I’m assuming.you’re just ignorant of Makhno, and not intentionally spouting century old propaganda but here. From the article "Makhno’s anarchism, however, was not confined to verbal propaganda, important though this was to win new adherents. On the contrary, Makhno was a man of action who, even while occupied with military campaigns, sought to put his anarchist theories into practice. His first act on entering a town – after throwing open the prisons – was to dispel any impression that he had come to introduce a new form of political rule. Announcements were posted informing the inhabitants that they were now free to organize their lives as they saw fit, that his Insurgent Army would not “dictate to them or order them to do anything.” Free speech, press, and assembly were proclaimed, although Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees, instructing their members to “take up some honest trade.'” Does that sound like a bandit king?
The USSR absolutely betrayed the Spanish Anarchists, this isn’t controversial at all. Here’s a well sourced thread from someone who wrote a research paper on the topic breaking it down.
I don’t know enough about Hungary to have an opinion on the matter and can’t be bothered to do all the reading for it right now. Based on your characterizations of previous libertarian left movements I’m going to assume you’re full of shit though.
Hard agree on “left unity”. Authoritarians and libertarians shouldn’t waste their time on trying to get along, it’s counter productive.
Further reading/listening for anyone interested:
The State is Counter Revolutionary is a theory and history series covering the Russian and Chinese revolutions. The Maoist one may be of particular interest to you.
Yes, I spoke in anger and I don’t really know that much about Makhno, I also don’t care because he’s an irrelevant footnote. The proletarian masses spoke, they chose who to give their energy and strength to and their choice was the Bolsheviks. Those Bolsheviks safeguarded the Soviet people against the capitalists literally turning out the bowels of hell upon them. Without the Red Army, the genocidal colonial expedition of Nazi Germany would have exterminated every single person between Ukraine and Siberia. And the Red Army was ONLY built through the absolutely tireless work of millions upon millions of workers building socialist industry under the guidance of the Communist Party. Communist Parties! Each region had its own branch! Each nation had its representation guaranteed! Soviet linguists helped invent alphabets for languages that had never been written down before, so they could record their oral histories and partake in the creation of culture on an equal basis with other nations! Truly the actions of a totalitarian dictatorship.
Ah, but it’s much easier to talk about “authoritarians and libertarians” and read the opinions of a bunch of white westerners who know better, than read the words of the people who built socialism under constant siege from the world empire. Hypocritically (?), I’m not interested in reading anything you have to link because I’ve already passed through the phase of anarchism I had before stumbling across The State and Revolution. I’m pressed because I used to be you until I got schooled, and had the humility and intellectual honesty to actually try and learn more. So go and read Blackshirts and Reds, S&R, Losurdo’s Stalin, Vijay Prashad’s Red Star Over the Third World and Washington Bullets and then come back and tell me whether or not you followed my footsteps or just bounced off back into “western-left” arrogance.
Oh look, a leftist “enlightened centrist”. Please, provide us your grand left unifying theory that will bring about peace and prosperity for two mutually exclusive schools of thought. Authoritarians and libertarians got lumped together a long time ago and it’s been made abundantly clear that that was a mistake. We should stop trying to force it. It’s counterproductive
Who said I was pro-left unity? Im a Marxist Leninist. Did the name not say “stalinism” loudly enough?
although ill take a real anarchist to work side by side with over your illiterate ass any day. Your ilk are charlatans and failures, always have been, always will be. Stop wasting our time with your illiteracy.
So you’re a Marist lenninist who’s against left unity and thinks that people who are either only pro authoritarian or pro libertarian are fucking idiots? Do I need to spell that out more or are you aware of how stupid you sound right now? Are you sure I’m the illiterate one in this exchange?
bitch I actually read theory, i don’t ascribe to “authoritarian” or “libertarian” as political movements. Its not a word used by any Marxist movement nor theorist that has actually accomplished something besides never getting past local party level.
you don’t even understand the world well enough to be mad at me properly. Do I have to spell it out for you or do you want to continue to roll in the mud with your ignorant pig friends?
Stay mad. Your politics are shit and no amount of theory is going to change the oppressive nature of the world you want to create. Dress up the attrocities your ideology represents in all the $5 words you want. It won’t change the fact that at the end of the day you’ll be another reactionary supporting a new generation of bourgeois pigs ruining life for the rest of us. I read state and revolution too, it was mid. Find a different Russian dipshit to base your life around, there’s better ones out there.
