopting the kulak's surplus land for
6541
general use, then naturally drawing the kulak elements
6542
into the social organisation."</i> [cited by Michael Malet,
6543
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 118-9]
6545
Thus, just to stress the point, the Makhnovists <b>did</b>
6546
<i>"disturb"</i> the <i>"age-old class structure of the countryside."</i>
6548
Clearly, Rees is simply taking nonsense. When he states that
6549
Makhnovist land policies <i>"did not disturb the age-old class
6550
structure of the countryside,"</i> he is simply showing his utter
6551
and total disregard for the truth. As the Bolsheviks themselves
6552
found out, no mass movement could possibly exist among the
6553
peasants without having a positive and levelling land policy.
6554
The Makhnovists were no exception.
6556
Rees then states that <i>"[i]n 1919 the local Bolshevik
6557
authorities made mistakes which played into Makhno's hands."</i>
6558
Unsurprisingly enough, he argues that this was because
6559
they <i>"tried to carry through the socialisation of the
6560
land, rather than handing it over to the peasants."</i>
6561
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60] In fact, the Bolsheviks did <b>not</b> try
6562
to implement the <i>"socialisation"</i> of land. Rather, they
6563
tried to <b>nationalise</b> the land and place it under state
6564
control -- a radically different concept. Indeed, it was
6565
the Makhnovists who argued that the <i>"land, the factories,
6566
the workshops, the mines, the railroads and the other
6567
wealth of the people must belong to the working people
6568
themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say,
6569
they must be socialised."</i> [contained in Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6570
p. 273] The Bolsheviks, in contrast, initially <i>"decreed
6571
that all lands formerly belonging to the landlords should
6572
be expropriated and transformed into state farms."</i> [Palij,
6573
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156] The peasants quite rightly thought that
6574
this just replaced one set of landlords with another,
6575
stealing the land which rightfully belonged to them.
6577
After distorting the source material by selective quoting,
6578
Rees does it again when he argues that <i>"by the spring of 1920
6579
they [the Bolsheviks] had reversed the policy towards the
6580
peasants and instituted Committees of Poor Peasants, these
6581
'hurt Makhno . . . his heart hardened and he sometimes ordered
6582
executions.' This policy helped the Bolshevik ascendancy."</i>
6583
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60]
6585
Rees quotes Palij as evidence. To refute his argument we need
6586
simply quote the same pages:
6588
"Although they [the Bolsheviks] modified their agricultural
6589
policy by introducing on February 5, 1920, a new land law,
6590
distributing the former landlords', state and church lands
6591
among the peasants, they did not succeed in placating them
6592
because of the requisitions, which the peasants considered
6593
outright robbery . . . Subsequently the Bolsheviks decided
6594
to introduce class warfare into the villages. A decree was
6595
issued on May 19, 1920, establishing 'Committees of the
6596
Poor' . . . Authority in the villages was delegated to the
6597
committees, which assisted the Bolsheviks in seizing the
6598
surplus grain . . . The establishment of Committees of the
6599
Poor was painful to Makhno because they became not only
6600
part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus the
6601
peasants opposed, but also informers helping the Bolshevik
6602
secret police in its persecution of the partisans, their
6603
families and supporters, even to the extent of hunting
6604
down and executing wounded partisans . . . Consequently,
6605
Makhno's 'heart hardened and he sometimes ordered
6606
executions where some generosity would have bestowed
6607
more credit upon him and his movement. That the Bolsheviks
6608
preceded him with the bad example was no excuse. For he
6609
claimed to be fighting for a better cause.' Although the
6610
committees in time gave the Bolsheviks a hold on every
6611
village, their abuse of power disorganised and slowed
6612
down agricultural life . . . This policy of terror and
6613
exploitation turned almost all segments of Ukrainian
6614
society against the Bolsheviks, substantially strengthened
6615
the Makhno movement, and consequently facilitated the
6616
advance of the reorganised anti-Bolshevik force of General
6617
Wrangel from the Crimea into South Ukraine, the Makhno
6618
region."</i> [M. Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 213-4]
6620
Amazing what a <i>". . ."</i> can hide, is it not! Rees turns
6621
an account which clearly shows the Bolshevik policy was
6622
based on informers, secret police and the murder of
6623
rebels as well as being a total disaster into a victory.
6624
Moreover, he also transforms it so that the victims are
6625
portrayed as the villains. Words cannot do this re-writing
6626
of history justice. Yes, indeed, an organisation of
6627
informers to the secret police in every village can aid
6628
the <i>"ascendancy"</i> of a one-party dictatorship (aided,
6629
of course, by overwhelming military force), but it
6630
cannot aid the ascendancy of freedom, equality and
6633
Given the actual record of the Bolsheviks' attempts to break
6634
up what they considered the <i>"age-old class structure"</i> of the
6635
villages with the <i>"Committees of the Poor,"</i> it is clear why
6636
Rees distorts his source.
6638
It does seem ironic that Rees attacks the Makhnovists for not
6639
pursuing Bolshevik peasant policies. Considering the absolute
6640
<b>failure</b> of those policies, the fact that Makhno did not follow
6641
them is hardly cause for condemnation! Indeed, given the numerous
6642
anti-Bolshevik uprisings and large-scale state repression they
6643
provoked, attacking the Makhnovists for not pursuing such insane
6644
policies is equally insane. After all, who, in the middle of a
6645
Civil War, makes matters worse for themselves by creating more
6646
enemies? Only the insane -- or the Bolsheviks!
