This is a persistent myth that is shared amongst anarchists and RadLibs alike that the Soviets betrayed the Makhnovists by reneging on their so-called alliance with the Black Army, turning on them immediately after the defeat of the White Army.
This furnishes the anarchist persecution fetish and common narratives about how communists will always betray “the true revolution” and how Lenin was a tyrant.
The historical facts, however, paint a significantly different picture.
For one, you do not sign pacts with your allies. There was a military pact that was signed but, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, this is something that occurred between two parties that were constantly at odds with each other and the pact was signed out of conditions where the interests of both parties were temporarily aligned. This simple fact escapes the historical revisionists constantly but, unsurprisingly, only when it serves their arguments.
Secondly, Makhno himself knew that this pact was only temporary. Upon the signing of the pact he had this to say in The Road to Freedom, the Makhnovists’ mouthpiece, in October 13, 1920:
"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]
Clearly these are not the words that allies speak about one another.
At the successful Seige of Perekop, whereby the Red and Black Armies successfully broke the back of Wrangel’s White Army forces and brought the Southern front to a conclusion, Makhno’s aide-de-camp Grigori Vassilevsky, pronounced the end of the pact, proclaiming:
“That’s the end for the agreement! Take my word for it, within one week the Bolsheviks are going to come down on us like a ton of bricks!”
[Source: Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack by Skirda and Sharkey, p.238]
The fact is that USSR furnished the Black Army with much-needed military supplies without which they would have been unable to continue fighting and Makhno was no pluralistic leader who was open to Bolsheviks; in fact, his army incorporated Bolshevik forces which defected to the Black Army and Makhno set his military secret police force, the Kontrrazvedka, to at first surveil the former Bolshevik military leaders along with the rising Bolshevik influence that had developed particularly around Yekaterinoslav, and then later summarily executed the Bolshevik leaders when they posed too much of a threat to his power due to commanding some of the strongest units in his army.
But that’s a topic which deserves its own post…
You state it was an alliance. Clearly you don’t know much about this historical event and you didn’t manage to read four sentences into what I wrote.
I’ve come across plenty.
And the USSR provided critical materiel to the Makhnovists at a time when they had dwindling supplies so, in turn, the USSR helped the Makhnovists survive but yet again, historical facts escape the convenient narrative it seems.
Stick around for my effort posts on Revolutionary Catalonia and, eventually, the Kronstadt Rebellion I guess. There’s plenty more to learn from history.
Cool. They’re wrong. Doesn’t change what the USSR did.
Seriously, what’s the point of insisting on this? Even assuming that we for some reason never knew about the soviet aid (We did, what kind of anarchists are you talking to?), what they did in the end is still deplorable.
If we’re helping each other survive, and once you can survive on your own (in a big part thanks to me), you shoot me in the back of the head, it doesn’t stop being something shitty to do just because I expected it, or because you had helped me too before you decided to shoot me.
Can’t wait for another Lenin PFP to say the sabotage didn’t happen, and if it did it was minor, and if it wasn’t it was their fault, and if it wasn’t they should have expected it, and if they did they deserved it anyway, and if they didn’t anarchists were sabotaging too, and if they weren’t well they still couldn’t endure it so clearly anarchism doesn’t work.
Also… why do you stick to anarchism? What I’m talking about happened with statists too. Hungary, Yugoslavia? The fucking Sino-Soviet split?
You made the point that the Black Army was critical to the war effort. I made the point that the USSR was also critical to the Black Army’s war effort.
The relevance to the discussion should be apparent. I’m not sure how much clearer I need to be.
Right. So you’re obviously operating under this notion that the Makhnovists were intending on a path of peaceful coexistence with the Bolsheviks.
This doesn’t square with historical facts.
Makhno ordered some of his most effective military leaders who were Bolshevik sympathisers to be summarily executed by his secret police, the Kontrrazvedka, which was in violation of what ostensibly was the democratic structure of Makhnovia by ignoring the authority of the Military Revolutionary Council.
So talking about “shooting someone in the back of the head” is especially pertinent to this discussion.
The Kontrrazvedka set up terror cells within the USSR. That doesn’t bode well for an idyllic notion of peaceful coexistence imo.
