Although it has a weird trot bias, the biggest condemnation is that Makhno did not understand the working class. His army was that of peasants, and what did they do? Rolled into towns, claimed to have liberated the people, and left them at the mercy of whatever happened next. They had no plans apart from preventing authority structures from emerging. But what worked for the peasantry did not work the workers of the cities, as they did not have the same material conditions. How could notaries and administrators accept payment in kind? Why did he tell rail workers they could accept payment, except for military purposes (the majority of rail traffic)?
And you could not form an organisation that Makhno disapproved of or the kontrra would shoot you (because prisons are authoritarian). He disallowed parties because of a fear of authority creeping in again, but in the process disallowed workers to band together to represent their interests – as if parties were only going to come from external, sabotaging forces. Who exactly did they liberate then, and from whom? As we saw with the workers of Olexandrivske, he ignored their concerns about being paid real wages (and not barter for food for survival, a clear step back). What exactly did he achieve, then? Is this what freedom looks like? Is it any wonder the workers then abandoned his experiment, when they firstly had no choice in joining it? Is it any surprise they were much more keen to follow the bolsheviks, who actually had answers for them?
I also really can’t understand how the kontrra is justified hierarchy but the cheka isn’t; just because the former wasn’t a state? (highly debatable also. Makhno’s armies certainly had the monopoly on violence)
That’s a big difference between anarchists and marxist-leninists: in anarchist discourse, a critical look is always welcome and encouraged, and there is no binary interpretation of “good” vs “evil”.
There is that in marxism-leninism. Self-criticism is one of the foundations of Mao Zedong Thought and has been vastly adopted by communist parties around the world. I have also literally never met an anarchist that did not long for Makhnovia. Some even told me that any struggle against authority is inherently just, even if it replaces it with another authority.
That some people abused positions of power does not invalidate the existence of free Communes, and does not invalidate their criticism of power structures that should be dismantled (on the contrary).
Why don’t you make the same good faith observation about “power-hungry psycopath … Lenin” (your words)? Makhnovia was a failed state that only survived due to a power vacuum, and it’s no wonder it lasted a couple of years while the soviet union outlived it by over 70 years.
That Makhno tried his hand at being a warlord is not an indictment on anarchism. That anarchists think he somehow is an example to follow is.
The source is mostly here: https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/, and they cite their own in the footnotes.
Although it has a weird trot bias, the biggest condemnation is that Makhno did not understand the working class. His army was that of peasants, and what did they do? Rolled into towns, claimed to have liberated the people, and left them at the mercy of whatever happened next. They had no plans apart from preventing authority structures from emerging. But what worked for the peasantry did not work the workers of the cities, as they did not have the same material conditions. How could notaries and administrators accept payment in kind? Why did he tell rail workers they could accept payment, except for military purposes (the majority of rail traffic)?
And you could not form an organisation that Makhno disapproved of or the kontrra would shoot you (because prisons are authoritarian). He disallowed parties because of a fear of authority creeping in again, but in the process disallowed workers to band together to represent their interests – as if parties were only going to come from external, sabotaging forces. Who exactly did they liberate then, and from whom? As we saw with the workers of Olexandrivske, he ignored their concerns about being paid real wages (and not barter for food for survival, a clear step back). What exactly did he achieve, then? Is this what freedom looks like? Is it any wonder the workers then abandoned his experiment, when they firstly had no choice in joining it? Is it any surprise they were much more keen to follow the bolsheviks, who actually had answers for them?
I also really can’t understand how the kontrra is justified hierarchy but the cheka isn’t; just because the former wasn’t a state? (highly debatable also. Makhno’s armies certainly had the monopoly on violence)
There is that in marxism-leninism. Self-criticism is one of the foundations of Mao Zedong Thought and has been vastly adopted by communist parties around the world. I have also literally never met an anarchist that did not long for Makhnovia. Some even told me that any struggle against authority is inherently just, even if it replaces it with another authority.
Why don’t you make the same good faith observation about “power-hungry psycopath … Lenin” (your words)? Makhnovia was a failed state that only survived due to a power vacuum, and it’s no wonder it lasted a couple of years while the soviet union outlived it by over 70 years.
That Makhno tried his hand at being a warlord is not an indictment on anarchism. That anarchists think he somehow is an example to follow is.