6648
That Makhnovist land policy was correct and the Bolshevik
6649
one wrong can be seen from the fact that the latter
6650
changed their policies and brought them into line with
6651
the Makhnovist ones. As Palij notes, the Bolsheviks
6652
<i>"modified their agricultural policy by introducing on
6653
February 5, 1920, a new land law, distributing the
6654
formers landlords', state, and church lands among the
6655
peasants."</i> This, of course, was a vindication of
6656
Makhnovist policy (which dated from 1917!). Makhno
6657
<i>"initiated the peasants' movement, confiscating and
6658
distributing landlords' land and goods"</i> (and, unlike
6659
the Bolsheviks, <i>"encouraging the workers to take over
6660
factories and workshops"</i>). As regards the Bolsheviks
6661
attempts to break up what they considered the <i>"age-
6662
old class structure"</i> of the villages with the <i>"Committees
6663
of the Poor,"</i> it was, as noted above, a complete
6664
disaster and counter-productive. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 213
6665
and p. 250] All in all, the Makhnovist policies were
6666
clearly the most successful as regards the peasantry.
6667
They broke up the class system in the countryside
6668
by expropriating the ruling class and did not create
6669
new conflicts by artificially imposing themselves
6672
Lastly, we must also wonder just how sensible it is to
6673
<i>"disturb"</i> the economy that produces the food you eat.
6674
Given that Rees, in part, blames Bolshevik tyranny on
6675
the disruption of the economy, it seems incredible that
6676
he faults Makhno for not adding to the chaos by failing
6677
to <i>"disrupt the peasant economy"</i>! However, why let logic
6678
get in the way of a good rant!
6680
As well as ignoring the wealth of information on Makhnovist
6681
land policy, Rees turns to their attempts to form free agrarian
6682
communes. He argues that Makhno's attempts <i>"to go beyond the
6683
traditional peasant economy were doomed"</i> and quotes Makhno's
6684
memoirs which state <i>"the mass of the people did not go over"</i>
6685
to his peasant communes, which only involved a few hundred
6686
families. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59]
6688
Looking at Makhno's memoirs a somewhat different picture appears.
6689
Firstly, Makhno states that there were <i>"four such agricultural
6690
communes within a three- or four-mile radius of Hulyai-Pole,"</i>
6691
but in the whole district <i>"there were many"</i> in 1918 (the period
6692
being discussed in his memoirs). Makhno recounts how each <i>"commune
6693
consisted of ten families of peasants and workers, totalling a
6694
hundred, two hundred or three hundred members"</i> and the <i>"management
6695
of each commune was conducted by a general meeting of all its
6696
members."</i> He does state that <i>"the mass of people did not go over
6697
to it"</i> but, significantly, he argues that this was because of
6698
<i>"the advance of the German and Austrian armies, their own lack
6699
of organisation, and their inability to defend this order against
6700
the new 'revolutionary' and counter-revolutionary authorities.
6701
For this reason the toiling population of the district limited
6702
their real revolutionary activity to supporting in every way
6703
those bold spirits among them who had settled on the old estates
6704
[of the landlords] and organised their personal and economic life
6705
on free communal lines."</i> [quoted by Paul Avrich, <b>The Anarchists
6706
in the Russian Revolution</b>, pp. 130-2]
6708
Of course, failing to mention the time period Makhno was
6709
recounting does distort the success of the communes. The
6710
Bolsheviks were evacuating the Ukraine as part of their
6711
treaty with German and Austrian Imperialism when the
6712
communes were being set up. This left them in a dangerous
6713
position, needless to say. By July, 1918, the area was
6714
occupied by Austrian troops and it was early 1919 before
6715
the situation was stable enough to allow their
6716
reintroduction. One commune was named <i>"Rosa Luxemburg"</i>
6717
(after the Marxist revolutionary martyr) and was
6718
mostly destroyed by the Bolsheviks in June 1919 and
6719
completely destroyed by the Whites a few days later.
6720
In such circumstances, can it be surprising that only
6721
a minority of peasants got involved in them? Rather
6722
than praise the Makhnovists for positive social
6723
experimentation in difficult circumstances, Rees shows
6724
his ignorance of the objective conditions facing the
6725
revolution. Perhaps if the peasants did not have to
6726
worry about the Bolsheviks as well as the Whites,
6727
they would have had more members?
6729
All in all, Rees account of Makhnovist ideas on the peasant
6730
economy are, to put it mildly, incorrect. They paint a
6731
radically different picture of the reality of both Makhnovist
6732
ideas and practice as regards the peasantry. Ironically, the
6733
soundness of Makhnovist policy in this area can be seen from
6734
the fact that the Bolsheviks changed their land policy to
6735
bring it into line with it. Not, of course, that you would know
6736
that from Rees' account. Nor would you know what the facts
6737
of the Bolsheviks' land policy were either. Indeed, Rees
6738
uses Michael Palij's book to create a picture of events
6739
which is the exact opposite of that contained in it! Very
6742
Intent on driving the final nail into the coffin, he tries
6743
to apply "class analysis" to the Makhnovists. Rees actually
6744
states that <i>"given this social base [i.e the Makhnovists'
6745
peasant base] . . . much of Makhno's libertarianism amounted
6746
to little more than paper decrees."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60]
6748
Ironically enough, the list of <i>"paper decrees"</i> Rees presents
6749
(when not false or distorted) are also failings associated with
6750
the Bolsheviks (and taken to even more extreme measures by the
6751
Bolsheviks)! As such, his lambasting of the Makhnovists seems
6752
deeply hypocritical. Moreover, his attempt to ground the few
6753
deviations that exist between Makhnovist practice and Makhnovist
6754
theory in the peasant base of the army seems an abuse of class
6755
analysis. After all, these deviations were also shared by the
6756
Bolsheviks. As such, how can Rees justify the Bolshevik deviations
6757
from socialist theory in terms of <i>"objective factors"</i> yet
6758
blame Makhnovist ones on their <i>"social base"</i>? Do <i>"objective
6759
factors"</i> only afflict Leninists?