Makhno also ordered the execution of journalists and the destruction of their printing houses because they were disseminating material which was too sympathetic towards the bolsheviks. It was only the fact that cooler heads in his leadership prevailed over this and convinced him against getting these orders carried out.
There’s a very clear pattern of outright antagonism towards the Bolsheviks across Makhno’s reign. This “UwU I’m just a smol anarchist bean who wants to be free to do my own thing, why not just leave me be?” routine doesn’t hold water.
Makhno knew that certain cities that the Black Army had gained control over were more sympathetic towards the Bolsheviks and I fail to see that he would extend this demand for peaceful coexistence to that cohort of the population.
In fact, while we’re talking about it, it’s funny that you’d demand such a thing for a group which did not extend the same idea to the Mennonites and the German settlers. Strange how you’d demand this for one group and yet apparently have no concern about extending it to others - is it that you simply feel that Makhnovia had a special entitlement to being left alone to practise their society because they align with your own political beliefs?
Can’t wait for another reply from you which relies on vibes and convenient narratives to summarily dismiss historical facts which go against your beliefs.
Can’t wait for more handwringing over a *gasp!* Lenin pfp. (I bet you don’t do this for the gang-raping and ethnociding Makhno when you see his pfp, do you? Spare me your feigned outrage and your hypocrisy.)
Can’t wait for an anarchist to assume a position of unjust hierarchy over my own opinions on the matter.
…I’ve made one effortpost. I’ve written it on some factors in Makhnovia.
Are you planning to sign up to my Patreon or something? If not, by what right do you demand that I write on topics that you feel are the most important for me to research and write about?
This topic has been an area of interest for me for longer than I’ve been an ML. I write from a place of knowledge on the topic. I don’t know enough and I haven’t researched enough to provide a developed, in-depth opinion on the Sino-Soviet Split, for example. And there is precious little that is written about Makhnovia/the war in the Ukraine in the interwar period and the Spanish Civil War that isn’t from a liberal or someone that views anarchism with rose-tinted glasses. That would be my other reason.
You are more than welcome to make your own posts on such matters if this sense of importance that you place on them is something that you sincerely hold rather than being little more than cheap concern-trolling.
I have literally never disputed this. I’ve never met an anarchist that did. Of course, its always the case that according to MLs they know plenty of anarchists that say they want to burn little babies alive, but I even conceded that whoever thinks this isn’t the case is wrong. You keep bringing it up as if its a super own that changes everything, it really doesn’t.
It seems to me like you made up an angry baby anarchist in your head to be mad about instead of going against anything real people believe. It’s very clear the relationship was extremely wary and purely out of political convenience, and once again, I’ve never met any anarchist who disputes this, much less well read people.
To just pretend that the anarchists persecuted and purged the poor little innocent bolsheviks out of nowhere and for no reason other than ideology is just as idiotic and ignorant of what was really happening. Once again, we are all supposed to excuse and understand and give the benefit of the doubt to and even support bolsheivk attrocities no matter how repressive, bloody and absurd, but anything bad an anarchist does is “those evil anarkiddies!!!” with no other context or reason.
There was a very serious distrust that the bolsheviks were just taking advantage of them and treating them like useful idiots, giving basically scraps as “aid” with increasingly pressuring terms and conditions that they would not even get that if they didn’t immediately stop being anarchists (a tactic they would repeat with catalonia btw). It is completely understandable that they thought the very openly anti-anarchist bolsheviks that were helping out were going to backstab them when they had the chance to. What would you have done in that situation, smartass?
Whataboutism (and a bunch of propaganda).
The only one trying to push a narrative here is you. By your own admission that was the aim of your entire post.
What exactly is hypocritical about not arguing with someone who… agrees with me? You spare me the propaganda too, please.
Makhno PFPs have been some of my best friends and among the most kind and honest people I’ve ever met. On the other side, I’ve yet to meet a Lenin PFP that treats me with basic respect, you being no exception, so excuse me for being wary.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you just trying to carve in as many “owns” as possible into your post? We’re in a forum entirely consisting of people who dislike everything I stand for, you really don’t need to.
Sorry if I expressed myself wrongly. I never demanded you to do anything. I said that the USSR had a tendency to abandon any socialist movement that wasn’t exactly aligned with theirs, one that they carried to their grave. You said you’re soon going to talk about Catalonia, and I merely said that this applies to statist leftists just as much.