Imagine stanning a guy who armed and trained pogromists on an oopsie, and then in exile didn’t have the spine to support a much better anarchist seeking to kill a notorious leader of pogroms. Makhnovists are people who look at Trotsky and say “we need someone even less dignified, someone who accomplished still less and was spiteful and shit-flinging to even more people” and old Nestor comes to their rescue. Go follow his example and publish a newspaper that no one reads except to disparage it while alienating every leftist in your life even despite having the common enemy of the boogeyman tankies, and then die alone.
So correcting a patently false characterization = stanning makhno? K lol. Are you trying to out trivia me or something? Keep spouting whatever little bits and pieces of history you’ve managed to warp to fit your own preconceptions and leave the real conversation for people who don’t need to have their politics spoonfed to them from a bunch of state capitalist dictators that have been dead for decades
I’ve only referenced things that Makhnovists agree to, it’s hardly the Bolshevik history of him. You can be extremely charitable in sourcing and still come to the conclusion that Makhno was mainly pathetic and harmful (though platformism is interesting). I also think that enabling actual genocide is a little more than “trivia”, but it’s not owning the tankies, so I can see why you would be uninterested in it.
Makhno did, in reaction to a rather brutal set of evidence that you can’t just toss out arms and training everywhere and tell people to sort themselves out, fight at least some of the fascists he equipped and made a more pointed effort of helping the surviving Jewish people with community defense, but the underlying problem of him overwhelmingly serving to spread violent chaos in a state that had already been war-torn twice over remained, and that’s part of the “banditry” accusation.
When occupying cities or towns, Makhno’s troops would post notices on walls that read:
This Army does not serve any political party, any power, any dictatorship. On the contrary, it seeks to free the region of all political power, of all dictatorship. It strives to protect the freedom of action, the free life of the workers against all exploitation and domination. The Makhno Army does not therefore represent any authority. It will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever. Its role is confined to defending the freedom of the workers. The freedom of the peasants and the workers belongs to themselves, and should not suffer any restriction.61
But left in control of territory that they wanted to secure, the Makhnovists ended up forming what most would call a state. The Makhnovists set monetary policy.62 They regulated the press.63 They redistributed land according to specific laws they passed. They organized regional legislative conferences.64 They controlled armed detachments to enforce their policies.65 To combat epidemics, they promulgated mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health.66 Except for the Makhnovists, parties were banned from organizing for election to regional bodies. They banned authority with which they disagreed to “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves.”67 They delegated broad authority to a “Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.” The Makhnovists used their military authority to suppress rival political ideas and organizations.68 The anarchist historian Paul Avrich notes, “the Military-Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Guliai-Pole.”69
[…] skipping a paragraph and a quote for brevity
Anarchist attacks on the Bolsheviks’ civil war policies often focus on the severe military discipline, conscription, grain requisitioning, and creation of a secret police. Yet, under the same conditions of civil war, Makhno’s army adopted all these measures, albeit with different names.
military discipline and conscription:
In his army, Makhno claimed that units had the right to elect their commanders. However, he retained veto power over any decisions.71 He increasingly relied on a close group of friends for his senior command.72 As Darch notes, “Although some of Makhno’s aides attempted to introduce more conventional structures into the army, [Makhno]’s control remained absolute, arbitrary and impulsive.”73 One regiment found it necessary to pass a resolution that “all orders must be obeyed provided that the commanding officer was sober at the time of giving it.”74 As the war went on, his forces moved from voting on their orders to carrying out executions ordered by Makhno to enforce discipline.75
The pressures of war forced Makhno to move to compulsory military service, a far cry from the free association of individuals extolled in anarchist theory. Tellingly, all the anarchist histories call it a “voluntary” mobilization (complete with quotation marks).76 Historian David Footman describes the linguistic back-flips:
Accordingly, at Makhno’s insistence, the second Congress passed a resolution in favor of “general, voluntary and egalitarian mobilization.” The orthodox Anarchist line, expressed at an Anarchist gathering of this period, was that “no compulsory army…can be regarded as a true defender of the social revolution,” and debate ranged round the issue as to whether enlistment could be described as “voluntary” (whatever the feelings of individuals) if it took place as the result of a resolution voluntarily passed by representatives of the community as a whole.77
Just in case people did not understand the meaning of “voluntary,” the Makhnovists issued a clarifying bulletin:
Some groups have understood voluntary mobilization as mobilization only for those who wish to enter the Insurrectionary Army, and that anyone who for any reason wishes to stay at home is not liable…. This is not correct…. The voluntary mobilization has been called because the peasants, workers and insurgents themselves decided to mobilize themselves without awaiting the arrival of instructions from the central authorities.78
The Makhnovists needed conscription for the same reason the Bolsheviks did: the bulk of the peasantry was sick of fighting. The difference between the two is that the Bolsheviks had a political outlook that saw conscription as part of a transitional period with the future depending on world revolution, when the productive power of humanity first unleashed by capitalism could be brought to bear on all spheres of life, in the interest of the vast majority. The peasants of Russia and the Ukraine were still using wooden ploughs and harvesting by hand. They stood to gain immensely from an increase in both productivity and leisure time. In contrast, Makhno had no similar perspective and had no generalized plan or vision for the future.