6761
Take for example his first <i>"paper"</i> decree, namely the election
6762
of commanders. He states that <i>"in practice the most senior
6763
commanders were appointed by Makhno."</i> In other words, the
6764
Makhnovists applied this principle extensively but not
6765
completely. The Bolsheviks abolished it by decree (and did
6766
not blame it on <i>"exceptional circumstances"</i> nor consider it
6767
as a <i>"retreat"</i>, as Rees asserts). Now, if Rees' "class analysis"
6768
of the limitations of the Makhnovists were true, does this mean
6769
that an army of a regime with a proletarian base (as he considers
6770
the Bolshevik regime) cannot have elected commanders? This
6771
is the logical conclusion of his argument.
6773
Equally, his attempt to <i>"give a flavour of the movement"</i> by
6774
quoting one of the resolutions adopted by a mass meeting of
6775
partisans also backfires (namely, <i>"to obey the orders of
6776
the commanders if the commanders are sober enough to give
6777
them"</i>). Firstly, it should be noted that this was, originally,
6778
from a Red Army source. Secondly, drunkenness was a big
6779
problem during the civil war (as in any war). It was one of
6780
the easiest ways of forgetting reality at a time when life
6781
was often unpleasant and sometimes short. As such, the
6782
<i>"objective factor"</i> of civil war explains this resolution
6783
rather than the social base of the movement! Thirdly, Rees
6784
himself quotes a Central Committee member's comment to the
6785
Eighth Party Congress that there were so many <i>"horrifying
6786
facts about drunkenness, debauchery, corruption, robbery
6787
and irresponsible behaviour of many party members that
6788
one's hair stands on end."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 66] The Eighth
6789
Congress was in 1919. Does this comment give a <i>"flavour"</i>
6790
of the Bolshevik regime under Lenin? Obviously not, as Rees
6791
defends it and blames this list of horrors on the objective
6792
factors facing the Bolsheviks. Why does the drunkenness of
6793
the Makhnovists come from their <i>"social base"</i> while that of
6794
the Bolsheviks from <i>"objective factors"</i>? Simply put, Rees is
6795
insulting the intelligence of his readers.
6797
The Makhnovist resolution was passed by a mass assembly
6798
of partisans, suggesting a fundamentally democratic
6799
organisation. Rees argues that the civil war resulted in
6800
the Bolshevik vices becoming institutionalised in the power
6801
of the bureaucracy. However, as can be seen, the Makhnovists
6802
practised democracy during the civil war, suggesting that
6803
the objective factors Rees tries to blame for the Bolshevik
6804
vices simply cannot explain everything. As such, his own
6805
example (yet again) backfires on his argument.
6807
Rees claims that <i>"Makhno held elections, but no parties
6808
were allowed to participate in them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60]
6809
This is probably derived from Palij's comment that the
6810
free soviets would <i>"carry out the will and orders of their
6811
constituents"</i> and <i>"[o]nly working people, not representatives
6812
of political parties, might join the soviets."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6813
p. 151] This, in turn, derives from a Makhnovist proclamation
6814
from January 1920 which stated:
6816
"Only labourers who are contributing work necessary to
6817
the social economy should participate in the soviets.
6818
Representatives of political organisations have no place
6819
in worker-peasant soviets, since their participation in
6820
a workers' soviet will transform the latter into deputies
6821
of the party and can lead to the downfall of the soviet
6822
system."</i> [contained in Peter Arshinov's <b>History of the
6823
Makhnovist Movement</b>, p. 266]
6825
Rees' comments indicate that he is not familiar with the
6826
make-up of the Russian Soviets of 1917. Unlike the soviets
6827
from the 1905 revolution, those in 1917 allowed <i>"various
6828
parties and other organisations to acquire voting
6829
representation in the soviet executive committees."</i>
6830
Indeed, this was <i>"often how high party leaders became
6831
voting delegates to"</i> such bodies. It should <i>"be
6832
underlined that these party delegates were selected
6833
by the leadership of each political organisation, and
6834
not by the soviet assembly itself. In other words, these
6835
executive committee members were not directly elected by
6836
the representatives of the producers"</i> (never mind by the
6837
producers themselves). [Samuel Farber, <b>Before Stalinism</b>,
6840
In addition, Russian Anarchists had often attacked the
6841
use of <i>"party lists"</i> in soviet elections, which turned
6842
the soviets from working-class organs into talking-shops.
6843
[Paul Avrich, <b>The Russian Anarchists</b>, p. 190] This use
6844
of party lists meant that soviet delegates could be anyone.
