I just discovered that Radical Reviewer believes the western account of the 1932 Ukranian famine, and I could not be more disappointed.

  • Huldra [they/them, it/its]
    ·
    4 years ago

    The black army was more like the green armies just with an anarchist figurehead, the peasantry that were Makhnos power base supported him as a centre position between the whites and the reds and mostly didnt care for his commune shit. The workers in his territory were ignored and neglected, which Makhno advicing that poor railway workers who needed wages for food should try and hold up and extort a toll from passing red trains, full of soldiers.

    • volkvulture [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Makhno destroyed trains & wrecked equipment that needed to be be preserved

      this is largely why figures like Kropotkin advocated for the nascent Soviet states & criticized anarchists in their overzealous actions& lack of foresight

      • Huldra [they/them, it/its]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        It's honestly amazing that people still idolize Makhno, he's practically a mythical figure at this point with no possible connection to the man himself or the armies he led, a construct of left-anticommunists who need a martyr that would have done everything absolutely correct if those devilish Communists just hadn't betrayed him for their own power.

        • volkvulture [none/use name]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          this is why anarchism as such is ultimately an insect reared in the nest of socialism, just as destructive in the medium term to the aims of the Left as are SuccDems

          This is an SLP publishing in 1901 talking about a bourgeois German newspaper in Chicago at the time:

          "That German capitalist paper, with its intimate knowledge of European matters, counseled the State to “rear the Anarchist insect in the nests of Socialism to devour the Socialist eggs”.... "The European “Anarchist,” accordingly, turns his whole effort towards destroying. But destroying what? The Capitalist System? No! Such destruction, being constructive in its nature, implies virility. Hatred, malevolence and envy are attributes of degeneracy. The degenerate never tackles the strong: he tackles the weak. Capitalist Society being powerful, he leaves it substantially alone: the camp of Socialism, having to be raised under the fire of the enemy, is exposed and substantially weak. The Anarchist, accordingly, turns his face against Socialism."

          I don't approve of the term "degenerate", but it's interesting to see that these strains existed even 120 years ago

          • CoralMarks [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            The assertion that anarchists don't even want to destroy capitalism or private property is completely wrong. Of course anarchists want to do exactly that and then establish a community based on socialist principles, like mutual aid and absolute solidarity.

            Honestly, if I hadn't recently started reading more anarchist theory I would've probably written something like your reply as well, either describing anarchists as naive utopians at best and wreckers at worst, but please for the love of god just pick up any book. Something basic and introductory like "Anarchy Works" from Gelderloos does a great job of explaining anarchism or something from Kropotkin like "Mutual Aid" or "Conquest of Bread" and you will at least begin to understand where anarchists are coming from. You don't have to agree but this vitriol is totally unnecessary.

            I have no problem with having different opinions on how this or that is best achieved or whatever but describing each other as insects is just disgusting language, I wouldn't say anything about it if it was just in that quote there, but that you would refer to your fellow comrades here like this is a bit disappointing I have to say.

            Here is just the introduction to "Anarchy Works", maybe despite everything, you might find it interesting:

            spoiler

            Anarchy Would Never Work

            Anarchism is the boldest of revolutionary social movements to emerge from the struggle against capitalism — it aims for a world free from all forms of domination and exploitation. But at its heart is a simple and convincing proposition: people know how to live their own lives and organize themselves better than any expert could. Others cynically claim that people do not know what is in their best interests, that they need a government to protect them, that the ascension of some political party could somehow secure the interests of all members of society. Anarchists counter that decision-making should not be centralized in the hands of any government, but instead power should be decentralized: that is to say, each person should be the center of society, and all should be free to build the networks and associations they need to meet their needs in common with others.

            The education we receive in state-run schools teaches us to doubt our ability to organize ourselves. This leads many to conclude anarchy is impractical and utopian: it would never work. On the contrary, anarchist practice already has a long record, and has often worked quite well. The official history books tell a selective story, glossing over the fact that all the components of an anarchist society have existed at various times, and innumerable stateless societies have thrived for millennia.