Sigh… as usual, engaging with you people is always incredibly pointless and frustrating. As many accusations of “vibes only” you always throw, you always mainly rely on giving a vibe of owning the other person, just like conservatives.
You can’t have a basic conversation with another person, you must always be disrespectful, mocking, smug, belittling and angry. That’s so much more important to you than an actual argument, that you always end up showing a complete and utter lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of what anarchism even stands for or wants, while claiming you know it better than us. I don’t know if this mentality just stuck to you after reading so much Lenin or if it’s a genuine tactic, but every single one of you I’ve met has always done the exact same thing, no matter if I approach respectfully or not.
I’m extremely tired of this argument and I’m going to disengage. I hope you have a good day.
Fine, you’re going to go there. What’s your source for the USSR attempting to strong-arm the CNT-FAI into not being anarchist?
You’re literally engaging in genocide denialism right now.
Pointing out the rank hypocrisy of expecting peaceful coexistence from the Bolsheviks towards the Makhnovists when the Makhnovists neither extended this to the Bolsheviks nor to the Mennonites is whataboutism? I’m asking you to account for why your concern for this only ever goes one way. I never said “but the Makhnovists attacked other people!!” in defense of the actions of the Bolsheviks. That’s what whataboutism is. Asking you to reconcile the inconsistencies in your own position is not whataboutism, unless that’s an implicit admission on your behalf of the fact that you think that this is somehow irrelevant.
This is exactly where these discussions with anarchists always go to. Now it’s a pity that you didn’t go all-in and accuse me of spreading Bolshevik propaganda but that’s just how it is.
So I take it that eyewitness testimony from Volin counts as “propaganda” in your eyes?
The genocide denier who is justifying the extrajudicial execution of Black Army officers for holding Bolshevik sympathies and who is handwaving genocide as “propaganda” is claiming that they aren’t pushing a narrative. Right. Sure thing.
This really isn’t painting yourself in the light that you think it is.
You’re really doubling down on these whole propaganda accusations, aren’t you?
By “someone who agrees with me” I take it that you agree with people who supports Makhno’s penchant for gang rape and what is at the least his turning a blind eye towards genocide?
I’m responding to you in the tone that you’re taking with me. I get that you think that you’ve got the moral high ground and that you’re justified in what you do but to call foul on me when you go sticking words in my mouth and I don’t respond to that with a charitable attitude that you clearly couldn’t manage to extend to me.
You completely ignored the points that I made in my post and went straight ahead reasserting a claim without directly addressing why I refuted that point. You’re not going to get a patient response out of me if you don’t bother reading the post you respond to.
No. It’s not an “own”. You’re putting words in my mouth and you’re speaking from a place of ignorance.
If you want to explain to me how your low-key gaslighting and your attempts to speak for my opinions is somehow in line with your principles then go right ahead.
This hostility that you’re bringing to bear and this readiness to abandon your own principles because you’re speaking with someone who you’ve decided is your enemy is one of the reasons that I don’t bring up when I tell people what made me stop being an anarchist but believe me when I say that it’s very familiar to me.
Look at exactly where the conversation took a turn. You decided to bring the heat and then I responded in kind and now you’re calling foul.
Are you really going to make the that anarchists are aware of what Makhno wrote in The Road to Freedom?
Are you seriously going to disregard Volin’s work as propaganda?
Don’t piss on my boots and tell me that it’s raining.
I know this dance. The next reply is going to be you demanding sources for every little point I’ve made, which is fine—I have them all and I’m going to provide them for you if you ask—but you are going to ignore where I’ve called you to account for your own sources.
Then I’m going to ignore your next reply and state that you haven’t provided me with any sources which I have sparingly requested (it’s one direct and about two indirect requests) where I have asked for them and that if you’re going to make me go to the effort of quoting a series of sources and you want a reply from me then you can start with providing me with the sources I requested from you multiple comments ago.
Then the conversation takes on its end phase.