6845
For example, the leading left-wing Menshevik Martov recounts
6846
that in early 1920 a chemical factory <i>"put up Lenin against
6847
me as a candidate [to the Moscow soviet]. I received seventy-six
6848
votes he-eight (in an open vote)."</i> [quoted by Israel Getzler,
6849
<b>Martov</b>, p. 202] How would either of these two intellectuals
6850
actually know and reflect the concerns and interests of the
6851
workers they would be "delegates" of? If the soviets were
6852
meant to be the delegates of working people, then why should
6853
non-working class members of political parties be elected
6856
Given that the people elected to the free soviets would be
6857
<b>delegates</b> and <b>not</b> representatives, this would mean that
6858
they would reflect the wishes of their workmates rather
6859
than the decisions of the party's central committee. As
6860
such, if a worker who was a member of a political party
6861
could convince their workmates of their ideas, the delegate
6862
would reflect the decisions of the mass assembly. As such,
6863
the input of political parties would not be undermined in any
6864
way (although their domination would be!).
6866
As such, the Makhnovist ideas on soviets did not, in fact,
6867
mean that workers and peasants could <b>not</b> elect or send
6868
delegates who were members of political parties. They had
6869
no problems as such with delegates who happened to be working-
6870
class party members. They did have problems with delegates
6871
representing only political parties, delegates who were not
6872
workers and soviets being mere ciphers covering party rule.
6874
That this was the case can be seen from a few facts.
6875
Firstly, the February 1919 congress resolution <i>"was
6876
written by the anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries,
6877
and the chairman."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155] Similarly,
6878
the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet created
6879
at the Aleksandrovsk congress in late 1919 had three
6880
Communists elected to it. There were 18 delegates
6881
from workers at that congress, six were Mensheviks
6882
and the remaining 12 included Communists [Malet,
6883
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 111, p. 124] Clearly, members of political
6884
parties were elected to both the congresses and
6885
the Revolutionary Military Soviet. As such, the idea
6886
that free soviets excluded members of political
6887
parties is false -- they simply were not dominated
6888
by them (for example, having executives made up of
6889
members of a single party or delegating their power
6890
to a government as per the national soviet in Russia).
6891
This could, of course, change. In the words of the
6892
Makhnovist reply to Bolshevik attempts to ban one of
6895
"The Revolutionary Military Council . . . holds itself
6896
above the pressure and influence of all parties and only
6897
recognises the people who elected it. Its duty is to
6898
accomplish what the people have instructed it to do,
6899
and to create no obstacles to any left socialist party
6900
in the propagation of ideas. Consequently, if one day
6901
the Bolshevik idea succeeds among the workers, the
6902
Revolutionary Military Council . . . will necessarily
6903
be replaced by another organisation, 'more revolutionary'
6904
and more Bolshevik."</i> [quoted by Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6907
As such, the Makhnovists supported the right of working-
6908
class self-determination, as expressed by one delegate
6909
to Hulyai Pole conference in February 1919:
6911
"No party has a right to usurp governmental power
6912
into its hands . . . We want life, all problems,
6913
to be decided locally, not by order from any
6914
authority above; and all peasants and workers
6915
should decide their own fate, while those elected
6916
should only carry out the toilers' wish."</i> [quoted
6917
by Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 154]
6919
Thus, Rees fails to present an accurate account of Makhnovist
6920
theory and practice as regards <i>"free soviets."</i> Rather than
6921
oppose party participation within their soviets and congresses,
6922
the Makhnovists opposed the domination of soviets and
6923
congresses by political parties, a radically different
6924
concept. Like the Kronstadt rebels, they argued for all
6925
power to the soviets and not to parties.
6927
Lastly, Rees attacks the Makhnovists for having two security
6928
forces, the Cheka-like <b>razvedka</b> and the Punitive Commission.
6929
How this is an expression of the Makhnovist <i>"social base"</i>
6930
is hard to explain, as both the Bolsheviks and Whites also
6931
had their security forces and counter-intelligence agencies.
6933
While Rees quotes Footman's statement that <i>"we can safely
6934
assume [!] these services were responsible for frequent
6935
injustices and atrocities,"</i> he fails to mention that
6936
Footman does not provide any examples (hence his comment
6937
that we can <i>"assume"</i> they occurred!). Footman himself
6938
notes that <i>"[o]f the Makhnovite security services . . .
6939
we know very little."</i> [David Footman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 288]
6940
Rees himself only lists one, namely the summary shooting
6941
of a Bolshevik cell discovered in the Army. Given the
6942
bloody record of the Bolshevik Cheka (which, again, Rees
6943
defends as necessary to defend against the Whites!), this
6944
suggests that the crimes of the Makhnovist counter-intelligence
6947
Rees also quotes the historian Chamberlin that <i>"Makhno's
6948
private Cheka . . . quickly disposed of anyone who was
6949
suspected of plotting against his life."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 60]
6950
Strangely enough, Rees fails to mention the Bolshevik
6951
attempts to assassinate Makhno, including the one in the
6952
latter part of May 1919 when, it should be noted, the
6953
Makhnovists and Bolsheviks were meant to be in alliance.
