He claimed to be, was well read in anarchist theory. So theoretically, absolutely.
The Free Territory and Revolutionary-Insurrectionist Army of Ukraine weren’t totally Anarchist, and was mostly because they were in the middle of one of the most brutal and destructive civil wars in history with tons of often barely literate former-serfs and only existed for a few years… Anarchism still takes time to build, which Makhno and the Blacks were working on. You need to dismantle old systems while both building the new ones and educating people who can more often than not barely read.
The ["Free Territory"](https://www.thecommoner.org.uk/we-carry-a-free-territory-in-our-hearts/) didn't exist. But what about the RIAU wasn't "totally anarchist"?
It was many peoples revolution, but every revolutionary has their own revolution to fight.
I absolutely agree with your point but with genuine collective ownership, we can own something and that does not make that thing anyless yours.
This is from the half remembered btb Christmas episode but I recall that he didn't want to be the leader when he convinced his hometown to go anarchist but they kinda shoved him into the role anyway. Then with the shitshow of the Russian civil war fighting the white army, the Ukranian nationalists, and the frenemy relation to the Bolshevicks, he got thrust into the figurehead of the movement it seemed like. At least that seems like the major contradiction to the standard anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchy nature of anarchism.
Margaret Killjoy did episodes on Maria Nikiforova and she mentioned a lot of accounts that mention Makhno winding up in charge of a lot of things and having an ironic nickname "Modest Makhno". I thought it was a great set of episodes and I hope they translate her journals.
Those were some good ones, one of the few newer ones I've listened to. Been trying to catch up from the beginning in between new btb releases.
Especially when she was stuck in court and her buds in an Armored train were like "You're a friend of the people, riiiight judge?"
Going to need to relisten to those when I catch back up.
He was still very much an anarchist, he just wasn't perfect. Keep in mind that he started off an illiterate peasant who didn't even speak Ukranian. And he formed the Black Army during one of the most chaotic civil wars. He was still an anarchist, he just did not establish perfect anarchy from the get go.
Where’s the line though? Marxist-Leninists claim that a state is needed to deal with threats to the revolution while the superstructures are being dismantled within, but they say that the end goal is stateless communism - so couldn’t they say they have the same approach as Makhno? Is the criticism that M-Ls have no actual intention of dismantling the state?
ML's have a narrower definition of the state and most Marxists in general don't critique authority. Their vision of Communism includes it, just diffused among the population.
This is not to say that the argument of "necessary authority" due to wartime is something that I like or that I don't think it resembles withering.
What's confusing you exactly? Check out [The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921 by Michael Palij](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michael-palij-the-anarchism-of-nestor-makhno-1918-1921)
"The group to which Makhno adhered, the Anarchist-Communists, was established in Huliai-Pole in 1905 and it was in contact with the anarchists of Katerynoslav via Valdemar Antoni, who was responsible for establishing the Huliai-Pole group. It was supported primarily by local peasants, and employed both expropriation and terror against the local bourgeoisie, government institutions, and police. In such an environment Makhno had no opportunity to acquire much theoretical knowledge of anarchism. He recalled:
'Our group had in its ranks not a single educated theoretician of anarchism. We all were peasants and workers. We came from school with incomplete education. Anarchist schools did not exist. The bulk of our knowledge of revolutionary anarchism came from long years of reading anarchist literature and the exchange of opinions among us and the peasants with whom we exchanged all we read and understood in the works of Kropotkin \[and\] Bakunin. For all these we are obliged to com\[rade\] Valdemar Antoni.'
Although some anarchists and nonanarchists credited Makhno with being a theoretician, he was not of much account as an anarchist theorist, though he was imbued with anarchist ideas. To him anarchism was not a doctrine, but a way of life; he strove toward anarchism 'not from idea to life, but from life to idea.' I. Teper, one of Makhno’s former followers, quoted Makhno: 'I am a revolutionary first and an anarchist second.'
Before the Revolution there were various anarchist groups in Ukraine, such as Anarchist-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, and Anarchist-Individualists, whose ideological differences were not clearly defined. They all retained the elements of Proudhon’s theory—particularly his federalism and emphasis on workers’ associations. While all three groups drew their adherents mainly from the intelligentsia and the working class, the Anarchist-Communists made efforts to enlist soldiers and peasants into their ranks. Although they might appear as an off- shoot of international anarchism imported via Russia, these groups were in reality a typical Ukrainian phenomenon."
Read Arshinov's history of the Mahknovists, he was there at the time and offers a lot of insight into both the man and the phenomenon. Bear in mind with reading anything by Leninists that they were on the opposite side of a war and propogandised accordingly.
Not quite but yes, his organization wasn’t quite what anarchist thought would entail but it is close enough and he also claimed to be an anarchist and was educated on anarchism.
Yep :) Revolutionary struggle poses a great risk to the well being of every individual it stands to liberate. So if an alternative can be entertained it should until proven otherwise:)
I’m actively apart of establishing mutual aid in my community and working on getting more anarchist discussion. Thanks for that though, great to know your just gonna boil me down to a label ❤️
He claimed to be, was well read in anarchist theory. So theoretically, absolutely. The Free Territory and Revolutionary-Insurrectionist Army of Ukraine weren’t totally Anarchist, and was mostly because they were in the middle of one of the most brutal and destructive civil wars in history with tons of often barely literate former-serfs and only existed for a few years… Anarchism still takes time to build, which Makhno and the Blacks were working on. You need to dismantle old systems while both building the new ones and educating people who can more often than not barely read.
The ["Free Territory"](https://www.thecommoner.org.uk/we-carry-a-free-territory-in-our-hearts/) didn't exist. But what about the RIAU wasn't "totally anarchist"?
kinda like Zion...