            How would an anarchist society compare to statist and capitalist societies? It is apparent that hierarchical societies work well according to certain criteria. They tend to be extremely effective at conquering their neighbors and securing vast fortunes for their rulers. On the other hand, as climate change, food and water shortages, market instability, and other global crises intensify, hierarchical models are not proving to be particularly sustainable. The histories in this book show that an anarchist society can do much better at enabling all its members to meet their needs and desires.

            The many stories, past and present, that demonstrate how anarchy works have been suppressed and distorted because of the revolutionary conclusions we might draw from them. We can live in a society with no bosses, masters, politicians, or bureaucrats; a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals, no rich or poor; a society free of sexism, homophobia, and transphobia; a society in which the wounds from centuries of enslavement, colonialism, and genocide are finally allowed to heal. The only things stopping us are the prisons, programming, and paychecks of the powerful, as well as our own lack of faith in ourselves.

            Of course, anarchists do not have to be practical to a fault. If we ever win the freedom to run our own lives, we’ll probably come up with entirely new approaches to organization that improve on these tried and true forms. So let these stories be a starting point, and a challenge. What exactly is anarchism?

            Volumes have been written in answer to this question, and millions of people have dedicated their lives to creating, expanding, defining, and fighting for anarchy. There are countless paths to anarchism and countless beginnings: workers in 19th century Europe fighting against capitalism and believing in themselves instead of the ideologies of authoritarian political parties; indigenous peoples fighting colonization and reclaiming their traditional, horizontal cultures; high school students waking up to the depth of their alienation and unhappiness; mystics from China one thousand years ago or from Europe five hundred years ago, Daoists or Anabaptists, fighting against government and organized religion; women rebelling against the authoritarianism and sexism of the Left. There is no Central Committee giving out membership cards, and no standard doctrine. Anarchy means different things to different people. However, here are some basic principles most anarchists agree on.

            Autonomy and Horizontality: All people deserve the freedom to define and organize themselves on their own terms. Decision-making structures should be horizontal rather than vertical, so no one dominates anyone else; they should foster power to act freely rather than power over others. Anarchism opposes all coercive hierarchies, including capitalism, the state, white supremacy, and patriarchy.

            Mutual Aid: People should help one another voluntarily; bonds of solidarity and generosity form a stronger social glue than the fear inspired by laws, borders, prisons, and armies. Mutual aid is neither a form of charity nor of zero-sum exchange; both giver and receiver are equal and interchangeable. Since neither holds power over the other, they increase their collective power by creating opportunities to work together.

            Voluntary Association: People should be free to cooperate with whomever they want, however they see fit; likewise, they should be free to refuse any relationship or arrangement they do not judge to be in their interest. Everyone should be able to move freely, both physically and socially. Anarchists oppose borders of all kinds and involuntary categorization by citizenship, gender, or race.

            Direct Action: It is more empowering and effective to accomplish goals directly than to rely on authorities or representatives. Free people do not request the changes they want to see in the world; they make those changes.

            Revolution: Today’s entrenched systems of repression cannot be reformed away. Those who hold power in a hierarchical system are the ones who institute reforms, and they generally do so in ways that preserve or even amplify their power. Systems like capitalism and white supremacy are forms of warfare waged by elites; anarchist revolution means fighting to overthrow these elites in order to create a free society.

            Self-Liberation: “The liberation of the workers is the duty of the workers themselves,” as the old slogan goes. This applies to other groups as well: people must be at the forefront of their own liberation. Freedom cannot be given; it must be taken.

