Rural Spotlight: Makhno & Anarchism in Rural Ukraine, 1917-1921
Some notes on Colin Darch's new book on Nestor Makhno & the makhnovosty
I couldn’t wait for Colin Darch’s new book Nestor Makhno and Rural Anarchism in Ukraine, 1917-1921 to arrive since I was largely unfamiliar with Makhno’s story. Historical non-fiction isn’t necessarily known to be a page-turning genre, but Darch’s mix of analytical and factual storytelling contextualizes the revolutionary moment so that the reader is simultaneously situated on the ground and watching from a bird’s eye view.
Before reading, I assumed Darch was an anarchist, but it turns out he’s a Marxist. He seems to have been biased toward Bolshevism in the past. Nevertheless I actually found his book to be fair, although perhaps I will feel differently once I read an anarchist’s perspective on Makhno. As a Marxist professor, he’s not uncritical of makhnovostky (the term for the anarchist insurgent army) and grounds events from a historical materialist perspective. He relies on plenty of primary sources and notes when any particular account seems suspicious and why, oftentimes juxtaposing Bolshevik disinformation campaigns with the truth. I recommend reading the book in full, since this story is fairly complex and the notes that follow barely scratch the surface. These snippets may be confusing if you don’t have some background in both political theory and the Russian revolution.
After briefly distributing Menshevik propaganda, Makhno became an anarchist communist and was involved in various insurrectionary activity like robberies (expropriations) and setting fire to landlord’s properties. While in the early days it seems some of his friends were let off relatively easy for things that would land Americans with a life sentence today (like shoot outs with cops) most were executed later. Makhno’s mom and his youthful age of 20 convinced the system to spare his life when he was sentenced to death by hanging. Instead, in 1911, he was given a 20 year sentence of hard labor in prison. These years were formative.
After the fall of the tsar in 1917, Makhno and Arshinov were given amnesty because of pressure from the Soviet Workers’ and Solders’ Deputies. This is where the story begins according to Darch. Unlike the Bolsheviks who viewed peasants with disdain and didn’t think they had revolutionary potential, Makhno was born in to a peasant family so of course he saw things differently. During these years he rejected cladestine insurrectionary actions in favor of mass agitation.
The bourgeoise in Guliapole, Makhno’s hometown, was weak and he was easily able to promote revolutionary enthusiasm among the peasants. Darch wrote, “Throughout May he worked feverishly to consolidate his political position through the various committees and unions of Aleksandrovsk and Guliaipole.” Makhno wrote later, “an instinctive anarchism showed through all the designs of the toiling peasantry of Ukraine at that time, revealing an undisguised hatred for all state authority coupled with a desire to free themselves from it.”
Anarchism grew quickly in Guliaipole but they were running out of money. Anarchists tried to arrange for the direct exchange of goods rather than rely on banks but the Bolsheviks in classic Bolshevik fashion tried to stop this. (The Bolsheviks needed the Ukranian peasantry to feed Russia.) But after peasantry outrage, the Bolsheviks stepped back.
When Makhno visited Moscow he was taken aback by urban anarchists’ quibbling over points of theory while the Bolsheviks consolidated power.
When he returned, the anarchists discussed arranging their army more in line with their nonhierarchical beliefs.
The anarchists were able to experiment with self-organized communes, although Darch notes that details on how they were operated are fairly scant.
Makhno and the anarchists set up schools, medical posts, and adult education “focused on political agitation.”. The Bolskeviks were becoming paranoid that there was a conspiracy against them & pushed propaganda against the makhnovostky, but their own commanders visited and noted that there wasn’t any conspiracy. People just wanted to govern themselves.
The anarchists saw the White army (law and order tsar loyalists with colonialist backing) as the most pressing threat. By early 1919 they had formed an alliance with the Red army (Bolsheviks), but made clear their loyalty was with the workers, not the communist government.
Trotsky, however was always talking shit and said he preferred the fascists (Denikin, White Army) taking over rather than the anarchists.
The Bolsheviks continued to push propaganda against Makhno and withheld weapons (perhaps intentionally), so Makhno resigned. The Bolsheviks quickly ordered for his arrest and forbid an upcoming anarchist congress.
“In campaigning to cure the Red Army of the ‘partisian infection’ (Makhno’s influence)…the Bolsheviks immediately began to arrest and shoot makhnovostky , and took the opportunity to destroy the anarchist communes.” Bolsheviks pushed propaganda that Makhno was objectively helping Denikin, even though the anarchist army was actively fighting against Denikin, and called the anarchists counter-revolutionaries.
Meanwhile the insurgent anarchist was growing, to an estimated 10,000 to 40,000 to possibly as many as 100,000.
The insurgents liberated cities, in one case demolishing a prison in Berdiansk and gave bricks away to peasants for use.
The anarchists tried to organize with other groups but in one case the trade union council said decisions weren’t ‘properly mandated’ so they held no force. The council turned down an anarchist proposal to distribute wheat to the Ukranian poor.
The insurgent army defeated the White army in Peregonovka in September 1919 in what some historians consider the single most decisive battle of the civil war. Darch’s detailed description of the techniques used by makhnovostky exemplify what a brilliant strategist Makhno was.
Around this time the Bolsheviks unleashed what Darch calls ‘ Red terror’ followed by ‘anarchist counter-terror.’ Lenin used Makhno has a slur for gangesterism and for anyone who dissented against them.
But lots of evidence suggests the Ukranian working masses were in favor of the insurgent army, in part because Bolshevik policies left them hungry and poor.
The Bolsheviks knew they needed the insurgents to defeat the White army (and vice versa). Despite all of the bloodshed, the insurgent and Red army formed another alliance in late 2020. The anarchists tried to propose a clause for worker self-management but Moscow (Lenin) apparently wasn’t interested.
The alliance was successful. Now the Red army no longer needed the insurgents and prepared for ‘liquidation.’
The Bolsheviks burned entire villages suspected of supporting Makhno.
Thousands and thousands of makhnovostky were killed off by lice-born typhus and the army was war-torn and weak. They couldn’t handle the Bolshevik’s offense. By the Summer of 1921 Mahkno and a small group of comrades fled to exile in Romania. Darch’s next two chapters outline his exile, ‘contextualize’ makhnovostky (why anarchism? why Ukraine?) through his historical materialist perspective followed by a short epilogue. Substack is telling me I’m just about out of space so I’m not covering this, but if this interested you I recommend reading the book.
Since I hate forgetting material, I’ll probably keep sending notes from books I read. If you found this useful, consider subscribing.
Check out some of my recent articles:
Neighborhood Watch Has a New Tool: License-Plate Readers (OneZero)
Report Finds Over 100 Rebellions in Jails and Prisons Over COVID Conditions (Truthout)
Graduate Student Labor Organizing Is Rising — and So Is Retaliation (Truthout)
Inside Kolektiva, the social media platform built by anarchists and activists (Mic)