That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
After siding with the Bolsheviks during the Ukrainian–Soviet War, the Makhnovists were driven underground by the Austro-German invasion and waged guerrilla warfare against the Central Powers throughout 1918. After the insurgent victory at the Battle of Dibrivka, the Makhnovshchina came to control much of Katerynoslav province and set about constructing anarchist-communist institutions. […]
Surrounded on all sides by different enemies, the Makhnovist line in the battle for the Donbas eventually fell to the advancing White movement in June 1919. The Makhnovists were subsequently driven into a retreat to Kherson, where they reorganised their military and led a successful counteroffensive against the Whites at the Battle of Peregonovka. With the White advance defeated, the Makhnovists came to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine in late 1919, even taking over a number of large industrial cities, despite being a predominantly peasant movement.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
You’ll be happy to know that Makhno turned to banditry against the Soviets, which sparked a major conflict between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovshchina. Though, I don’t think anyone was claiming peaceful revolution was possible, just that revolution can result in a stable system post-revolution (which is true).
The Russian Civil War was extremely messy. For a time, in 1919, Makhno joined an alliance with the Whites against the Red Army, though eventually turned back to allying with the Red Army. The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno talks about this flip flopping, describing Makhno as reluctant in the alliance against the Red Army but nonetheless participating in bandit raids for supplies.
Not banditry, armed resistance against the red totalitarians.
He was in a bad spot from the beginning, and could never truly win. It’s sad, and Tankies and Fascists both paint the man in the worst light, because what he was trying to build was something beautiful.
The man had to pick sides at a time when both sides were actively his enemy, proving that the enemy of my enemy is no friend at all.
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
Makhno failed, and also famously never tried to force anything on anyone. He tried to build something new in a country that already had its government toppled by war.
Also, I don’t give a fuck about liberals. They’re just conservatives who like rules and order more than hurting people.
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution, that has been done before.
The state has a monopoly of violence, what would stop it from just becoming yet another liberal oligarchy?
Er, for example?
This is the first thing that came to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
Nonviolence and peaceful takeovers are liberal myths to ensure the people never take back power from those who wield violence on the daily.
Fine, but beside the point because I was responding to what @A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com said:
Who said anything about “nonviolence” or being “peaceful”?
@A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com did:
If you’re going to jump into a conversation like this you should at least read all of it.
Lol!
Learn what the term anomie actually means, okay?
What could possibly be more destructive to social norms than armed conflict?
You’ll be happy to know that Makhno turned to banditry against the Soviets, which sparked a major conflict between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovshchina. Though, I don’t think anyone was claiming peaceful revolution was possible, just that revolution can result in a stable system post-revolution (which is true).
Your proof of this?
The Russian Civil War was extremely messy. For a time, in 1919, Makhno joined an alliance with the Whites against the Red Army, though eventually turned back to allying with the Red Army. The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno talks about this flip flopping, describing Makhno as reluctant in the alliance against the Red Army but nonetheless participating in bandit raids for supplies.
Tankie thumbsucking doesn’t qualify as proof.
I linked you a source from the anarchist library, written by an anarchist.
Not banditry, armed resistance against the red totalitarians.
He was in a bad spot from the beginning, and could never truly win. It’s sad, and Tankies and Fascists both paint the man in the worst light, because what he was trying to build was something beautiful.
The man had to pick sides at a time when both sides were actively his enemy, proving that the enemy of my enemy is no friend at all.
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
Liberal oligarchy does not qualify as democracy.
If the people have a voice, then there’s a path forward.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand, but then again. I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
Then show me how your voice matters. Shouldn’t be too difficult, right?
Oh, sooo… liberals?
Sooo… like Makhno?
Makhno failed, and also famously never tried to force anything on anyone. He tried to build something new in a country that already had its government toppled by war.
Also, I don’t give a fuck about liberals. They’re just conservatives who like rules and order more than hurting people.
Where do you get your history from, Clyde? AI?
He was an anarchist fighting state forces, brightspark.