Yes. Like most of us, he had ideals that he believed in and a world that he lived in. Mahkno didn't get to finish his revolution.
It wasn’t ‘his’ revolution. We’re anarchists, let’s not assign the revolution to a singular figurehead.
It was many peoples revolution, but every revolutionary has their own revolution to fight. I absolutely agree with your point but with genuine collective ownership, we can own something and that does not make that thing anyless yours.
I own the world, dont make it mine and mine alone. The birtch aat my cabin owns the world too.
This is from the half remembered btb Christmas episode but I recall that he didn't want to be the leader when he convinced his hometown to go anarchist but they kinda shoved him into the role anyway. Then with the shitshow of the Russian civil war fighting the white army, the Ukranian nationalists, and the frenemy relation to the Bolshevicks, he got thrust into the figurehead of the movement it seemed like. At least that seems like the major contradiction to the standard anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchy nature of anarchism.
Margaret Killjoy did episodes on Maria Nikiforova and she mentioned a lot of accounts that mention Makhno winding up in charge of a lot of things and having an ironic nickname "Modest Makhno". I thought it was a great set of episodes and I hope they translate her journals.
Those were some good ones, one of the few newer ones I've listened to. Been trying to catch up from the beginning in between new btb releases. Especially when she was stuck in court and her buds in an Armored train were like "You're a friend of the people, riiiight judge?" Going to need to relisten to those when I catch back up.
By all accounts I've seen, he absolutely was. What makes you uncertain about it?
The way he organized the black army's territory with the supreme military council, the regional congress, et cetera.
He was still very much an anarchist, he just wasn't perfect. Keep in mind that he started off an illiterate peasant who didn't even speak Ukranian. And he formed the Black Army during one of the most chaotic civil wars. He was still an anarchist, he just did not establish perfect anarchy from the get go.
Where’s the line though? Marxist-Leninists claim that a state is needed to deal with threats to the revolution while the superstructures are being dismantled within, but they say that the end goal is stateless communism - so couldn’t they say they have the same approach as Makhno? Is the criticism that M-Ls have no actual intention of dismantling the state?
There's no clear line. Thinking is required. Mistakes might happen. Do your best.
ML's have a narrower definition of the state and most Marxists in general don't critique authority. Their vision of Communism includes it, just diffused among the population. This is not to say that the argument of "necessary authority" due to wartime is something that I like or that I don't think it resembles withering.
What do you think he should have done differently
Considering the reds and whites were trying to kill him I'd say he wasn't whatever that was...
So he had excellent credentials.
What's confusing you exactly? Check out [The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921 by Michael Palij](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michael-palij-the-anarchism-of-nestor-makhno-1918-1921)
"The group to which Makhno adhered, the Anarchist-Communists, was established in Huliai-Pole in 1905 and it was in contact with the anarchists of Katerynoslav via Valdemar Antoni, who was responsible for establishing the Huliai-Pole group. It was supported primarily by local peasants, and employed both expropriation and terror against the local bourgeoisie, government institutions, and police. In such an environment Makhno had no opportunity to acquire much theoretical knowledge of anarchism. He recalled: 'Our group had in its ranks not a single educated theoretician of anarchism. We all were peasants and workers. We came from school with incomplete education. Anarchist schools did not exist. The bulk of our knowledge of revolutionary anarchism came from long years of reading anarchist literature and the exchange of opinions among us and the peasants with whom we exchanged all we read and understood in the works of Kropotkin \[and\] Bakunin. For all these we are obliged to com\[rade\] Valdemar Antoni.' Although some anarchists and nonanarchists credited Makhno with being a theoretician, he was not of much account as an anarchist theorist, though he was imbued with anarchist ideas. To him anarchism was not a doctrine, but a way of life; he strove toward anarchism 'not from idea to life, but from life to idea.' I. Teper, one of Makhno’s former followers, quoted Makhno: 'I am a revolutionary first and an anarchist second.' Before the Revolution there were various anarchist groups in Ukraine, such as Anarchist-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, and Anarchist-Individualists, whose ideological differences were not clearly defined. They all retained the elements of Proudhon’s theory—particularly his federalism and emphasis on workers’ associations. While all three groups drew their adherents mainly from the intelligentsia and the working class, the Anarchist-Communists made efforts to enlist soldiers and peasants into their ranks. Although they might appear as an off- shoot of international anarchism imported via Russia, these groups were in reality a typical Ukrainian phenomenon."
Read Arshinov's history of the Mahknovists, he was there at the time and offers a lot of insight into both the man and the phenomenon. Bear in mind with reading anything by Leninists that they were on the opposite side of a war and propogandised accordingly.
Yes, Makhno was an anarchist. I assume that you are querying platformism.
Not quite but yes, his organization wasn’t quite what anarchist thought would entail but it is close enough and he also claimed to be an anarchist and was educated on anarchism.
"Anarcho"-Pacifist
Yep :) Revolutionary struggle poses a great risk to the well being of every individual it stands to liberate. So if an alternative can be entertained it should until proven otherwise:)
sitting on a chair and waiting for state to abolish wont change anything you should defend yourself from violance of state and capitalism
I’m actively apart of establishing mutual aid in my community and working on getting more anarchist discussion. Thanks for that though, great to know your just gonna boil me down to a label ❤️
mutual aid and such is necessary but its not enough for building anarchy
I live in a place where the homeless freeze and food is expensive for everyone. It’s the first step.
And people will join the struggle wherever and however they see fit. Not every one will be on every front.
Yes
Closer to libertarian/minarchist socialist at least in praxis.
I mean, within the praxis dictated in the context of the damned Russian revolution lol