Was the Black Army's defeat a matter of an inherent flaw in anarchist organization, or just a simple military defeat?

The Black army was fighting on more fronts than the Bolsheviks. they were fighting the reds, the whites, the nationalists and the Germans. They fought more sides, i cant quite recall what they were however.

in order to counteract the obvious bias, pro bolshevik position of this work, here's some other sources and various other works.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nestor-makhno-the-russian-revolution-in-ukraine-march-1917-april-1918

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nestor-makhno-the-manifesto-of-the-makhnovists

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-and-nestor-makhno-about-the-platform

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nestor-makhno-the-struggle-against-the-state-and-other-essays

TL;DR Anarchists cannot defeat organized, industrial armies.

They weren't always on war with the reds. Most of the time there were "allies" or "non-aggresion".

Once they were dangerous to the revolution no longer usefull they had to comply or be eliminated.

And they didn't comply.

youtube.com/watch?v=Zhq-aNlQJuo
Movie about the period. (activate subs).

Right, but for all of those (except the Ukrainian nationalists), the Blacks were a secondary enemy in the same sense that Assad is opposed to Rojava but focusing on the FSA and ISIS

He literally ordered the raids and deaths of Jews and Mennonites.

Sweet. Thanks. It is not written by a general, but it looks like it has some good stuff in it.

I wouldn't comply with the bourgeoisie version of communism either

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nestor-makhno-the-struggle-against-the-state-and-other-essays#toc5

Considering anarchism is completely retarded, let's call it providence.

I would fight the bolsheviks if i were them as well. They destroyed the soviets and any remnants of socialism within weeks of taking power and killed, imprisoned, or exiled anyone who they didn't like. The bolsheviks were a right wing deviation from any socialist system, using the propaganda of the proletariat for their own gain.

If you deny this, you are an idiot. If you accept this but agree with these actions, you are a Leninist. And from this, i conclude, Leninist who defend the USSR should be treated the same as any other tankie.

Probably doesn't help that the opposite guy to Makhno was Mikhail Frunze. He is considered pretty good as a military commander. He also had just finished fighting in the Basmachi insurgency, which was still ongoing at the time. So he had experience fighting in similar environments.

Frunze was sometimes known as the Russian Clausewitz, because of his use of everything under the state to fight the enemy. He used both political and military infrastructure against Makhno. He used political infrastructure like the state security and Soviet party members as a way to peer into the local population for both intelligence purposes, and as a kind of ideological and informational warfare. He also used regular military units similar to the way commandos and special forces are used today, as loose bands of hit-and-run raiders. These "special purpose units" used against Makhno ended up being the conceptual and doctrinal forerunners of the Spetsnaz.

I'd say this is at least one major set of factors as to why he got beat: Frunze was using a kind of proto-counterinsurgency against Makhno (control the population, hunt the guerrillas by becoming guerrilla-like). You can find a lot of information on Frunze around in western war colleges or military journals on these topics, but not so much on Makhno unfortunately.

A fuckload of conscripts and a military industrial complex sure do their work well. The bolsheviks even gassed whole forests to get rid of Green Army insurgents.

bump for more discussion

Good Bump always needs good Bait

They never had any chance of winning, but they kicked all kinds of ass while they were going down

no, Makhno was Denikin's main focus for quite a while, and white troops were piss fucking scared to fight the anarchists

It's not pro-bolshevik, it's the only comprehensive historical work on the topic that takes into account all (makhnovist, bolshevik, white) sources. I just love how works that are not taking the anarchists' standard position of "makhno is god, he wrote it in his diary" seriously are portrayed as biased.

that is BS and is proved to be BS in this book:

Ask a tankie and he'll say the former. Ask an anarchist and he'll probably say the latter.

...

Makhno did nothing wrong.

the first international is dead. bakunin lost. get over it.

Hmm this sounds familiar

You fucking bet they do, and they especially did about a hundred years ago when the army that could put an overwhelming number of men with guns on the field at once was the one that won the battle. The military is a reality that needs to be accounted for.

...

How is it not socialism? It is a duty of every citizen in dictatorship of the proletariat to fight and even die for socialism.

It doesn't matter what it is. What matters is that anarchists failed to prepare for it and died because of that failure.