6954
Nor does he mention that the Cheka <i>"would hunt out and
6955
hang all active Makhnovites."</i> [David Footman, <b>Civil War
6956
in Russia</b>, p. 271 and p. 293]
6958
As regards the last conflict with the Red Army, it should
6959
be noted that while <i>"generalised accusations of Makhnovist
6960
atrocities are common"</i> the facts are it was <i>"the Makhnovists
6961
who stood to gain by liberating prisoners, the Bolsheviks by
6962
shooting them."</i> This was because <i>"the Red Army soldiers had
6963
been conscripted from elsewhere to do work they neither liked
6964
nor understood"</i> and the <i>"insurgents had their own homes to
6965
defend."</i> [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130] Thus, while Rees quotes
6966
Footman's opinion that <i>"Makhno's later campaigns [were]
6967
among the most bloody and vindictive,"</i> these facts suggest
6968
that we <b>cannot</b> <i>"safely assume that these [security] services
6969
were responsible for frequent injustices and atrocities."</i>
6970
Clearly, if the Makhnovists were releasing Red Army prisoners
6971
(and many of whom were joining Makhno), the picture of an
6972
atrocity inflicting army can hardly be a valid picture.
6974
And it should be stressed that Bolshevik terror and violence
6975
against the Makhnovists is strangely absent from Rees's account.
6977
Rees presents just <b>one</b> concrete example of Makhnovist
6978
<i>"Cheka-like"</i> violence, namely, the execution of a
6979
Bolshevik cell in December, 1919. It should be noted
6980
that the Bolsheviks had been explicitly arguing for
6981
Party dictatorship for some time by then. The reason why
6982
the Bolsheviks had been <i>"denied an open trial"</i> was because
6983
they had already been shot. Unfortunately, Makhno gave two
6984
contradictory reasons why the Bolsheviks had been killed.
6985
This led to the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet
6986
setting up a commission of three to investigate the issue.
6987
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the commission exonerated Makhno
6988
although Voline, out of the members, seemed to have been
6989
genuinely embarrassed by the affair. [Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
6990
pp. 51-2] Needless to say, Rees fails to comment on the
6991
Bolshevik summary killing of Makhnovist staff in June
6992
1919 or, indeed, any other summary executions conducted
6993
by the Bolsheviks against the Makhnovists (including the
6994
shooting of prisoners).
6996
Given the summary justice handed out by the Bolshevik Cheka,
6997
it seems strange that Rees dismisses the Makhnovist movement
6998
on assumptions and one event, yet he does. Obviously, the
6999
large-scale and continuous Bolshevik killings of political
7000
enemies (including Makhnovists) is irrelevant compared to
7003
All in all, Rees' attempts to blame the few deviations
7004
the Makhnovists had from anarchist theory on the <i>"social
7005
base"</i> of the movement are a joke. While justifying the
7006
far more extreme deviations of Bolshevik theory and practice
7007
in terms of <i>"objective factors,"</i> he refuses to consider this
7008
possibility for the Makhnovists. The hypocrisy is clear, if
7011
One last point. Taking Rees' "class analysis" of the Makhnovists
7012
seriously, the logical conclusion of his argument is clear.
7013
For Rees, a movement which compromises slightly with its
7014
principles in the face of extreme <i>"objective factors"</i> is
7015
<i>"petty bourgeois."</i> However, a movement which compromises
7016
totally (indeed introduces and justifies the exact opposite
7017
of its original claims) in face of the same <i>"objective
7018
factors"</i> is <i>"proletarian."</i> As such, his pathetic attempt
7019
at "class analysis" of the Makhnovists simply shows up
7020
the dictatorial nature of the Bolsheviks. If trying to
7021
live up to libertarian/democratic ideals but not totally
7022
succeeding signifies being <i>"petty-bourgeois"</i> while dismissing
7023
those ideals totally in favour of top-down, autocratic
7024
hierarchies is <i>"proletarian"</i> then sane people would
7025
happily be labelled <i>"petty-bourgeois"</i>!
7027
And Rees states that <i>"[n]either Makhno's social programme
7028
nor his political regime could provide an alternative
7029
to the Bolsheviks"</i>! [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60] Little wonder he
7030
distorts that social programme and political regime -- an
7031
honest account of both would see that Rees is wrong. The
7032
Makhnovist movement clearly shows that not only did Bolshevik
7033
policies have a decisive impact on the development of the
7034
Russian Revolution, there was a clear alternative to
7035
Bolshevik authoritarianism and party dictatorship.
7037
In summary, Rees' attack on the Makhnovists fails. It can
7038
be faulted on both factual and logical grounds. His article
7039
is so riddled with errors, selective quoting and downright
7040
lies that it is factually unreliable. Similarly, his attempt
7041
to attack the Makhnovist political theory and practice is
7042
equally factually incorrect. His attempt to explain the
7043
deviations of Makhnovist practice from its theory in terms
7044
of the <i>"social base"</i> is simply an insult to the intelligence
7045
of the reader and an abuse of class analysis.
7047
A far more compelling analysis would recognise that the
7048
Makhnovists were not a perfect social movement but that
7049
the deviations of its practice from its theory can be
7050
explained by the objective factors it faced. Equally, the
7051
example of the Makhnovists shows the weakness of Rees'
7052
main argument, namely that the objective factors that
7053
Bolshevism faced can solely explain its authoritarian
7054
politics. That the Makhnovists, facing the same objective
7055
factors, did not act in the same manner as the Bolsheviks
7056
shows that Bolshevik ideology played a key role in the
7057
failure of the revolution. This explains Rees' clumsy
7058
attempts to rewrite the history and theory of the
7061
<a name="app16"><h2>16 What lessons can be learned from the Makhnovists?</h2>
7063
The Makhnovist movement was one of the most important
7064
events of the Russian Revolution. It was a mass movement
7065
of working people who tried and succeeded to implement
7066
libertarian ideas in extremely difficult circumstances.