This is where people bail from the exchange because they can’t be bothered to find a bare couple of sources, they provide some tertiary source blogpost or opinion piece that would make a first year uni student blush, or they skim something to come up with a refutation for a couple of sources that I’ve provided to try and debunk my sources (at which point I bring my knowledge to bear and lay it down really hard because it’s easy to tell when someone is cherry-picking from a source they aren’t familiar with and I have no patience for that sort of point-scoring nonsense.)
I could be wrong though. Who knows? The world is full of surprises.
You’re speaking for me again. This is a consistent pattern in your replies and it’s wearing very thin.
This is an absolutely pitiful strawman.
You’re denouncing me for a lack of familiarity with anarchism, you claim that I’m speaking about anarchism from a place of ignorance, and all in order to win an argument.
What seems to be lost on you is the bitter irony that you are assuming my level of knowledge of anarchism, you are speaking from a place of ignorance about my knowledge thereof, and you doing this all to win an argument yourself.
If you had done a little research on me, you would have realised that I have recently commented stating that I was a long-term anarchist and that my politics only changed recently. You would have noticed that I was an anarchist long enough to have outlived at least one anarchist comrade, that I was embedded enough in the Reddit anarchist scene that I recognised this user by their distinctive writing style across multiple accounts, that I noticed this user stopped posting around the same time that word got around through my networks of an anarchist in Portland dying a violent death.
You would be able to quickly find that this comrades’ account was active at least ten years ago, often in slapfights with Denny_Craine, although that account has been deleted. If you do some quick math, assuming that they went through multiple accounts and that I had been a part of the anarchist community long enough to build up a familiarity with their posting style and to build up networks to receive news through, that this would put me somewhere in the vicinity of being an anarchist for longer than some anarchists have been on this earth for.
If you want more receipts, instead of obfuscating some of the details like I tend to for the sake of plausible deniability, another of Kealiher’s more recent accounts was u/AllThePostLeftists. There’s a post out there on reddit stating that the user of this account was sentenced to 15 days in prison. There are details that can be found at Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office in Portland where Sean Kealiher was also in custody for 15 days. (Sean was still a kid back then so there’s very few details about this however.)
So tell me, have you been an anarchist long enough to be embedded in the anarchist community? Long enough to recognise users by their writing style that if their account was deleted and they sprang up with a new one and didn’t announce their name or reach out to you to identify themselves you’d still be able to recognise them? Have you been an anarchist long enough that you’ve had comrades pass away?
On what basis do you dare to speak for my knowledge of anarchism if you haven’t even bothered to familiarise yourself with some recent comments of mine?
There’s a little quote from Mao that MLs take seriously and that anarchists would benefit from doing the same:
I made a clear statement in response to yours and you asked why I would even bring it up. I explained exactly why I brought it up and how it’s relevant to the discussion and now you’re saying that you never disputed this.
I’m not saying “you disputed this”, I’m simply answering a question you asked. And I brought the fact up that the USSR resupplied the Black Army once so far so I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I keep on bringing it up but whatever.
It seems to me that you yourself were claiming that it was an alliance just a comment ago, that you haven’t spent nearly as much time in discussions with anarchists about Makhnovia than I have, and that you’re once again assuming a position of authority over my own experiences. That’s more than a little condescending.
This is just concern-trolling. You haven’t actually given a direct response to what I am missing from this particular event, you’re just handwaving and making vague allusions and implying that what they did was just without actually stating as much. And it’s pretty damning that you’d use a term like “purge” to minimise the extrajudicial executions that happened by Makhno’s command. People get purged out of parties not out of existence.
So then enlighten me as to what Makhno’s motivations were exactly.
Do you even know of the event that I’m referring to? Or are you just running defence reflexively because you’re treating this like it’s some sort of team sport?
What exactly do you refer to when you say that there was increasing pressure on them to stop being anarchists from the Bolsheviks by way of forcing conditions and terms?
And what would you have done with a military force that was suppressing your political movement domestically on part of your territory which was openly hostile towards you and would go so far as to establish terror cells within your own country?
It seems like your political beliefs have blinded you to the reality of the situation. The Makhnovists were openly hostile to the Bolsheviks and they attacked them, which totally is fine and completely justified, but the Bolsheviks attacking the Makhnovists is not okay because they should have simply extended a sort of grace to the Makhnovists which was entirely unreciprocated out of a sense of goodwill to those who consider themselves the mortal enemies of the Bolsheviks.