• chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.

      • 𝙈𝙞𝙖@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        Nonviolence and peaceful takeovers are liberal myths to ensure the people never take back power from those who wield violence on the daily.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Fine, but beside the point because I was responding to what @A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com said:

          Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution

      • therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.

        Who said anything about “nonviolence” or being “peaceful”?

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          @A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com did:

          Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie

          If you’re going to jump into a conversation like this you should at least read all of it.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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).

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            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.

            • therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              For a time, in 1919, Makhno joined an alliance with the Whites against the Red Army,

              Tankie thumbsucking doesn’t qualify as proof.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 hours ago

                    Here:

                    At the end of 1919 the Ukrainian Army was forced by the superior Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik Russian forces to retreat westward where it encountered the Polish Army. Petliura decided it was impossible under these circumstances to continue orthodox warfare without external aid. He felt, however, that the struggle against the invading Russian forces should continue in the form of guerrilla warfare. Part of the army, about fourteen thousand men, was reorganized and, on December 7, 1919, under General Mykhailo Omelianovych-Pavlenko, moved far to the rear of the Bolshevik and Denikin forces to fight them and to support the Ukrainian partisans. This “Winter Campaign” continued through the winter of 1919–20.[15]

                    Petliura realized that Ukraine could not survive in her struggle against the Russian Reds and Whites without assistance from the Entente. Therefore, he tried to come to terms with the Polish government, which, in his judgment, was the bridge to the Entente. At first reluctant, Poland came awake when the erosion of the Ukrainian position threatened to remove the barrier that had protected Poland from the Bolshevik threat since Germany’s defeat. Thus, once the Polish Army attained the desired frontiers, the Zbruch River and western Volyn up to the Styr River, at the expense of Ukraine, the Poles agreed to negotiate. The Directory was obliged to issue a declaration on December 2, 1919, without the consent of its Galician members, accepting this line as the Polish-Ukrainian frontier.

                    After prolonged negotiations the two governments concluded a treaty, consisting of a political agreement and a military convention. Both governments expressed their profound conviction “that each people possesses the natural right to self-determination and to define its relations with neighboring peoples, and is equally desirous of establishing a basis for concordant and friendly coexistence for the welfare and development of both peoples.”[16] Although the treaty had many weaknesses and was sharply criticized by many on both sides, and in addition it did not achieve the Directory’s hope of winning French or British support, both the Polish and Ukrainian armies, including the participants in the winter campaign, joined in fighting the Red Army. On May 8, 1920, they liberated Kyiv. The Bolshevik counteroffensive, however, forced them to retreat deep into Poland where the Bolsheviks were finally defeated. The Soviet Russian government proposed an armistice and a preliminary peace that the Polish government accepted without consulting the Ukrainian government.

                    This is from an explicitly pro-anarchist, pro-Makhno source, so this isn’t really controversial. The justification tends to be that Makhnovschina was playing both sides, in order to best secure its position in a chaotic landscape. I didn’t dare being a pro-soviet source as it becomes even more damning, but at the same time would be less likely to be taken seriously.

                    The Makhnovists didn’t hide their animosity towards the Bolsheviks either, so this shouldn’t be surprising that they would fight:

                    Military hostilities between the Makhnovist revolutionary insurgents and the Red Army have ceased. Misunderstandings, vagueness and inaccuracies have grown up around this truce: it is said that Makhno has repented of his anti-Bolshevik acts, that he has recognized the soviet authorities, etc. How are we to understand, what construction are we to place upon this peace agreement?

                    What is very clear already is that no intercourse of ideas, and no collaboration with the soviet authorities and no formal recognition of these has been or can be possible. We have always been irreconcilable enemies, at the level of ideas, of the party of the Bolshevik-communists.

                    We have never acknowledged any authorities and in the present instance we cannot acknowledge the soviet authorities. So again we remind and yet again we emphasize that, whether deliberately or through misapprehension, there must be no confusion of military intercourse in the wake of the danger threatening the revolution with any crossing-over, ‘fusion’ or recognition of the soviet authorities, which cannot have been and cannot ever be the case.

                    [Source: Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack by Skirda and Sharkey, pp. 200-201]

                    The Russian Civil War created strange bedfellows. The idea that Makhnovschina tried to play both sides for its own interests is an extremely charitable reading of how they participated in the civil war. If the Red Army was truly the threat to Makhnovschina the Makhnovists said it was, then it makes perfect sense why they would temporarily form alliances against the Red Army if only to try to stay afloat themselves. And, for what it’s worth, they sided with the Red Army for the majority of the war.

                    Not everything is an evil communist conspiracy, sometimes Civil Wars are messy and result in strange bedfellows.

          • chaogomu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.