food requisitioning:
An army needs to eat. As they moved through the Ukraine, locals would point out the kulaks who would “agree” to provide food.79 Despite orders to the contrary, Makhnovists would loot town after town, adding to the workers’ misery. One witness recalled:
Food supply was primitive, on the traditional insurgent pattern: the bratishki—the Makhnovists’ name for each other—would scatter to the peasant huts on entering a village, and eat what God sent; there was thus no shortage, although plundering and thoughtless damage to peasant stock did occur; I saw them shoot peasant cattle for fun more than once, amid the howls of women and children.80
From their earliest days, they took the equipment they needed from those who had it.81 As they passed through towns and villages, they required the populace to quarter them.82
secret police:
While condemning the Soviet Cheka as an authoritarian betrayal, Makhno created two secret police forces that carried out numerous acts of terror.83 After a battle in one village, they shot a villager suspected of treachery with no trial. They summarily executed many of their prisoners of war.84 Their secret police were tasked with getting rid of “opponents within or outwith [sic] the movement.”85 Their activities led to one anarchist Congress asking Makhno to explain his activities:
It has been reported to us that there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik Cheka. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported.86
This is an excerpt from a longer article. I added the three headings for readability
turns out that, regardless of ideology, the material situation of a revolution drives how groups act
I’m assuming.you’re just ignorant of Makhno, and not intentionally spouting century old propaganda but here. From the article "Makhno’s anarchism, however, was not confined to verbal propaganda, important though this was to win new adherents. On the contrary, Makhno was a man of action who, even while occupied with military campaigns, sought to put his anarchist theories into practice. His first act on entering a town – after throwing open the prisons – was to dispel any impression that he had come to introduce a new form of political rule. Announcements were posted informing the inhabitants that they were now free to organize their lives as they saw fit, that his Insurgent Army would not “dictate to them or order them to do anything.” Free speech, press, and assembly were proclaimed, although Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees, instructing their members to “take up some honest trade.'” Does that sound like a bandit king?
The USSR absolutely betrayed the Spanish Anarchists, this isn’t controversial at all. Here’s a well sourced thread from someone who wrote a research paper on the topic breaking it down.
I don’t know enough about Hungary to have an opinion on the matter and can’t be bothered to do all the reading for it right now. Based on your characterizations of previous libertarian left movements I’m going to assume you’re full of shit though.
Hard agree on “left unity”. Authoritarians and libertarians shouldn’t waste their time on trying to get along, it’s counter productive.
Further reading/listening for anyone interested:
The State is Counter Revolutionary is a theory and history series covering the Russian and Chinese revolutions. The Maoist one may be of particular interest to you.
Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth
Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists
Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control
Yes, I spoke in anger and I don’t really know that much about Makhno, I also don’t care because he’s an irrelevant footnote. The proletarian masses spoke, they chose who to give their energy and strength to and their choice was the Bolsheviks. Those Bolsheviks safeguarded the Soviet people against the capitalists literally turning out the bowels of hell upon them. Without the Red Army, the genocidal colonial expedition of Nazi Germany would have exterminated every single person between Ukraine and Siberia. And the Red Army was ONLY built through the absolutely tireless work of millions upon millions of workers building socialist industry under the guidance of the Communist Party. Communist Parties! Each region had its own branch! Each nation had its representation guaranteed! Soviet linguists helped invent alphabets for languages that had never been written down before, so they could record their oral histories and partake in the creation of culture on an equal basis with other nations! Truly the actions of a totalitarian dictatorship.
