SECTION: The Story of the Makhnovists and the Anarchist Revolution in the Ukraine,
1918-1921 ---- NOTES FROM A TAAC WORKSHOP ---- The mass ?Makhnovist? (anarchist) movement
emerged in 1917 in Ukraine, a colonial country in East Europe that was until then divided
between the Russian and Austrian (or Austro-Hungarian) Empires. the Makhnovists made an
anarchist revolution. The anarchists were a central force in the 1917-1921 Ukrainian War
of Independence, ---- Russian Revolution, Ukrainian Revolution ---- In 1917, the Russian
empire underwent revolution. Many forces struggled. Some wanted to restore the Russian
imperial government (and the Russian royal family), overthrown in March. Others wanted to
create a new, better society.
Ukraine was a split between the Russian and Austrian
empires. It was the richest colony of the Russian Empire,
exporting wheat and producing agricultural equipment.
Now, in 1917, everything was set to change.
What was the Russian Revolution?
Before the Revolution, most land was held by a small
landowning class; government and private industries
exploited workers; the empire had many oppressed
nationalities who wanted independence. (Russia itself was
only half the Russian empire).
The Revolution overthrew the Emperor (Tsar); the army split;
peasants started to take over land; oppressed nationalities
demanded independence; and workers began taking over
cities and industries. Many forces in Ukraine fought for
independence, but they did not agree on the content and
form of that independence.
Who was Nestor Makhno?
In Ukraine, anarchists were the main revolutionary force.
They fought for decolonisation through anarchist revolution,
meaning the independent Ukraine should be reconstructed
on anarchist lines: self-management and participatory
democracy, equality not hierarchy and domination,
collectively-owned property, and the abolition of the class
system, capitalism and the state.
They were called ?Makhnovists,? after the leading Ukrainian
anarchist militant, Nestor Makhno. He came from a poor
peasant family, had been a factory worker, and former
political prisoner.
Who were the enemies of the Makhnovists and why?
* Monarchists (so-called ?White armies?) , who wanted
to bring back the Russian Empire, the Russian emperor
(Tsar)and the unequal society these created;
* Marxists (so-called ?Communists?) like Lenin and Trotsky,
who were creating one-party dictatorship in central
Russia,;
* Ukrainian nationalists, who wanted to create an
independent, capitalist, Ukrainian state, with Ukrainian
(not Russian) landlords, capitalists and political elites;
* German / Austrian imperialists, who wanted to take over
the whole Ukraine, making it a colony again.
Why were they enemies?
Actually, the monarchists, Marxists, nationalists and
imperialists stood for something similar:
1) a tiny elite would control the land, factories and state, and
rule the peasants and workers; and, along with this
2) no independence for the Russian colonies.
For example, the Marxists built a revolutionary one-party
dictatorship, nationalized industry and land, and repressed
all their enemies. In reality, this meant a tiny unelected
Marxist elite crushing trade unions, social movements,
and anarchists ? and controlling all wealth. From 1918,
the Marxist state reconquering the numerous breakaway
Russian colonies.
This meant the Marxists were against the Makhnovists, who
were a threat to their dictatorship, by their example, ideas,
and independence.
What did the Makhnovists want instead?
The anarchist Makhnovist movement wanted to destroy
class rule, which means the rule of a wealthy and powerful
elite, over the peasants/ family farmers and working class
majority.
Every ruling elite, regardless of being German/ Austrian,
Russian, or even Ukrainian, always dominated and exploited
the popular classes. Fighting class rule was part of the genera
anarchist struggle to end all oppression and hierarchy
(including colonialism and racism).
The anarchists wanted society to be run democratically
by ordinary people, no matter their race or culture, using
the wealth for human needs ? not elite profits and power.
Where no person oppressed or exploited another. Where all
nationalities were freed from imperialism.
This meant they politically opposed the Marxists as well as
the nationalists and monarchists
In the turmoil of the War of Independence, from 1917-1921,
they pushed for their radical agenda in the face of intense
Marxist and nationalist and monarchist opposition.
The Anarchist Revolution in the Ukraine
A free ?soviet? system
In much of the Ukraine, especially the south, the anarchist
Makhnovists created a free, independent worker-peasant-
soldier council (in Russian: ?soviet?) system. The first
elements of this were developed in 1917, when Makhno
and his militants began to organize unions, factory and
farm workers committees, and assemblies ? moving to land
reforms and strikes.
This was disrupted by a German imperialist occupation of
the territory, permitted by the shameful First Treaty of Brest-
Litovsk, signed by the Russian Marxists Lenin and Trotsky
In February 1918
But in 1918, the anarchist Makhnovist movement exploded
into life again as armed partisan groups and mass-based
popular struggles and structures pushed forward. Now, the
revolution took hold on a larger scale than ever.
Ordinary people ran things through neighborhood,
workplace and soldiers councils. Council delegates were
always accountable to regular mass meetings of neighbors
and workers. They took orders from the people; they did
not give orders and they were not a ruling elite. They were
comrades and indeed servants, not masters. And workplaces
and communities were under the direct control (the self-
management) of the ordinary people. Collectives were
formed, land was redistributed and life was changed.
Councils were federated, and linked through congresses.
Congresses expressed the demands of the working class and
peasantry on a large scale, and developed democratic plans.
Land, factories and other wealth were commonly owned
wherever possible, run through the councils and used for
quality services, good jobs, equality, and solidarity.
A working class/ peasant militia
The Makhnovists permitted Marxists and nationalists to
participate (peacefully) in the Ukrainian free councils, and
to promote their views, newspapers and delegates.
But at the same time, violent attacks against the councils,
common property, racist violence and attacks by monarchists,
Marxists and nationalists had to be met with force.
