Skip Navigation
chapotraphouse @hexbear.net Frank [he/him, he/him] @hexbear.net

How do new Anarchists learn to hate communists and carry the grudge against the USSR?

Edit for clarity: I'm not asking why the Tankie/Anarchist grudge exist. I'm curious about what information sources - mentors, friends, books, TV, cultural osmosis, conveys that information to people. Where do individuals encounter this information and how does it become important to them. It's an anthropology question about a contemporary culture rather than a question about the history of leftism.

I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Newly minted Anarchists have to learn to hate Lenin and Stalin and whoever else they have a grudge against. They have to encounter some materials or teacher who teaches them "Yeah these guys, you have to hate these guys and it has to be super-personal like they kicked your dog. You have to be extremely angry about it and treat anyone who doesn't disavow them as though they're literally going to kill you."

Like there's some process of enculturation there, of being brought in to the culture of anarchism, and there's a process where anarchists learn this thing that all (most?) anarchists know and agree on.

Idk, just anthropology brain anthropologying. Cause like if someone or something didn't teach you this why would you care so much?

196

You're viewing a single thread.

196 comments

  • As an ancom couple of maybe trite observations from the POV of modern anarchists rather than rehashing centuries old debates:

    Many anarchists are deeply unserious people about actual politics and building a society. The things that many of them like about anarchism are this misleading idea of "no rules", they are effectively antisocial or better crystalize the meaning anti-society.

    There are anarchist tendencies that effectively nurture their preconceived notions about the background unsatisfaction most people have with their lot in life. Tendencies like anarcho-egoists, anprims, etc. that allow people to romanticize their own feelings.

    Lastly very few anarchists tend to understand what anarchism is, just like many people fail to understand what communism is. Anarchism in it's purest form is about finding the fairest way of building a collective society while respecting everyone as individuals. It is philosophically an ideology that is trying to find the philosophical and practical underpinnings of coalescing individualist and collectivist into one comprehensive view in a bottom up fashion. A nice metaphor for this is that in physics many people are trying to unite classical physics with quantum mechanics to create a comprehensive theory of physics, rather than two separate fields of study. Anarchists want their societies to have unconcerned unanimous support of how the society is governed. Anarchists are not willing to compromise a their platforms. So that makes it difficult to work through problems that other political movements can take "shortcuts" in. In short if you think about this through the lens of standard democratic centralism, Anarchists do not accept a rule of simple majority, they will only accept unanimous consent.

    Anarchists that do not understand this, typically hate communists reflexively depending on their platform or who they hang out with. Anarchists that do understand this, typically hate communists due to communism's prescribed nature of the problem and solution coupled with the tendency for socialist societies who attempted to build communism to prioritize their implementation at the cost of everything else, as well as failure of communist countries to truly liberate certain groups and use them as political pawns when its expedient.

    I think a lot of this hate comes from the reality of the development of humanity in the 20th century. The second industrial revolution essentially forced all developing countries of the time into societies that were in practice extremely hierarchical, extremely parochial, and extremely focused on extracting production of out of individuals. Anarchists see this as a negative development in both the liberal and socialist worlds, and due to street cred of anarchism as the "no rules" punk philosophy Western anarchists, many of whom that have never known hunger or poverty relative to their global South or Eastern European counter parts, typically see liberals as the less worse choice because capitalist liberalization did allow for more individualism at it's apex.

    Lastly there is a real history of bad blood between the primary standard bearers of socialism in the USSR and anarchists. The bolsheviks regardless of the morality or solidarity of their actions were some of the best political operators of the 20th century. They were able to take a rump committee of a besieged and nascent political movement and transform it into a global political powerhouse. Some of the best political operators in the world worked on Bolshevik standards, Lenin, Stalin, Kim, Tito, Sankara, Mao initially and (I'm gonna get flack for this but it's fucking true because of what he was able to fucking pull off politically if you actually read history) Ben-Gurion. The problem is bolshevism is ruthless, and it cannot stand competition. It must be the only voice in the room. That's how it works, that's why it was effective. And in that efficacy lays the simple fact that Bolsheviks betrayed the largest anarchist organization during the Russian revolution.

    Makhnovshchina was the pinnacle of anarchist success on the world stage. Their lands were ruled by their people. They had repelled not only German colonists but the German backed puppet regimes spouting racist and cosplay style Ukrainian Nationalism They fought a multi-front war between the Whites and the Reds. To the point where they beat back the Whites to an unfavorable position in the East and that the Reds were so depleted they had no choice but to ally with Makhno. The Black army over performed as a military force and Makhnovshchina over performed as a society forged in war time, that never had to implement war communism and forced conscription. And for all of this the Bolsheviks rewarded them by baiting them out of position under the guise of being allies, and stabbing them in the back, and liquidating all their hard work. Many bitter anarchists read this history, the success of Marxist-Lenninism as the strangulation of anarchism in its crib.

