I'm a Leninist and I love Makhno!!

Hi comrades!

Today, I will teach you actual history! Not "history" as written by apologists of the Soviet Union, nor "history" as taught by anarchist FAQs! I will tell you how it actually happened. This will shock both dogmatic Bolshevik apologists and dogmatic anarchists as well.

My hypothesis is the following: Nestor Makhno started out as an occupier of certain peasant-inhabited territories, and eventually (due to objective constraints) turned out to be a pragmatic Leninist. Now without reigniting the totally boring shit about who fucked who (hint: both fucked both, several times) I must conclude that Makhno started out as an anarchist idealist and ended up as a pragmatist (i.e. "platformist").

Makhno after being freed from prison positioned himself as chairman of several local committees, quite meritocratically: he happened to be the best orator, the best tactician, the best leader, and lo and behold, he personally chaired a dozen positions.

Nota bene: Makhno was never a democrat – at least if we concentrate on his actions. If anything, Makhno was the ultimate pragmatist. History goes like this: first, he tries to establish his communes based on horizontally-inclined principles, then the counter-revolution fakes his signature and basically all his communes give up based on a forgery.

Learning from his mistakes, when establishing his second communes, he centralizes power: he becomes a "dictator" (Rated PG Parental Guidance) not because he's a tyrant, but because the actual historic conditions require it. He is an idealist in principle but a pragmatic in action: their so called "free army" becomes compulsory. They legitimize mandatory recruitment by framing the communal vote like so: "All 30+ males voluntary accept to be drafted!" – notice how soon the idealistic Anarchist narrative blows up. He didn't do this because he was "evil" or a "tyrant"… They needed to do this because the objective conditions of the civil war required it. The ideological dimension, of course, remains: anarchists need to frame everything in terms of personal freedoms… Well, Makhno framed it like this: "If you are an +30 male, you applied, and you were gladly accepted."

Naturally, this didn't end here. His second army (with his second commune) was totally centralized.

To cut a long story short (.pdf related) when Makhno had to go into exile into France his contemporary anarchist "comrades" attacked him on several fronts. Malatesta was one of his main attackers: he concluded that Makhno betrayed anarchist principles. In other words, this noodle-armed faggot, this person who never experienced a revolution in his life, this faggot who never had to take up arms, to organize masses, to organize a semi-professional army, this "theoretical-snowflake" attacked a veteran of revolutions based on his fucking morals.

As a Leninist I stand with Makhno's pragmatism and despise the reaction of his contemporary anarchists. Makhno did what he had to do. Yes, he forced people into his army (mandatory recruitment), yes, he centralized power (propaganda, army, union, etc.), yes, he became an absolute brute, but his later faggy anarchist "critics" deserve the rope, IMO.


p.s. Makhno received his copyrighted face scars from his anti-semite gf.
p.p.s. so called anarchists (like our dear e-celeb faglord, Batko, haven't read a single page of Makhno's history outside of a specifically framed Disney story, known as the AFQ).
p.p.p.s.: pdf very much related: read a fucking book both orh

Other urls found in this thread:


Wasn't Makhno a crypto-primitivist (as he prioritized the peasantry) and a predecessor to Pol Pot?

No. While Makhno was theoretically severely underdeveloped (hint: taking over a city, "redistributing" all moneys held in the overtaken bank vaults, thus causing inflation) he had absolutely good intentions. Reading Makhno as a primitivist would require you to be behind several layers of ideology. He worked with what he had, and he did it pragmatically.

p.p.p.p.s.: contemporary anarchists are useless faggots compared to Makhno! If you read pdf related you'll realize that Makhno actively attacked and opposed all and every manifestations of "individualism". IMO 20th century Anarchism started AND ended with him. All of you snowflake anarchists are actually against all the principles and actions he laid down.

I'm more of a Makhnovite than most of so called "ancoms" who pretend to love him (e.g. our e-celeb Batko).


HOL UP so you be sayin' material conditions shape societies instead of idealist utopianism?

I've steadily come to realize more and more that individualism is shitty and worthless and that anarchists need heavily collective action to properly work.
I'm genuinely sad that they got rid of the anarcho-authoritarian flag, I know there was at least one other person using it to make a point on anarchist politics.

My "hypothesis" is based on the most neutral reading that is out there (pdf was related). You may counter my interpretation by leveling equal – or better – sources against it. I'm giving here, in this shitty thread, a TL;DR of a 450+ page book, so you, dear "RTFM" false-flagger should be able to counter it, no?
obv. no…

Makhno had the same revelation. He explicitly banned "urban anarchists" from his movement because they were not just too individualist, but too far removed from the masses (be they peasants or proles). In my reading this is another big one up for Makhno: he really understood the shit that was going in his "anarchist scene," and he didn't afraid to BTFO them.

Yes, but I'm adding that good anarchists are more than ready to accept this, adopt to it, be pragmatic about TO THE END.

calm your tits lad i'm just taking a jab at your wording

Did he say anything about the Spanish Anarchists who were pretty well known during the time of his exile?



But let me turn this question on its head: "What did Kekalonians say about Makhno?!"

The answer is: nothing good.

the Spanish anarchists didn't "suddenly appear" you dumbass. They'd been growing since Bukanin's assistant went to Spain and started converting the region. They only took power in the 30s

But let me move on!

In my opinion (which is informed by crude experience) Makhno was not just an optimal "dictator," strategist, tactician, statesman, propagandist, and so on, but a "comrade-until-the-end!"

There's no turning away for us, platformists, from Makhno's deeds and thoughts. Only idealist faggots, be they Mensheviks, or Malatesta-like cretins, who deny his greatness.


Hello, anarchist comrade. You seem to be ass-blasted. Let's find out why!