            • volkvulture [none/use name]
              ·
              edit-2
              4 years ago

              Again, I was quoting an SLP publication from 1901, and I was not using that language against anyone as such. I said that "anarchism" without qualification or further clarification is and always has been a disastrous & destructive counterproductive undertow within leftism at worst. And in the short-term it's a purposeful swamp light and diversionary tactic at best. Lofty & noble to think about, but far more contradictory & dependent on weird niche community fandoms than ML states. Anti-communist anarchists are still just anti-communists.... there's not really much to discuss beyond that.

              The point is to see that this language isn't anything new, and these tensions don't belong totally to us or to this moment. Anarchists who want to help defeat communists can go ahead call themselves "leftists", but we get into some seriously counterproductive and counterrevolutionary territory when "tankies" become the prime target for these "self-identified" anarcho-socdem whatevers.

              States & jurisprudential authority and organizational methods of hierarchical/knowledge-based expertise will still be absolutely necessary in the medium term. We can't forget that or side-step or put it off til after the cops & imperialists & capitalist-funded death squads just suddenly "give up" because the anarchists are just too "principled" and logically compelling to crush outright.

              Kropotkin had much the same criticism of anarchists' tendency to criticize communists & revolutionaries far more than they plan to engage in the work of rebuilding after capitalists & imperialists have been ousted. Kropotkin says “We anarchists have talked much about the revolution, but how many have ever taken pains to prepare for the actual work during & after the revolution? The Russian Revolution has demonstrated the imperativeness of such preparation of practical reconstructive work”

              Lucy Parsons was a noted anarchist & communist & socialist & committed revolutionary who never backed down & always stood for these positions at key points. Parsons again disagrees with Goldman's privileged & aloof anti-communism, "After telling that the Russian revolution was doomed at its birth, fought by united capitalism of all countries, she tries to show that it was only the Marxian policies that weakened the strength of the revolution. Not entirely satisfied with this statement, which she knew to be false when she wrote it, she adds, “Counter-revolutionists, Right-Social-Revolutionaries, Cadets, and Mensheviks were the disrupting internal forces against Russia.” She could have also truthfully said, “Anarchists of the Mahkno school, leader of the bandits,” of which Emma seems to be a warm disciple. Something more will be said of the viciousness of this type of anarchist. Miss Goldman quotes from somewhere, “It was not against the Russian people, but against the Bolsheviks—they have instigated the revolution, and they must be exterminated.” This is given as the hypocritical attitude of the interventionists, but I ask if it is not exactly the thing she had in her heart to do with her miserable malignant stories. "

              "authoritarianism" is a canard, and in this way... especially within Left discourse & historical discussion, left anti-communists act as merely vessels for Cold War propaganda & McCarthyist self-annihilation

              • CoralMarks [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                Again, I was quoting an SLP publication from 1901, and I was not using that language against anyone as such. I said that “anarchism” without qualification or further clarification is and always has been a disastrous & destructive countervailing undertow within leftism at worst. And in the short-term it’s a purposeful swamp light and diversionary tactic at best. Lofty & noble to think about, but far more contradictory & dependent on weird niche community fandoms than ML states. Anti-communist anarchists are still just anti-communists… there’s not really much to discuss beyond that.

                Then I misunderstood your point, to me it seemed like you were dismissing anarchism and anarchists as a whole, sorry.

                The rest I think I can mostly agree to except for this part maybe, I'd say I am a bit more optimistic about what people are capable of themselves without needing any high court to tell them what they can and cannot do, what they are allowed to think, and so on and so forth.

                States & jurisprudential authority and organizational methods of hierarchical/knowledge-based expertise will still be absolutely necessary in the medium term. We can’t forget that or side-step or put it off til after the cops & imperialists & capitalist-funded death squads just suddenly “give up” because the anarchists are just too “principled” and logically compelling to crush outright.

                Otherwise, what is your opinion on having, in the event of something as monumental of scope as the Russian revolution actually were to happen in the future, would you think there is a possibility for communes(of course based on the principle of AnCom) to exist side-by-side with an ML state and not be crushed by it?