7068
As such, the most important lesson gained from the experience
7069
of the Makhno movement is simply that <i>"objective factors"</i> cannot
7070
and do not explain the degeneration of the Russian Revolution or
7071
Bolshevik authoritarianism. Here was a movement which
7072
faced the same terrible circumstances as the Bolsheviks faced
7073
(White counter-revolution, economic disruption, and so on)
7074
and yet did not act in the same manner as the Bolsheviks.
7075
Where the Bolsheviks completely abolished army democracy,
7076
the Makhnovists extensively applied it. Where the Bolsheviks
7077
implemented party dictatorship <b>over</b> the soviets, the Makhnovists
7078
encouraged and practised soviet self-management. While the
7079
Bolsheviks eliminated freedom of speech, press, assembly, the
7080
Makhnovists defended and implemented them. The list is endless
7081
(see <a href="append46.html#app14">section 14</a>).
7083
This means that one of the key defences of the Bolshevik Myth,
7084
namely that the Bolsheviks had no choice but to act as they
7085
did due to <i>"objective factors"</i> or <i>"circumstances"</i> is totally
7086
undermined. As such, it points to the obvious conclusion:
7087
Bolshevik ideology influenced the practice of the party,
7088
as did their position within the <i>"workers' state,"</i> and so
7089
influenced the outcome of the Revolution. This means that to
7090
play down Bolshevik ideology or practice in favour of <i>"objective
7091
factors"</i>, one fails to understand that the actions and ideas
7092
generated during the revolution were not "objectively"
7093
determined but were <b>themselves</b> important and sometimes
7094
decisive factors in the outcome.
7096
Take, for example, the Bolshevik decision to betray the Makhnovists
7097
in 1920. Neither betrayal was "objectively determined" before-
7098
hand. However, it did make perfect sense from a perspective
7099
which equated the revolution with the <i>"dictatorship of the
7100
party."</i> That the first betrayal undoubtedly extended the length
7101
of the Civil War by allowing the Whites the space to reorganise
7102
under Wrangel also had its impact on Bolshevik theory and
7103
practice as well as the <i>"objective factors"</i> it had to face.
7105
As such, the Makhnovists give a counter-example to the common
7106
pro-Bolshevik argument that the horrors of the Civil War
7107
were responsible for the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party
7108
and the revolution. In the words of one historian:
7110
"[The] Insurgent Army . . . was organised on a voluntary basis
7111
and respected the principle of election of commanders and
7112
staff. The regulations governing conduct were drawn up by
7113
commissions of soldiers and approved by general meetings of
7114
the units concerned. In other words, it embodied the principles
7115
of the soldiers' movement of 1917, principles rejected by
7116
the Bolsheviks when they set up the Red Army, supposedly
7117
because of their harmful effects on fighting efficiency, a
7118
characteristic of them discovered by the Bolsheviks only
7119
after they had come to power on the basis of promoting them.
7120
But the Insurgent Army, given its size and equipment, was
7121
very effective. Some have even credited it with greater
7122
responsibility than the Red Army for the defeat of Denikin.
7123
It took enormous efforts by the Bolsheviks, including the
7124
arrest or shooting of thousands of people, in order to
7125
pacify the region . . . even after the Insurgent Army
7126
was militarily broken, it took six months to mop up the
7127
remnants. . . Within its area of operations, which consisted
7128
of only two to three per cent of the total population of
7129
European Russia, the Insurgent Army was undoubtedly highly
7130
effective. While one can never know how history might have
7131
turned out had things been different, the Insurgent Army
7132
gives plenty of grounds for thinking that a people's
7133
revolutionary war of the kind it represented might have
7134
been at least as effective on a national scale with
7135
nationwide resources at its disposal as Trotsky and the
7136
Red Army's ruthless centralisation. It would not, however,
7137
have been compatible with the imposition from above of
7138
the Bolshevik leadership's vision of revolution. When
7139
the Insurgent Army drove the enemy out of an area they
7140
encouraged the local population to solve their own
7141
problems. Where the Red Army took over, the Cheka quickly
7142
followed. The Bolsheviks themselves were energetically
7143
snuffing out the ideals of 1917.
7145
"Given such considerations it may be, though it cannot be
7146
logically proven one way or the other, that the Bolsheviks'
7147
deeply rooted authoritarianism rather than the civil war
7148
itself led to the construction of a highly centralised
7149
system that aimed at 'complete control' over political and
7150
many other aspects of social life. It could even be argued,
7151
though it is equally unprovable, that the tendency to
7152
authoritarianism, far from ensuring victory, nearly led
7153
to catastrophe. For one thing, it helped alienate many
7154
workers who felt cheated by the outcome of the revolution,
7155
and support for the regime was . . . far from even in this
7156
core group . . . [It] may, indeed, have been becoming
7157
more alienated as a result of Bolshevik measures depriving
7158
it of the means of expression of its growing catalogue of
7159
grievances. . . Far from being 'necessary' or even functional,
7160
the Bolshevik leadership's obsession with externally imposed
7161
discipline and authority might even have made the task of
7162
victory in the war more difficult and more costly. If the
7163
counter-example of Makhno is anything to go by then it
7164
certainly did."</i> [Christopher Read, <b>From Tsar to Soviets</b>,
7167
As such, another key lesson to be learned from the Makhno
7168
movement is the importance of practising during a
7169
revolution the ideas you preach before it. Means and ends
7170
are linked, with the means shaping the ends and the ends
7171
inspiring the means. As such, if you argue for working-class
7172
power and freedom, you cannot dump these aims during a
7173
revolution without ensuring that they are never applied
7174
after it. As the Makhnovist movement showed, even the most
7175
difficult situations need not hinder the application of
7176
revolutionary ideas.
