I have no historical context for this meme, but I like doges.
They fabricated a whole lot of justifictions before and after the fact but materially it was because the Black Army was about 1/3rd Red Army deserters and the Bolsheviks didn't want to have to negotiate with anarchist communes to keep the trains to Europe running and Moscow fed.
Short version: The Anarchists were untrustworthy allies and constantly stole supply shipments heading to the front lines against the whites.
Longer version:
The Makhnovists were one of several guerrilla bands that had allied with the Bolsheviks and became units of the Ukrainian Soviet Army in 1919. “Makhno’s forces were assigned a strategically vital section of the Red Army’s Southern Front facing the counter-revolutionary White Army of the former Tsarist general Denikin.” [18] But even during his time as a commander of the Ukrainian Soviet Army, Makhno deliberately stole from and undermined his Bolshevik allies. The historian Arthur Adams writes that “Makhno supplied himself, sometimes by commandeering entire Bolshevik supply trains meant for the Southern Front... Soviet food collectors and political institutions found it impossible to function in the region under his domination.” [19]
The Makhnovists demanded that the Bolshevik government supply them with munitions to use in the fight against the Whites. But the Makhnovists also refused to allow Soviet grain collectors into region under their control. The Makhnovists had therefore sought economic assistance from the Bolsheviks but refused to return the favour; often resulting in violent clashes between the Makhnovist guerrillas and Soviet grain collectors.
Trotsky (Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs) wrote that “[S]ince the Makhnovists are sitting on the railway branch-line from Mariupol, they are refusing to allow the coal and grain to leave except in exchange for other supplies... [T]he Makhnovites are trying to establish domination by gangs and bands: whoever has grabbed something is its rightful owner, and can then exchange it for whatever he hasn’t got. This is not products-exchange but commodity-stealing.” [20]
Real Long Version: Here
I mean the alleged thefts of supplies happened in 1919 and the Bolsheviks had already classified the Black Army as "Deserters and Bandits" way back in 1917.
The Bolshevik policy towards "Bandits and Deserters" at the time was that they should be shot on sight. They declassified them for a year while they were making common cause against the Whites but then when they decided to turn on the Mahknovists again in 1919 not only did they reclassify them, they upgraded their policy on Deserters and Bandits to, in Lenin's own words
After the expiration of the seven-day deadline for deserters to turn themselves in, punishment must be increased for these incorrigible traitors to the cause of the people. Families and anyone found to be assisting them in any way whatsoever are to be considered as hostages and treated accordingly.
In case you were wondering what "treated accordingly" meant here's a Cheka report
Yaroslavl Province, 23 June 1919. The uprising of deserters in the Petropavlovskaya volost has been put down. The families of the deserters have been taken as hostages. When we started to shoot one person from each family, the Greens began to come out of the woods and surrender. Thirty-four deserters were shot as an example.
The Russian Bolsheviks and the subsequent USSR were a powerful force for good in the world but they should not have done what they did to the Mahknovists.
For some reason this is incredibly black pilling. Even the good events in history are mostly awful, apparently
The Makhnovists established their own internal security forces, the Kontrrazvedka and the Punitive Commission. They were a law unto themselves, accountable only to Makhno personally. In one case in Ekaterinoslav, “a trade union delegation that went to complain about the arrest of a woman cultural activist was told that the workers’ place was in the factory, and that they would interfere with the work of the Kontrrazvedka at their peril”.60
The Kontrrazvedka was responsible for numerous killings and the torture of opponents, whether they be White agents, Communists, Left Social Revolutionaries or Ukrainian nationalists. Even one of the Makhnovist leaders, Volin, subsequently admitted that at the Olexandrivske Makhnovist Congress delegates complained of “arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported.”61 Indeed the Makhnovists systematically utilised terror against their left wing rivals. As early as 1918 they assassinated Social Revolutionaries in the Gulyai-Pole soviet. Makhno proclaimed “terror against all those who dare now or are preparing in the future…to persecute the anarchist idea.”62 After assassinating the Social Revolutionary leader in Gulyai-Pole, the secretary of the local anarchist group, the aptly named Kalashnikov, stated: “it [the anarchist group] killed him and [is] ready to kill in the future such an unworthy”.63
The most famous case was in November 1919, just after the partisans seized the city of Ekaterinoslav, where a strong Bolshevik presence among workers posed a serious threat to Makhno. He risked losing control of his army. The Bolsheviks, via underground fraction work, had won the leadership of two of his five regiments, and a third Makhno considered unreliable. How did the supposed libertarian anarchists respond to this challenge – with political debate? Hardly. They unleashed their counter-intelligence. The local worker Bolsheviks and their supporters in the partisan army were rounded up, taken down to the river and shot.
Nothing says stateless society like a secret police. Source https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/
I've read the article you linked. It's not great.
It both accuses the Makhnovists of insane utopianism for trying to abolish currency and refusing to install a state that acted as an employer then harshly condemns them as a hypocrites for not disbanding their hierachical army and secret police while their revolution was under siege from both the Whites and the Bolsheviks. It simultaneously condemns the Mahknovists for using violence to implement and defend their revolution instead of peacefully debating the people actively trying to put them and their families six feet below ground and uncritically supports Trotsky and the Red Army's purge of the Mahknovists and the massacres of peasants who had never held a gun in their lives but were ideological Mahknovists or family members of soldiers in the Black Army. It also, in trying to ridicule Mahknov's reforms as not only utopian but ridiulous and insane, ends up claiming that a stateless society is inherently untenable which I shouldn't have to tell you is an argument against not only anarchism in general but the communist project as a whole.
I've written a more detailed critique of it here (with an angrier tone than I'd use with you as the guy I was responding to was saying that everyone Trotsky purged deserved what was coming to them). Here's an excerpt responding to the bit you quoted:
The article you quoted claims Mahknovik’s methods descended to almost the levels of the Bolsheviks. It does this by taking as examples three incidents and attempts to set them up as the norm. The article claims that Mahknovik engaged in torture with its only source being third hand white propaganda. It claims that Mahknovik and the Black army wantonly executed communists of opposing creeds pointing to an incident where a local Bolshevik had convinced two of five Black army regiments in defect and take arms against the other three regiment and the other three regiments upon discovering this summarily executed the two regiments and that cities Bolshevik. The article ignores that for this incident to have played out like it did demonstrates clearly that Bolsheviks were allowed to peacefully and freely coexist in cities the Black Army unless those specific Bolsheviks took up arms against the Black Army. In contrast to the articles claim, the Black Army was famous for being unwilling to kill proletarians. This was to the extent that defeated Red Army soldiers were given a choice of defecting or surrendering their arms and (unsupervised!) being allowed to return home. Only officers were imprisoned and up until the mass executions of peasants began they were treated well. This paints a stark contrast to Trotsky and the Red Army’s policy of imprisoning and slaughtering not only members of the Black Army but also their families and anyone who was an outspoken Mahknovist.