Ah, but it’s much easier to talk about “authoritarians and libertarians” and read the opinions of a bunch of white westerners who know better, than read the words of the people who built socialism under constant siege from the world empire. Hypocritically (?), I’m not interested in reading anything you have to link because I’ve already passed through the phase of anarchism I had before stumbling across The State and Revolution. I’m pressed because I used to be you until I got schooled, and had the humility and intellectual honesty to actually try and learn more. So go and read Blackshirts and Reds, S&R, Losurdo’s Stalin, Vijay Prashad’s Red Star Over the Third World and Washington Bullets and then come back and tell me whether or not you followed my footsteps or just bounced off back into “western-left” arrogance.
I don’t give a shit what you say, if your politics is “authoritarian bad and libertarian good” you’re a fucking idiot.
Oh look, a leftist “enlightened centrist”. Please, provide us your grand left unifying theory that will bring about peace and prosperity for two mutually exclusive schools of thought. Authoritarians and libertarians got lumped together a long time ago and it’s been made abundantly clear that that was a mistake. We should stop trying to force it. It’s counterproductive
Who said I was pro-left unity? Im a Marxist Leninist. Did the name not say “stalinism” loudly enough?
although ill take a real anarchist to work side by side with over your illiterate ass any day. Your ilk are charlatans and failures, always have been, always will be. Stop wasting our time with your illiteracy.
So you’re a Marist lenninist who’s against left unity and thinks that people who are either only pro authoritarian or pro libertarian are fucking idiots? Do I need to spell that out more or are you aware of how stupid you sound right now? Are you sure I’m the illiterate one in this exchange?
bitch I actually read theory, i don’t ascribe to “authoritarian” or “libertarian” as political movements. Its not a word used by any Marxist movement nor theorist that has actually accomplished something besides never getting past local party level.
you don’t even understand the world well enough to be mad at me properly. Do I have to spell it out for you or do you want to continue to roll in the mud with your ignorant pig friends?
Stay mad. Your politics are shit and no amount of theory is going to change the oppressive nature of the world you want to create. Dress up the attrocities your ideology represents in all the $5 words you want. It won’t change the fact that at the end of the day you’ll be another reactionary supporting a new generation of bourgeois pigs ruining life for the rest of us. I read state and revolution too, it was mid. Find a different Russian dipshit to base your life around, there’s better ones out there.
They are saying the lense of authoritarian/libertarian as a system of values is stupid
Imagine stanning a guy who armed and trained pogromists on an oopsie, and then in exile didn’t have the spine to support a much better anarchist seeking to kill a notorious leader of pogroms. Makhnovists are people who look at Trotsky and say “we need someone even less dignified, someone who accomplished still less and was spiteful and shit-flinging to even more people” and old Nestor comes to their rescue. Go follow his example and publish a newspaper that no one reads except to disparage it while alienating every leftist in your life even despite having the common enemy of the boogeyman tankies, and then die alone.
So correcting a patently false characterization = stanning makhno? K lol. Are you trying to out trivia me or something? Keep spouting whatever little bits and pieces of history you’ve managed to warp to fit your own preconceptions and leave the real conversation for people who don’t need to have their politics spoonfed to them from a bunch of state capitalist dictators that have been dead for decades
I’ve only referenced things that Makhnovists agree to, it’s hardly the Bolshevik history of him. You can be extremely charitable in sourcing and still come to the conclusion that Makhno was mainly pathetic and harmful (though platformism is interesting). I also think that enabling actual genocide is a little more than “trivia”, but it’s not owning the tankies, so I can see why you would be uninterested in it.
Makhno did, in reaction to a rather brutal set of evidence that you can’t just toss out arms and training everywhere and tell people to sort themselves out, fight at least some of the fascists he equipped and made a more pointed effort of helping the surviving Jewish people with community defense, but the underlying problem of him overwhelmingly serving to spread violent chaos in a state that had already been war-torn twice over remained, and that’s part of the “banditry” accusation.
freedom under Makhno has been overstated.
https://isreview.org/issues/53/makhno/
click here to expand, it's a long excerpt
This is an excerpt from a longer article. I added the three headings for readability
turns out that, regardless of ideology, the material situation of a revolution drives how groups act
deleted by creator
deleted by creator