The anarchist Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the
Ukraine, controlled by the councils including the soldiers
councils, acted to protect the independent revolutionary
Ukraine.
Even its commanders were elected: Makhno
himself was elected, and could be forced
to step down. And he did step down. It was a democratic
?militia?: a people?s army, recruited form the people, not an
army used by a ruling class against the people.
The real world
This was the anarchist society ? the Makhnovists? words made
flesh. An anarchist revolution took place in a large territory.
It showed a concrete alternative to monarchists, Marxists and
nationalists.
The following chart shows how the anarchist zone (Ukraine) was different to the Marxist
zone (Russia)
ANARCHIST UKRAINE || MARXIST RUSSIA
Free speech || All opposition banned
Free soviet system || Soviets subject to control of Bolshevik party
Different currents allowed in soviets || No free political activity or debate in soviets
Soviets are main locus of power || Soviets are controlled by unelected state officials
Soviets could be won over, || No free elections or real debate
democratically, by new political forces ||
Land, factories are controlled by the || Land, factories are controlled by the state
people ||
Self-managed workplace || State-run workplace
Democratic army || Top-down army
Ukraine?s Revolution as Anarchist,
Popular Class National Self-Determination
and Decolonisation
Through the council system, the working class and peasantry
of Ukraine also achieved independence for this colony. The
federation of free Ukrainian councils meant there was a new,
independent and anarchist Ukrainian system.
The puppet state of the Germans, called the Hetmanate, was
ejected from much of the territory. The efforts by the Russian
Marxists to reconquer the territory and create a puppet
Ukrainian ?Soviet Republic? was resisted. The attempt by
the rightwing monarchists to reinstall the Russian emperor
in the territory was resisted. The attempt by the Ukrainian
nationalists to create their own state, like the Central Rada
and the ?Directory?, were resisted.
Power and wealth was placed firmly in the hands of the
working and poor masses, not a small elite ? local or foreign.
The new anarchist Ukraine was free of Russian, German and
Austrian imperialism. It also rejected the shameful treaty of
the Russian Marxists, which assumed a central Russian state
had the right to dispose of Ukraine.
And it also fought to be free from capture by the emergent
Ukrainian elite of state managers, landlords and capitalists.
The men and women of the anarchist Makhnovist forces
? these included the army as well as the councils and the
workplaces ? included peasants, ethnic Ukrainian as well
as others like Greeks and Cossacks, some urban workers,
Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking; the persecuted Jewish
minority was also included. Independent anarchist Ukraine
was inclusive of all working and poor people; its enemies
were the rich and powerful of every race and nation.
So, the anarchists had established the independence of
Ukraine ? but through a revolutionary anarchist society. They
rejected the occupations by Germany, and Austria, and they
rejected the right of any elite to recapture Ukraine, even if it
was a Ukrainian elite.
WhatHappened to the Makhnovists and the Revolution?
The Makhnovists were defeated by the continual armed
attacks by monarchists, nationalists and Marxists. Eventually
the Marxists won. They made Ukraine into a colony, called
?Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,? part of a recreated
Russian empire, the ?Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
(USSR/ Soviet Union). There was nothing ?socialist? about
the system; it was state-capitalist colonialism.
Why were they defeated?
One obvious reason for the Makhnovist defeat was that they
were outgunned: too many enemies, on too many fronts, for
too long.
The attacks undermined the councils and workplace and
military self-management. When the Makhnovists were
pushed out of territory, the invading forces terrorized the
local people and killed anarchists. When Makhnovists took
the areas back, they had to start from scratch. The military
effort was exhausting, consuming resources, men, women
and materials.
Errors in alliances
But why were they outgunned all the time? Why are the
enemies so powerful in the first place?
The Makhnovists had no choice but to make alliances
with different forces at different times: sometimes with
the Marxists and nationalists against the monarchists,
sometimes with independent armed groups.
But they made too many alliances with the Russian Marxists
? despite repeated betrayals by the Marxists and their refusal
to provide weapons to the anarchists, alliances with the
Marxists were prioritized.
It is worth thinking about whether other allies should have
been considered more often. For example, the anarchist
Makhnovists could have worked with the nationalists, who
also wanted independence, while at the same time winning
over the rank-and-file of the nationalist forces ot anarchism.
And they might have been able to negotiate a better deal
than with the Marxists.
Why? Because the Makhnovists were much stronger
compared to the nationalists, than the Marxists. If the
alliance frayed later, the Makhnovists would have been
better placed to sort matters out in their favour. It is true the
nationalists often attacked the anarchists. But how was this
diff erent to the actions of the Marxists?
The disorganized Russian anarchists
Another problem is that the anarchists in Russia itself were
very disorganized and confused ? although there were
exceptions, like G.P. Maximoff ?s anarcho-syndicaists. If the
Russian anarchists were better organized, they could have
weakened the Lenin-Trotsky Marxist dictatorship ? and
potentially created a second anarchist zone in Russia itself.
This would have tied up the Marxist forces, and provided a
powerful ally and example.
Chronic disorganisation is one reason why the much smaller
but much better organized Ukrainian anarchist movement
made a revolution ? and why the bigger Russian movement
failed to do so. In exile, many of these disorganised
anarchists refused to learn the basic lessons: these are that
anarchism must go to the masses, be unified in word and
deed, and operate on collective responsibility.
Makhno, his comrade Piotr Arshinov and others, in exile,
drew these hard-won lessons in the important Organisational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists.
Lessons
Badly organized, anarchism / syndicalism is crippled and
weak ? well organized, it can help change the world. This
is what the Makhnovists show us. Let us remember their
heroic example.
Home »
» (en) Southern Arica, African Anarchist Collective Newsletter Tokologo #2 - The Story of the Makhnovists and the Anarchist Revolution