An Anarchist FAQ (AFAQ) is now at version 15.12. This release is a revision of an appendix on the Makhnovist movement and its importance.
Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?
A revision of an appendix on the Makhnovist movement, an anarchist influenced army and mass movement active in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and Civil War.
This a supplement to section H (on Marxism) of the main AFAQ.
The Makhnovist movement was a mass movement in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and Civil War, fighting for the autonomy of the working classes (workers and peasants) against all those seeking to impose their authority whether White (counter-revolutionary), Red (Bolshevik) and Nationalist (Ukrainian), whoever. It was the most important anarchist influenced movement during this period and should be better known -- particularly as it gives the lie to the notion that objective factors alone explain the degeneration of the Bolshevik regime (as supporters of Bolsheviks suggest). Here we have an anarchist movement which did not do as the Bolsheviks did in the same (arguably worse) conditions. As such, theory is important and played a role in the outcome of the Revolution.
Some objections and criticism of the Makhnovists all-too-often flow from liberal (and not-so-liberal) academics being unable to comprehend that working class people could organise and manage their own affairs -- a failing all-too-often shared by Leninist commentators. Others are driven by Leninism and its needs to rubbish and dismiss the movement, a need that has been afflicting Leninism since defeating it by state violence (including state terrorism) in 1921. This is reflected in the largest addition made in this revision -- a debunking of a Leninist critique of the Makhnovists added to section 15.
This article is noteworthy for its author's willingness to jettison any and all aspect of Marxism which hinder the demonisation of the Makhnovists -- whether it is Marxist notions of class analysis, the withering away of the state or the ability of workers to create and manage socialism by their own efforts (amongst others). Its author even does so far as to openly admit that certain Marxist principles cannot be applied during a revolution while implicitly acknowledging that soviet democracy is impossible. Sadly, he does not seem aware of what he is doing but it does show the confusions that Leninism produces in its followers. In short, it is a striking confirmation of Albert Meltzer's comment:
"Marxist-Leninists, faced with Anarchism, find that by its nature it undermines all the suppositions basic to Marxism. Marxism was held out to be the basic working-class philosophy (a belief which has utterly ruined the working-class movement everywhere). It holds in theory that the industrial proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but themselves alone, it is hard to go back on that and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority placed over it by someone outside the class.
"Marxism normally tries to refrain from criticising Anarchism as such -- unless driven to doing so, when it exposes its own authoritarianism ('how can the workers run the railways, for instance, without direction -- that is to say, without authority?') and concentrates its attack not on Anarchism, but on Anarchists." [Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, p. 62]
Ironically, Leninist attacks on the Makhnovists simply confirm how anti-socialist the Bolshevik regime and Leninism ideology actually are.
Perhaps this explains why Leninist accounts of the Makhnovists are riddled with lies and distortions with any actual facts presented without context. Often the criticism amounts to complaining that the Makhnovists occasionally acted in ways similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless to say, arguing that the Makhnovists should be rejected because they were sometimes as authoritarian as the Bolsheviks is a strange position to take but that is what they do. Claiming (falsely) that the Makhnovists had no alternative for the urban working class whilst failing to note that the Bolsheviks were imposing dictatorial one-man management in the workplace, an inefficient, bureaucratic, corrupt and wasteful centralised state-capitalist economy, abolishing elected committees and officers in the armed forces all in order to maintain a party dictatorship, seems ironic at best (see section 10). Given the reality of the Bolshevik regime -- rather than the myth believed in by Leninists -- it takes some gall to suggest that it was somehow better for working class people than a movement which gave them the space to organise their own revolution and lives.
Hence the "critique" amounts to noting any deviations from the ideal as regards the Makhnovists whilst being happy to defend the much greater deviations by the Bolsheviks -- so-called deviations (such as party dictatorship) which they embedded into their ideology and broadcast as being essential features of any future revolution at the Second Congress of the Communist International and in their publications. They have no shame in denouncing the Makhnovists simply for acting in a similar manner as the Bolsheviks whilst forgetting to mention that they were not imposing a party dictatorship or state capitalism, rather they were resisting the Bolshevik regime which was based on both as well as the obviously counter-revolutionary Whites, the Ukrainian nationalists and others seeking to impose their authority on the masses.
Ultimately, the belief that radicals will reject a movement for certain flaws it shares to a lesser extent than another and embrace that worse alternative seems optimistic, to say the least.
Ironically, such articles confirm Trotsky's complaint that the "Stalinist school of falsification is not the only one that flourishes today in the field of Russian history. Indeed, it derives a measure of sustenance from certain legends built on ignorance and sensationalism, such as the lurid tales concerning Kronstadt, Makhno and other episodes of the Revolution." [Stalin, vol. 2, p. 139] Little did he know that it would be the Trotskyists -- following his lead -- who would do this, building and repeating legends based upon ignorance of, and lurid tales about, Makhno (and Kronstadt). Hopefully, this appendix will allow those unlucky enough to read these attacks to recognise their weakness -- given the repetitiveness of Marxist attacks on anarchism, we can be sure that they will include attacks debunked here.
Another section which has been significantly added to is the one debunking attempts to portray the Makhnovists as pogromists and anti-Semites (see section 9). We have added a substantial quote from an article by Alexander Berkman which appeared in Freedom in 1922 entitled "Some Bolshevik lies about the Russian Anarchists". As well as showing such claims have been circulated by Leninists for some time, it also indicates that Red Army troops did carry out pogroms -- something Leninists do not mention. Statistics are also provided. We also added Emma Goldman's comments on this issue from My Disillusionment in Russia to complement those from Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth. It should be noted that recent attacks on the Makhnovists by Leninists fail to make this particular accusation, concentrating on other things. Hopefully this is a sign that this has now been thoroughly debunked and accepted as being so.
We have also added Goldman's words on not expecting to see an ideal society when she arrived in Russia in January 1920 to the introduction of the appendix to better clarify the anarchist position. Our critique of Bolshevism is not that it failed to produce a perfect society -- an impossible task, as no society can be that, and which could not be done quickly if it could. Anarchists do not think that a revolution will transform capitalism overnight, rather that it will create the conditions by which such a transformation can start and develop. The legacy of thousands of years of class society, of hundreds of years of capitalism, will take time to overcome -- not to mention the need to defend our newly won freedom from those seeking to impose or re-impose their authority over society. No, our critique of Marxism is not based on such (false) notions but rather that the means used by Marxism will fail to liberate humanity -- producing either reformism (social democracy) or a new class system (Leninism). The Bolshevik regime confirmed this, placing insurmountable barriers to the creation of genuine socialism while creating a ruling class in the form of the bureaucracy. The failures of the regime were not due to objective factors -- which would affect, to varying degress, any revolution -- but rather subjective ones (Leninist ideology and the policies and structures it shaped). The Makhnovists show that this is the case, hence their importance. Recounting how they were not perfect misses the point.
Needless to say, this appendix cannot cover everything on the Makhnovists. We hope that it shows why it is an important movement and its lessons learned and applied. The introduction lists other works on the subject and we hope that these will be of interest.
Finally, it should be noted that this year (2026) marks the 30th anniversary of the official launch of AFAQ. Given this, we aimed to complete the revision of the various finished appendices by that date, which we have. We then still plan to work on the remaining unfinished appendix on the Russian Revolution (section H.6 does cover all the key issues). There is no date for that yet but we will aim to add to the AFAQ blog a bit more regularly than previously. It all very much depends on other projects and life -- AFAQ is not funded at all and is dependent on people volunteering to work on it in their spare time. So hopefully understanding and patience will be expressed at its incomplete status after so many years!