💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › tommy-lawson-anarchy-in-the-ukraine.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:20:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchy in the Ukraine Author: Tommy Lawson Date: July 16, 2020 Language: en Topics: Makhnovists, Ukraine, history Source: Retrieved on 2020-08-10 from http://www.redblacknotes.com/2020/07/16/anarchy-in-the-ukraine/
The revolution in the Ukraine of 1917 to 1921 is an understudied period
of history. While the Bolsheviks consolidated their bureaucratic grip
over the workers of Russia, another model of socialism was experimented
with in the Ukraine. While largely influenced by anarchism, socialists
from many parties struggled alongside workers and peasants to find a
more libertarian direction, where self-management and organisation meant
a chance at actual socialism from below. Anarchists would build a
national federation to co-ordinate their political and cultural efforts,
and they would also be instrumental in forming the Revolutionary
Insurgent Army of the Ukraine. Often known as the “Makhnovists”, the
movement’s nickname derived from Nestor Makhno. A union organiser during
1917, by 1919 he would become an important partisan and commander in the
Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine (RIAU) during the
revolution. The insurgents would fight alongside the Bolsheviks against
counter-revolutionaries, then against the Bolsheviks as the regime
degenerated. They would even attempt to aid the workers’ uprising during
the Kronstadt rebellion.
Compared to anarchism in Russia, the anarchist movement through the late
1800’s and early 1900s had much deeper roots in the Ukraine. Cities such
as Odessa and Kiev had large and active anarchist presence. The
anarchists made up the leadership of a number of large unions, including
the metalworkers, bakers, shoemakers, woodworkers and millers.
Anarcho-syndicalists in particular had a large base amongst the Donbass
miners. According to the diaries of the anarchist Gorelik ‘Workers
demonstrations of up to 80,000 people would often be led by a procession
of black flags’ (Skirda, 2004). In the more rural areas, smaller
anarcho-communist groups proliferated. Thought not yet formed into a
national organisation, rural groups would form larger regional
federations. The anarchist movement was largely influenced by the
writings of the Russian anarchists Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin.
During the 1917 period of the Russian revolution, anarchists would
establish ‘Black Guards.’ (Makhno, 2007) These were armed groups that
were the equivalent of the revolutionary ‘Red Guards’ in Russia. Based
on village, union and factory, they would defend workers from hostile
forces, protect strikes, expropriate funds, etc. The first Black Guards
in the Ukraine were established by the anarchist militant Maria
Nikiforova in the city Alexandrovsk, soon to be followed by Odessa,
Nikolaev, Kamensk, Nikopol, and others. (Shubin, 2010). Maria’s Black
Guards joined forces with the Bolsheviks to overthrow the local
bourgeois government and establish workers Soviets. Anarchists from the
Guilay-Polye region mobilised in assistance. The early Soviets of
Left-Bank Ukraine were dominated by Bolsheviks, Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists. However when the Bolsheviks
government in Russia signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty the Ukraine was
overrun by German military occupation. The basis of the Black Guards
partisan resistance would form into the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of
the Ukraine.
In November 1918, an initial conference was called to organise a
‘National Confederation of Anarchist Organisations of the Ukraine.’ This
federation became known as the “Nabat!” (meaning Alarm) and was
officially formed at the second conference, in April 1919. The Nabat had
its headquarters in Kharkiv. In Ekaterinoslav its regional offices were
in the same building and on the same floor as the Bolshevik
headquarters. The Nabat was the first national anarchist federation to
operate during a revolutionary period, and its chair, the intellectual
Voline, wrote a mammoth history of the Russian revolution; “The Unknown
Revolution.” Many of the organisers of the Nabat were anarchists who had
fled Russia due to Bolshevik persecution, and anarchists returned from
as far abroad as England and the United States to participate (Skirda,
2004). The Nabat had branches in nearly every city in the South East of
the Ukraine. (Avrich, 1973)
Throughout the revolutionary period in Ukraine, anarchists had two main
focuses: developing the ‘free soviets’ alongside trade unions and
co-operatives; and the defense of the revolution, through the
Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine.