Unfortunately the period of several years was a lot more complicated, and your naivety shines through on the problems and complications faced by the Bolsheviks.

If anyone here is naive it's you. Most of the problems were the result of the Bolsheviks policies in the first place.

So your saying that they bolsheviks didn't actually take control of the soviets thus destroys what the soviets actually were?

Motherfuck, go read a fucking book you dumb shit.

You've provided a very broad claim with no reasoning at all to back it up. Hardly surprising from a Chomskyite, but you could've at least tried. I'm honestly not sure if you people really believe what you're saying or if you're just having one of your 'anti-authoritarian' temper tantrums again. Anarchists being passive in the face of reactionary violence is more than just a meme, you guys actively regurgitate Western anti-communist propaganda on a daily basis and vehemently denounce every action taken to further worker's emancipation. Defending Bolshevism is essentially defending communism. Their only crime was refusing to let the revolution die.

also

It hardly needs much explanation. Every day we see anarchists brainlessly repeat the generic Cold War line about what Marxism-Leninism was like, and if you even dare to question it you're a 'SJW tankie.' The former being a term they've adopted from Holla Forums, the latter is their way of referring to communists. The fact that just pointing this out will make them assume I'm a redditor proves how deeply they've corrupted the left with reactionary ideas.

I really hope no one else here falls for the 'sectarian' meme. If the anarchists had their way they'd even have you all believe that denouncing their social-democrat buddies is an attack on the working class.

wow, never go full bolshevik apologist. But what can you expect from a Leninist other than ideological dibble.

It was a local peasant rebellion nothing more, it's not a question of who was the "good guys", maybe Mahkno really did create a anarchist paradise in Ukraine, but the fact of the matter is that only the Bolsheviks had the actual potential to build a global communist revolution.

There can never be "autonomous zones" within the global capitalist domination, sooner or later they're consumed by it, and added to the Anarchists list of glorious defeats.

To me, this constant accusations against the Bolsheviks as intentionally evil "red fascists" shows a extremely naive and idealistic vision of what an actual violent revolution will look like, with all it's power struggles and excess. Say what you want about Mao, but he's correct in that it's not a fucking tea party.

That's not what the argument is at all. It not like we think they were the devil incarnate, but what they did do is destroy any opposition toward them, even it was legitimate criticisms.

The fact of the matter remains that disagreeing comrades on tactics and ideology if your goals are the same is never enough to justify violence against them, however this is exactly what they did, they killed, jailed or exiled any opposition because they "knew" what they were doing was right and it is exactly this mentality, that they HAVE to lead the revolution and anyone else is the enemy the is exactly why it should be opposed and never had any revolutionary potential, like any vanguard ever has or ever will.

Way to prove me right.

The Bolsheviks acted completely rationally, you can't have a revolution if your "allies" want an allegiance with the bourgeois, refuse to make sacrifices for the continuation of the revolution, or actively co-operates with tsarists. Which was the case with the Mensheviks, Kronstadt or Social-Revolutionaries.

As I said, a revolution is a violent thing, it's by no means a democratic process of consensus but by the very definition one of uncompromising conviction. This eternal fear of it's excess is why anarchists always end up being the mayfly of great events.

kek

THIS.

ANARKIDDIES ON SUICIDE WATCH

Are you serious?

Are you?

I am.

...

What does red fascism has to do with a global communist revolution?

What does a bunch of peasants in Ukraine?

I never claimed they had.

Utter speculation. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what their potential really was, all we have is the result, and the result of their actions was a massive fuck up for socialist movement that destroys alot of credibility it has that still persists today.

fuck the Bolsheviks, and fuck Bolshevik apologists, fucking ideologues.

a few posts later

The Bolsheviks (or well, the MLs, a distinction should be made) managed to spread the Idea of Communism worldwide to an unprecedented degree, and in many (if not most) places around the world it's still considered the idea of liberation; in no form connected to the liberal myth of "totalitarianism". The world does not end at metropolitan Europe or the Anglosphere. Their potential was very much realized.

The continued insistence here of the necessary purity of the revolt is exactly the fear of "excess" that I was talking about. The failures, experiments and attempts of communism are necessary for it to be realized.

He's pointing out the very real fact that anarchists fail to even take their revolution anywhere, it doesn't fail as much as it killed before it even blooms. No amount of complaints about unfairness, autocracy or "red fascism" is going to make this disappear.