7178
The importance of encouraging working-class autonomy also
7179
shines through the Makhnovist experience. The problems
7180
facing a social revolution are many, as are the problems
7181
involved in constructing a new society. The solutions to
7182
these problems cannot be found without the active and full
7183
participation of the working class. As the Makhnovist
7184
congresses and soviets show, free debate and meaningful
7185
meetings are the only means, firstly, to ensure that
7186
working-class people are <i>"the masters of their own lives,"</i>
7187
that <i>"they themselves are making the revolution,"</i> that
7188
they <i>"have gained freedom."</i> <i>"Take that faith away,"</i>
7189
stressed Alexander Berkman, <i>"deprive the people of power
7190
by setting up some authority over them, be it a political
7191
party or military organisation, and you have dealt a fatal
7192
blow to the revolution. You will have robbed it of its
7193
main source of strength, the masses."</i> [<b>ABC of Anarchism</b>,
7196
Secondly, it allows the participation of all in solving
7197
the problems of the revolution and of constructing
7198
the new society. Without this input, <b>real</b> socialism
7199
cannot be created and, at best, some form of oppressive
7200
state capitalist regime would be created (as Bolshevism
7201
shows). A new society needs the freedom of experimentation,
7202
to adapt freely to the problems it faces, to adjust to the
7203
needs and hopes of those making it. Without working-class
7204
freedom and autonomy, public life becomes impoverished,
7205
miserable and rigid as the affairs of all are handed over
7206
to a few leaders at the top of a social hierarchy, who cannot
7207
possibility understand, let alone solve, the problems affecting
7208
society. Freedom allows the working class to take an active
7209
part in the revolution. Restricting working-class freedom
7210
means the bureaucratisation of the revolution as a few
7211
party leaders cannot hope to direct and rule the lives of
7212
millions without a strong state apparatus. Simply put,
7213
the emancipation of the working class is the task of the
7214
working class itself. Either working class people create
7215
socialism (and that needs workers' autonomy and freedom
7216
as its basis), or some clique will and the result will
7217
not be a socialist society.
7219
As the experience of the Makhnovist movement shows, working-
7220
class freedom can be applied during a revolution and when
7221
it is faced with the danger of counter-revolution.
7223
Another key lesson from the Makhnovist movement is that of
7224
the need for effective anarchist organisation. The Makhnovists
7225
did not become anarchist-influenced by chance. The hard
7226
effort by the local anarchists in Hulyai Pole before and
7227
during 1917 paid off in terms of political influence
7228
afterwards. Therefore, anarchists need to take a leading
7229
role in the struggles of working people (as we indicated
7231
<a href="secI8.html#seci82">section I.8.2</a>,
7232
this was how the Spanish anarchists gained
7233
influence as well). As Voline noted, one of the advantages
7234
the Makhnovist movement had was <i>"the activity of . . .
7235
libertarian elements in the region . . . [and the] rapidity
7236
with which the peasant masses and the insurgents, despite
7237
unfavourable circumstances, became acquainted with libertarian
7238
ideas and sought to apply them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 570]
7240
Arshinov expands on this issue in a chapter of his history
7241
(<i>"The Makhnovshchina and Anarchism"</i>), arguing that many
7242
Russian anarchists <i>"suffered from the disease of
7243
disorganisation,"</i> which led to <i>"impoverished ideas and
7244
futile practice."</i> Moreover, most did not join the
7245
Makhnovist movement, <i>"remained in their circles and
7246
<b>slept through</b> a mass movement of paramount importance."</i>
7247
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 244 and p. 242]
7249
Indeed, it was only in May 1919 that the <i>"Nabat"</i> Ukrainian
7250
anarchist confederation was organised. This federation
7251
worked closely with the Makhnovists and gained influence
7252
in the villages, towns and cities within and around the
7253
Makhnovist region. In such circumstances, the anarchists
7254
were at a disadvantage compared to the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks
7255
and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had been organised far
7256
longer and so had more influence within the urban workers.
7258
While many anarchists did participate effectively and
7259
organisationally within many areas of Russia and the
7260
Ukraine (gaining influence in Moscow and Petrograd, for
7261
example), they were much weaker than the Bolsheviks. This
7262
meant that the Bolshevik idea of revolution gained influence
7263
(by, it should be noted, appropriating anarchist slogans and
7264
tactics). Once in power, the Bolsheviks turned against their
7265
rivals, using state repression to effectively destroy the
7266
anarchist movement in Russia in April 1918 (see <a href="append41.html#app24">section 24</a> of the
7267
appendix <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> for details). This, incidentally, led to many anarchists
7268
coming to the Ukraine to escape repression and many joined
7269
the Makhnovists. As Arshinov notes, the Bolsheviks <i>"knew
7270
perfectly well that . . . anarchism in Russia, lacking any
7271
contact with a mass movement as important as the
7272
Makhnovshchina, did not have a base and could not threaten
7273
nor endanger them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 248] Waiting till <b>after</b>
7274
a revolution starts to build such a base is a dangerous
7275
tactic, as the experience of the Russian anarchists shows.