As in Russia, the Ukrainian workers and peasants used the same model for
the new organisation of society, the Soviet. These Soviets were based
upon unions, workplace committees, farm-labourers committees and mass
assemblies, usually drawn along the geographical lines of townships. The
Ukrainian revolution was more rurally based than in Russia, however it’s
rural proletariat were relatively well developed, and though poor, the
Ukrainian peasantry were often more educated than its Russian
counterpart (Shubin, 2010).
The anarchists believed the Soviets really should represent the
interests of the workers and peasants, rather than operate as rubber
stamps for the Party or bureaucracy. Hence the term ‘Free Soviets’. The
first congress of Free Soviets occurred on the 25^(th) of September,
1917, in the local Guilay-Polye district. After this first smaller local
congress, there were larger congresses representing many regions of
Ukraine.
Despite the initial retreat from revolution following the Brest-Litovsk
Treaty, with liberation from German occupation by the RIAU, workers,
peasants and revolutionaries began to organise new Soviets. Between the
23^(rd) of January and the 20^(th) of October 1919 there were four major
congresses. The congresses made plans for dividing and collectivising
land and agriculture, dealt with economic questions, and defense of the
territory. Each congress elected a Revolutionary Military Soviet, whose
role it was to administer the decisions of the congress between
conventions. Theoretically this soviet had authority over the RIAU,
although the realities of war made this difficult. The civilian congress
could however overrule the military organisation. (Malet, 1982) The
makeup of the Soviet represented workers, peasants, soldiers and the
revolutionary parties. Dissident Bolsheviks participated in many roles
in the Ukrainian revolution, until ordered by higher party bodies to
withdraw. During the military collapse of 1920 the RMS was dissolved and
replaced by another Soviet elected from the RIAU. It had seven members,
including Left SRs.
The peak of the Soviet experiment was at the third congress on 10^(th)
April, 1919 in Aleksandrovsk. Over 2 million workers and peasants were
represented, with delegates from 72 regions. There were another two
congresses planned, but both were cancelled by Bolshevik oppression. The
Bolsheviks were not willing to tolerate an experiment with workers’
control that they did not have a monopoly over. As the historian Malet
puts it,
“No government can long tolerate an independent or autonomous area
within its borders, and of none is this more true than a highly
centralised authoritarian state such as that headed by Lenin. There was
no room even for mild concessions to federalism, especially where areas
of vital strategic importance were concerned.”
Malet, 1982
Bolshevik suppression would be ruthless. A congress was set for 15^(th)
of June, 1919 but made illegal by Trotsky under punishment of death. The
last attempt at a free congress was due in early 1920, but the Red Army
had over-run the majority of the Free Territory by this time. All
independent workers and peasant organisations were banned.
The other key organisation that anarchists participated in was the
Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine. The Insurgent Army was
formed in 1919 by bringing together several guerrilla partisan bands
operating in the Ekaterinoslav region. The first to join forces were the
units under the command of Nestor Makhno and Fedir Shchus, just outside
the village of Bolshe-Mikhailova. When the town was liberated from
German-Austrian occupation the peasants of the liberated town gave the
movement the nickname “Makhnovist” (Makhno, 2011). After bringing
together numerous partisan groups that had grown out of the Black Guards
movement, a more formal military apparatus was formed.
In contrast to the supposedly spontaneous nature of the organisation,
the reality is the Nabat had put forward theories of partisan warfare
for the defense of revolution. The anarchists were extremely aware that
any armed body seperate to the population had the potential to become a
new ruling force over the working class. As the Nabat Youth put it ‘No…
Red Army… can be the genuine defender of the social revolution. By its
very nature every such army must… become a reactionary force and threat
to the revolution.’ (Avrich, 1973) The defense of the revolution rested
on the people themselves in arms. The anarchists also understood that
unless the revolution spread internationally, it could not succeed.