You tell me that the anarchists in Spain didn't "suddenly appear" – but where did I even hint at such a reading? The answer is: nowhere.

My critique wasn't aimed at anarchists post-Makhno, as such. My criticism was aimed at so-called-anarchists who got butt-blasted by Makhno's actual experience (like yourself), and who could not swallow the truth pill…

Pushing me to the extreme I would say this: if Kekalonia had a Makhno it would have not failed.

Debate me, faggot!

So far, ITT:
I dont care, neither would Makhno.
You are a complete brainwashed faggot.
Yes, and that is good. It takes into account the actual shit we have and builds upon it, instead of imagining shit that will not and can not happen.
Makhno would have hurt your fee-fees. In fact, Makhno would have banned you from participating in his communes. Harsh, innit?

It's not just "individualism is crap and also anti-pragmatic", the problem is that any level of individualist anarchism is also anti-society and thus necessarily primitivist. The desire to push against discipline and collective action leads to the fairly worthless spectacle of "post left anarchism" where you end up with increasingly vague, ambiguous, and increasingly impossible calls for "freedom".

I've come to the realization a while ago that anarchism could well be shockingly repressive to its own people and still fall within the realm of anarchist politics. I also realized this isn't necessarily a bad thing either, because why the hell shouldn't a group of people be allowed to take actions upon themselves that they determine to be necessary? It may well be that such things will become inevitable, at least for a time, for any serious gain to be made in the realm of anarchism in the physical world.

You used his date of death, that implies they didn't exist at all when he died.
And while the Spanish Civil War (and thus formation of Revolutionary Catalonia) wouldn't happen for another few years the Spanish anarchists (specially the CNT) were still known, similar to how the IWW was known in US, back in the day. I was simply asking, if he made anything in relation to them or had comments about them. A simple "no" would suffice instead of replying with just the date of death which seems snobbish.

Comrade, you have the wrong theoretical priorities. "Wrong or bad" mean jack shit. There is only cold strategy, nothing else. Politics on the revolutionary left cares not for these categories. Do you understand? This is an ideologically typical way for you to reframe your premise in the ideologically hegemonic way.

STOP IT, you stupid shit.

Theorists don't work like that, you shit. Theory is written post-"x" writers death. I don't give a shit about Makhno's grave, like I don't give a shit about Marx's.

What I give a shit about is how post-Makhno anarchist spent their lives denying the concrete gains he achieved in revolutionary politics. From this I conclude: the worst Stalinist is much more of a Makhnovist, than an anarchist who uncritically pretends to love a symbol.

Who gives a shit about "being known," you idiot? What matters is this: the CNT required the parallel state to exist!

And I was simply stating the fact that maybe you should google him and witness how he died before your meme-revolution. Nevertheless, this exact abstract attitude towards revolutions is what drives anarcho-idealism – something Makhno hated and purged.

You are missing the whole point of this thread, so yeah, fuck me, rite?

That was kind of my point though.

Hi, guys!

Although I haven't read a single book in my life – tho have been recommended several times, lol – plz like me videos and my personality.

I'm much better than needing any kind of critical thought or reflection to be accepted.

I am B'atko. I create videos wherein posts are read out by voice-fonts. This is the most I can achieve creatively, so please, accept me as an illiterate faggot.

Please, subscribe to my channel.

Fugg Bobolesheviks, amirite? :DDDD

p.s. who needs books when we have FAQs?!

lel. actual Batko here. I don't need books to know what Makhno was about. The ☭TANKIE☭s fucked us over. End of story. Any questions, lol.


More like Nestor Kulakhno, am i rite fellas

why aren't you on /leftpol/ lmao

The actual policies – as far as we know – of Makhno were non-discriminate regarding the different ownership classes. Makhno was literally retarded when it came to theory, still he had the best intentions.


hell, no


tbf MLs tend to do that shit too, I'd say it's more of a LARPer thing.

Öld meg magad Ginjeet

Olvass könyv rilétid, paraszt!

speak american you terrorists

Thank God I'm not “M-L”.

except they don't. that line of logic is the line trots and other revisionists employ. "ussr was perfect until king stalin" etc

te: buta?


I'm prepared to argue against your position – if you have any.

meant for

Kalaallit oqalusinnaavit?

And the stupider M-Ls will say the USSR under Stalin was perfect until Krushchev ruined it by doing revisionism ignoring the material conditions in the USSR at the time. In anycase it's larping retards refusing to look at history critically and instead focusing on individuals actions.

shock: imagined

Naamik? :(

i don't care about what individuals on the internet calling themselves m-ls do. the actual m-l parties with historical continuity from the comintern don't hold a line like that. what you're describing is hoxhaist revisionism.

olizujte vaginu vaseho psa svym jazykem

gg, cigány


t. anarchism that actually works

I learned some basic Hungarian
buzi basak neger


Interesting… and what is the core literature of platformism? Are Bookchin or Ocalan platformists? Is Rohjava an example of it?

I assume a Greenlandic form of an inuit language. I severally doubt google has it in their systems.

Why Greenlandic of all things?

polar vanguard

Hungarian I'm guessing,


Be serious with me, are you from Greenland?

I was kidding dude, no idea if it's a Greenland language or whatever. I know that there's one poster from Greenland on this board, maybe two even. I thought that language was actually Finnish.

isn't the point about platformism more that it's basically not anarchist? That says more about the feasibility of anarchism irl ofc


Look, i like your hypothesis and MOSTLY agree with what your saying, OP. But your being really fuckin cringy and embarrassing in your responses, so im gonna sage anyway.

Looks a bit finno-ugric.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was even more confusing.

P.S Fuck theory (to a degree), find a golden mean you people.

One would best go and see the world for themself instead of burying their head in books.