As far as the realities of the 20th century show us, Anarchism simply wasn't fit for survival. Though it's possible the developments of the 21st have changed that.

Please read this:
libcom.org/library/continuing-appeal-nationalism-fredy-perlman

No, they really didnt, to say that is to ignore a history of serious socialist experiments and ideas that had been present in the world for the last few decades at that point. They just became the largest current after they took power in 1917 and had access to means of spreading propaganda on a scale equivalent to the capitalists states.
That's because to believe in wanting to create "totalitarianism" is fucking ridiculous to most people, doesn't change the fact that once these systems were put into place, that's is how they functioned. People want liberation, but they're afraid of too much change. they dont know what a truly revolutionary system would bring because they have no experience with it, and M-L offers them a liberation if only you give them the power, and then they use that power too, you guessed it, for their own interests.

I agree completely, which is why Leninism should be seen as a relic that failed miserably at what it set out to do, and infact actively worked against its own goals.

How do you figure that exactly?

Complaining that these things dont exist doesn't help the situation. Im not sure how to make you see past your ideological foothold here, because if you can look at the M-L and its following schools of thought with anything other than extreme criticisms and instead go "ya they had the right idea" while simultaneously looking at the outcome of these results then im just not sure what to say to you.

Think very long and hard about why that is exactly, and tell me why exactly the 21st century would be any different. If it was not possible then, it shouldn't be possible now, and it it is possible now then it should have been possible then. What exactly has changed so much that the fundamental idea of what anarchism is, is only possible now as opposed to nearly 100 years ago.

I'll do that, in return read these:

libcom.org/library/communism-is-the-material-human-community-amadeo-bordiga-today

Never mind Losurdo's insipid Stalin apologia, together these perspectives bring some very interesting ideas on what the purpose of communism (as Marxism-Leninism) was in the 20th century.

Yes, as I said, they managed to spread it worldwide. And it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the MLs didn't "seriously" want socialism, I've already addressed this puritanical witch hunt. It was very reasonable for communists to be uncritical towards Stalinism, as the USSR was seen as a unprecedented living proof of the real possibility of socialism.

Tell me one anarchist zone (state) that survived (or exists) outside a power vacuum. It's a clichéd critique, but so far I've never seen it seriously addressed. Now, I generally agree that communist movements themselves arose out of similar vacuums or weakness, but they large difference was that they've managed to grow into a power in their own right several times.

Again, see above, you're making the ridiculous claim that socialist and communism ideas wasn't spread by the MLs (on the general basis that it's not the tendency you prefer), and even then ignoring that excess of such acts. In the similar vein of how the bourgeois revolutions carried with them the ideas that would later grow into socialism, the MLs planted the seeds for communism proper - this is an excess of their revolution.

I never made that claim, I referred to the material conditions of the current societies. I'm not an anarchist either, so I'd rather like you(?) to explain it to me. I agree with you, it didn't work in the 20th century, and it wont work in this one either.

Correction: Otherwise I agree with you

You are right from a Leninist Idealogical perspective, if you want your idealogy to have succes you need to have a means to sustain it against counter evolutionary forces. What comes after the revolution isnt an theoretical or idealogical question but a military one.

The Bolsheviks their original strategy was to assist the guys at the german revolution. if the polish nationalists didnt stop the Bolsheviks then Global communism or whatever you call it would have been a succes.

This, I should have mentioned that from the beginning. Which is the groundwork for why Trotskyists claim Lenin supported Permanent Revolution, he did - but the failure to reach the Bavarian Socialist Republic in time crushed that tactic.

Lenin was very realistic, and honest, when he advocated for NEP state capitalism.

This is, honestly, one of the worst "left" articles I've read in quite a long time. This reads more like a long rant on r/anarchism or from here than a serious attempt to understand nationalism or imperialism. It's in no way or form worth dealing with and if this is your idea of a counter-argument I sincerely wish you'd put some more effort into it.

There is nothing more to comment on this.

The marxist' s solution to the threat of counterrevolution is very conventional: quickly build a powerful state military and create a secure and redundant supply chain to support it. Is there an anarchist solution?

It's not wrong tho

If you don't know what the hell you're talking about in the first place it quite clearly follows your conclusions are useless.

Hello, reddit!