7276
As the experience of the Moscow anarchists active in the
7277
bakers' union shows, organised working-class support can
7278
be an effective deterrent to state repression (the Moscow
7279
bakers' union continued to have anarchists active in it
7282
It should be noted that this lesson was recognised by the main
7283
anarchists associated with the Makhnovists. In exile, Voline
7284
argued for the need to build a <i>"synthesis"</i> anarchist federation
7286
<a href="secJ3.html#secj32">section J.3.2</a>)
7287
while Arshinov and Makhno both associated
7288
themselves with the Platform (see
7289
<a href="secJ3.html#secj33">section J.3.3</a>).
7291
Another key lesson is the need to combine rural and urban
7292
organisation. As Voline argued, the <i>"absence of a vigorous
7293
organised workers' movement which could support that of the
7294
peasant insurgents"</i> was a major disadvantage for the Makhno
7295
movement. [Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 571] If there had been a
7296
workers' movement influenced by anarchist or syndicalist
7297
ideas within the Ukrainian towns during the Russian
7298
Revolution, the possibilities of constructive work would
7299
have been increased immensely. Take the example of when the
7300
Makhnovists liberated Aleksandrovsk and organised two
7301
workers' conferences. It was only at the insurgents'
7302
insistence that the unions agreed to send delegates, but
7303
for information only. This was undoubtedly due to the fact
7304
that Mensheviks had some influence in the unions and
7305
Bolshevik influence was increasing. Both parties may have
7306
preferred the Makhnovists to the Whites, but neither
7307
accepted anarchist ideas of workers' self-management and
7308
so constructive work was limited to the railway workers.
7309
In contrast, when Katerinoslav was liberated, the bakers
7310
set themselves to preparing the socialisation of their
7311
industry and drawing up plans to feed both the army
7312
and the civilian population. Unsurprisingly, the bakers
7313
had long been under anarcho-syndicalist influence.
7314
[Malet, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 123 and p. 124]
7316
As the Makhnovists themselves realised, their movement
7317
had to be complemented by urban working-class self-activity
7318
and self-organisations. While they did all they could
7319
to encourage it, they lacked a base within the workers'
7320
movement and so their ideas had to overcome the twin
7321
barriers of workers' unfamiliarity with both them and
7322
their ideas and Marxist influence. With a strong working-
7323
class movement influenced by anarchist ideas, the possibilities
7324
for constructive work between city and village would have
7325
been helped immensely (this can be seen from the example
7326
of the Spanish Revolution of 1936, where rural and urban
7327
collectives and unions made direct links with each other).
7329
Lastly, there is the lesson to be gained from Makhnovist
7330
co-operation with the Bolsheviks. Simply put, the experience
7331
shows the importance of being wary towards Bolshevism.
7332
As Voline put it, another disadvantage of the Makhnovists
7333
was a <i>"certain casualness, a lack of necessary distrust,
7334
towards the Communists."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 571] The Makhnovists
7335
were betrayed three times by the Bolsheviks, who continually
7336
placed maintaining their own power above the needs of the
7337
revolution. The anarchists were simply used as cannon fodder
7338
against the Whites and once their utility had ended, the
7339
Bolsheviks turned their guns on them.
7341
Thus a lesson to be learned is that co-operation between
7342
anarchists and Bolsheviks is fraught with danger. As many
7343
activists are aware, modern-day supporters of Bolshevism
7344
constantly urge everyone to unite <i>"against the common
7345
enemy"</i> and not to be <i>"sectarian"</i> (although, somehow this
7346
appeal to non-sectarianism does not stop them printing
7347
lying accounts of anarchism!). The Makhnovists took them at
7348
their word in early 1919 and soon found out that <i>"unity"</i>
7349
meant <i>"follow our orders."</i> When the Makhnovists continued
7350
to apply their ideas of working-class self-management, the
7351
Bolsheviks turned on them. Similarly, in early 1920 the
7352
Bolsheviks outlawed the Makhnovists in order to break their
7353
influence in the Ukraine. The Makhnovist contribution to
7354
the defeat of Denikin (the common enemy) was ignored.
7355
Lastly, in mid-1920 the Makhnovists placed the need of the
7356
revolution first and suggested an alliance to defeat the
7357
common enemy of Wrangel. Once Wrangel had been defeated,
7358
the Bolsheviks ripped up the agreement they had signed
7359
and, yet again, turned on the Makhnovists. Simply put,
7360
the Bolsheviks continually placed their own interests
7361
before that of the revolution and their allies. This is
7362
to be expected from an ideology based on vanguardism
7364
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a> for further discussion).
7366
This does not mean that anarchists and Leninists should not
7367
work together. In some circumstances and in some social
7368
movements, this may be essential. However, it would be wise
7369
to learn from history and not ignore it and, as such, modern
7370
activists should be wary when conducting such co-operation.
7371
Ultimately, for Leninists, social movements are simply a means
7372
to their end (the seizing of state power by them on behalf of
7373
the working class) and anarchists should never forget it.
7375
Thus the lessons of the Makhnovist movement are exceedingly
7376
rich. Simply put, the Makhnovshchina show that anarchism is
7377
a viable form of revolutionary ideas and can be applied
7378
successfully in extremely difficult circumstances. They show
7379
that social revolutions need not consist of changing one set
7380
of bosses for another. The Makhnovist movement clearly shows
7381
that libertarian ideas can be successfully applied in a
7382
revolutionary situation.