The RIAU kept a number of principles that had disappeared quickly in the
Red Army. Officers were elected and subject to recall. This included the
highest levels of command. During ‘peace times’ partisans, including
officers, were expected to return to their communities and workplaces.
True to the anarchist conceptions of leadership, even officers must
fight on the frontline. Makhno was famously shot in the neck and the
legs, commanders like Schuss would die in combat against the nationalist
armies and Dmitry Popov (a Left-SR) would be executed by the Bolsheviks.
The RIAU had a newspaper ‘The Road to Freedom’, and a cultural section
that concentrated on educating partisans. They also worked to establish
schools in the territory they liberated. (Shubin, 2010) The cultural
section would be largely staffed by members of the Nabat and the Left-SR
party.
The RIAU would reach a peak of roughly 40,000 members and defend a
territory of several million inhabitants (Skirda, 2004). The RIAU made
two military alliances with the Bolsheviks, and together they fought
against counter-revolutionary forces. Both of these alliances were
betrayed by the Reds when the Bolsheviks felt they had the upper hand.
The most despicable betrayal was on the 26^(th) November, 1920. RIAU
commanders were invited to a joint congress with the leadership of the
Red Army. Unbeknownst to them, it was a trap planned by Trotsky himself.
When they arrived, they were surrounded and most executed on the spot.
The victims included Simon Karetnik, who was at the time in command of
the RIAU. (Azarov, 2008).
The RIAU would continue the fight for free socialism into 1921. During
the Kronstadt revolt, the RIAU even attempted to get supplies to the
revolutionaries. Unfortunately, due to the short timeframe of the
revolt, the uprising would be over before meaningful aid could be
supplied. When the RIAU was eventually destroyed by the Red Army the
survivors fled the country, most ending up in France. Underground
resistance by partisans reportedly continued into the 1930s (Azarov,
2008).
Key achievements of the RIAU would include the breaking of Denikins
advance on Moscow, thus saving the Russian revolution itself. Joining
the defeat of Wrangle, and helping maintain political freedom in Ukraine
so the experiment in self-managed socialism could go on.
The Ukrainian revolution is important for libertarians as it was the
first time anarchist leadership had significant influence on a
revolutionary process. The revolutionaries involved learnt many lessons
that would have ramifications for the development of the anarchist
movement. For example, without a committed, formalised national
organisation, the Ukranian anarchist movement would have been rendered
as ineffective as its Russian counterpart. The anarchists came to
understand how important it was to live and struggle alongside the
masses. It was the reflection on the Ukrainian experience that led some
of the anarchists involved to write The Platform years later. Ukrainian
revolutionaries would go on to contribute to the Spanish revolution and
the fight against fascism.
Most importantly though, while limited by concrete circumstances, the
anarchists would prove that alternatives were available to the choices
the Bolsheviks made. The complicated relationship between the workers
and peasants’ economic organisations, the political organisation of the
anarchists and the partisan army are worthy of deep analysis. Hardly
idealistic dreamers, the actions of the Ukranian anarchists attempted to
bring together the workers and peasants of the Ukraine and encourage
them towards the creation of a society free from capitalism and state.
They were aware that socialism could not be imposed, only achieved by
the self-directed struggle of the workers.
Skirda, A. (2004). Nestor Makhno – Anarchy’s Cossack: The Struggle for
Free Soviets in the Ukraine 1917–1921. AK Press.
Shubin, A. (2010) ‘The Makhnovist Movement and the National Question in
the Ukraine’. Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial
World, 1870–1940. BRILL.
Makhno, N. (2009). Under The Blows of Counter Revolution. Edmonton:
Black Cat Press.
Makhno, N. (2007). The Russian Revolution in the Ukraine. Edmonton:
Black Cat Press.
Makhno, N. (2011). The Ukranian Revolution. Edmonton: Black Cat Press.
Avrich, P. (1973). Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. Ithaca:
Cornell.
Malet, M. (1982). Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War. The Macmillan
Press Ltd.
Azarov, V. (2008). Kontrrazvedka: The Story of the Makhnovist
Intelligence Service. Edmonton: Black Cat Press.