Bit of a madman, wasn't he? Where did it all go so wrong?
Bit of a madman, wasn't he? Where did it all go so wrong?
Other urls found in this thread:
He trusted a Bolshevik.
he fucked up with inflation and secret police
there's your problem
"The Makhnovist's Insurrectionary movement aspires to create from the revolutionary peasantry, an organized and real force, capable to fight the counter-revolution and to defend the independence of a free region."
As one can see, the social-democrat idea of socialism in only one region, that will later become with Stalin and Boukharin, "Theory of socialism in only one country", was as dear to Makhno as to the Bolshevik governmental right wing.
The worst, it is that a revolutionary leader as Makhno stayed captive of the "stalinist" prospect before "stalinism", and that, in the heat of worldwide revolutionary wave, in a time where from Berlin to Patagonia, from Bombay to Mexico, from Budapest to Toronto, the proletariat struggled for the one worldwide revolution!
The limit of the insurrection in Ukrain will find thus, beyond objective problems of relation force in this period, new agents in the lack of generalization of the revolutionary war. The "anarchists-communists" in Ukrain had perceived and criticized the weapons in their hands, the refusal of the generalization of the revolutionary war through the agreements of Brest-Litovsk, but they have been incapable to understand in what the generalization of the revolution passed also through the as well dictatorial and violent struggle against Economy, against Value.
pretty based actually. if he had a major flaw, it was that he did not know how to apply his libertarian principles to industrialized cities. Probably would have done better had he not been so willing to assist the bolsheviks.
I mean, the fact that he implemented anything remotely socialist when his entire experiment was conducted in the middle of a multiparty civil war is admirable
He deserved it tbh.
There were a number of internal problems within the very structure of the Free Territory that would have likely lead to a decline in the ideals they were supposed to stand for and perhaps lead to their collapse, but most of those problems were long-term issues that really didn't play that big of a role in the Free Territory's historical failure to survive. The biggest problems were undoubtedly external.
There was the first problem that, unlike other groups like the Bolsheviks, his ability to conduct pre-revolutionary agitation and organization was pretty limited: he became involved in anarchism in 1906 while quite young and was in prison on a life sentence by 1910. This did not even afford the limited luxuries of being in exile where one could still remain partially in contact with revolutionaries still in Russia and be able to study while waiting. He was released during the February Revolution, which left him ~8 months to prepare a militant revolutionary force. Part of that work was already done and at the ready through the work of those aforementioned anarchist organizations, but there were numerous communication issues that meant they weren't as easily capable of collaboration with one another. Makhno was not really a national figure at that point, though he came to be decently well known regionally in Ukraine which aided his cause. In other words, the scale by which he was able to organize a movement was considerably limited.
The Free Territory, once established, also ran the problem that it could not realistically fight both the Reds and the Whites due to the limitations on its scale: it required good faith on the part of the Bolsheviks to leave them be while the Whites and other forces were pushed out. This was admirable, but also meant that they were wholly unprepared to deal with later opposition from the Bolsheviks.
Longer-term you had the problem that, while Makhno was certainly committed to the anarchist cause, the actual army he was leading was threatening to turn into a de facto vanguard over the soviets that were otherwise governing the Free Territory at the time (secret police and such). Also he was pretty staunchly against most forms of industrialization, the prime innovation among them being investment into railroads.
His goals were admirable, but there was almost no situation where it would have succeeded long-term unless the Bolsheviks were willing to not only let them be, but also probably work with them to provide goods and such that the Free Territory had no real way of providing for itself long-term. Nobody in the Bolshevik leadership besides perhaps Lenin was particularly interested in seeing the Ukrainian socialist experiment continue either, so the final confrontation between the two forces was inevitable.
sounds about right, 2bj
sauce on this? why don't anarkiddies ever mention that? If he was straight-up against industrialization, he pretty much deserved to get purged.
implying we don't need industry and technology to, keep the ammount of people on earth alive
ted was inciteful though
don't lump me in with this
Nevermind. After looking into that a bit, turns out that the anti-railroad thing was an invention of Moscow that they used to justify invading the Free Territory. The anti-industrial thing was apparently something I was just entirely wrong about too, probably just something I heard at some point and never bothered verifying. If I had to guess, the claim was probably a result of a few things:
The irony of the last point of course is that Makhno was very vocal about his hatred of Grigoriev, eventually culminating in putting him on trial and executing him.
Peter Arshinov (among others for those skeptical of an anarchist writer discussing the matter) tend to agree that such accusations of Luddism were unfounded.
what about the
"just have those who work your railroad give you bread except me lmao" accusations?
I should note as well, another source was from a fictional quote of Makhno saying something along the lines of railroads being useless when they have horses and steppe. This was used in a pro-Denkin newspaper and then reused by the Bolsheviks for the sake of political convenience.
kek, thanks for looking into it comrade. revolutionary propaganda in the day could be vicious.
It's not that he was "anti-industrial" i.e. wanted to destroy industry, he was just more acquainted with the sort of small scale industry found in his hometown. he didn't know how to organize the factory workers and miners in larger cities, that needed specialists as part of the production. see
Yes, we do need industry and technology to keep the problems of industry and technology from fucking us over, but that doesn't mean we need to expand the industrial system.
Some Trot tard told me the black army was charging bolsheviks money to enter their territory, is this true or propaganda?
Like the "horses and steppe" quote, it was likely fictitious, but rooted in a general problem in the area at the time. Namely, as and pointed out, there were issues reconciling the interests of the peasantry with those of the more urban industrial workers in times when those interests were seemingly at odds. Makhno himself was a peasant and had more background organizing among that class, so I suppose some took to the idea that he held favoritism in that manner.
I'm no expert on the matter, but I haven't really found much talking about that. I know there was an abolition of railway fees for those within the Free Territory, but I am unsure if that accommodation was extended to the Bolsheviks or not. I certainly haven't heard anything about border guards or anything of that sort shaking people down for money if that was the implication.
And then we all died of the plague
Wear your primmy flag, retard
Deadly epidemic diseases weren't a problem or even present until humans started living in crowded, unhygienic circumstances surrounded by disease carrying animals.
Obviously we can't completely let go on technology or industry and can only go forward, but we have the recognize what it has cost us and its dangers before we can go forward.
even kazcynsky says thats wrong
I read that essay before and I don't remember when he talked about disease. But regardless, I'm not saying deadly diseases that wiped out entire tribes didn't exist, I'm saying most weren't present, were rare when they were, and had a significantly harder time spreading in healthy, non-crowded populations. Worst case scenario a tribe of 100 people would all die, whereas in a civilized, agrarian society a plague could kill thousands in dozens of cities. Not to mention disease in general was significantly rarer in non-agrarian societies.
Made a state but didn't call it one: libcom.org
Betrayed the very supposed principles of anarchism the second it became necessary: marxists.org
you try waging a war with out spies
The way you tell it, Makhno was probably the greatest anarchist who ever lived.