    • Very good post. You've given me much to think on!

    • Makhno is a pretty sordid example from a modern perspective (with the abuse he facilitated). It doesn't seem like the most intelligent shake for anarchism considering the "arming people with little oversight" produced pogroms. Idk, it's like one of us holding up Gonzalo or one of those. Can I suggest KPAM or something? You still get a stabbed-in-the-back-by-commies narrative.

      On the other hand I also wouldn't hold up Sankara as a shining example because he definitely did some cool things and had some cool ideas, but ultimately he was installed by a non-communist in a military coup and then deposed by the same non-communist in another military coup a few years later.

    • Makhnovschina overperformed in the sense that they employed guerilla warfare with a local force that had the buy-in of locals for essential supplies. They rapidly fell apart outside of their limited territory as they stole from peasants there rather than receiving support. This allowed the Whites to maintain and rebuild their forces in Western Ukraine.

      They similarly built up peasant communes that were actually very insular and selfish, pushing an odd version of independence and self-sufficiency that, on one hand, declared no obligation to feed workers in cities (Bolsheviks called this a petty bourgeois aspect of the peasantry) while also being entitled to the products of the city factories, coordinating with Makhnovists to steal equipment. They actually combined these entitlements in their sentiments, declaring that they had no need to pay for equipment they could take when they needed to. This was guaranteed to eventually deplete the areas they controlled of industrial capacity and create a series of endless petty infights.

      It was also the major source of contention with Bolsheviks, who began labeling them as "bandits" in their propaganda. Bolsheviks, above all, recognized the necessity of feeding factory workers and ensuring the continued function if factories, hence war communism based on quotas and then taxes. Areas controlled by Makhnovists tended to work directly against this, killing or kicking out the Bolshevik tax man, actually stealing equipment and resources from cities to go support "the commune". They treated cities like foreign territories, and enemies. This is in addition to going off on their own as small (but many) autonomous groups and declaring truces over, stealing weapons, literally blowing things up, and recreating an oppositional fighting force.

      Bolsheviks did make decisive moves to end alliances and implement the red terror against Makhnovists, killing a massive number once Bolsheviks' power in the region was tentatively solidified. But it's important to understand that this came from competing interests and actions and waa not some out-of-nowhere betrayal.

      • Makhnovschina overperformed in the sense that they employed guerilla warfare with a local force that had the buy-in of locals for essential supplies. They rapidly fell apart outside of their limited territory as they stole from peasants there rather than receiving support. This allowed the Whites to maintain and rebuild their forces in Western Ukraine.

        I'm sorry like the Bolsheviks or the Whites didn't steal from peasants? The Bolsheviks and the Whites literally stole people from the villages to fight in their armies under threat. Real you join our battalion or we rape and murder your women while you watch then we kill you type shit. The Black Army was the only actual all-volunteer self defense force.

        They similarly built up peasant communes that were actually very insular and selfish, pushing an odd version of independence and self-sufficiency that, on one hand, declared no obligation to feed workers in cities (Bolsheviks called this a petty bourgeois aspect of the peasantry) while also being entitled to the products of the city factories, coordinating with Makhnovists to steal equipment. They actually combined these entitlements in their sentiments, declaring that they had no need to pay for equipment they could take when they needed to. This was guaranteed to eventually deplete the areas they controlled of industrial capacity and create a series of endless petty infights.

        It was also the major source of contention with Bolsheviks, who began labeling them as “bandits” in their propaganda. Bolsheviks, above all, recognized the necessity of feeding factory workers and ensuring the continued function if factories, hence war communism based on quotas and then taxes. Areas controlled by Makhnovists tended to work directly against this, killing or kicking out the Bolshevik tax man, actually stealing equipment and resources from cities to go support “the commune”. They treated cities like foreign territories, and enemies. This is in addition to going off on their own as small (but many) autonomous groups and declaring truces over, stealing weapons, literally blowing things up, and recreating an oppositional fighting force.

        This is a consequence of top down vs bottom up thinking. Literally see the part of my post about how the second industrial revolution created this mess to begin with. The city model is literally based in expropriation of the country-side from time immemorial and the second industrial revolution only made cities worse and more dependent. The Bolsheviks bathed the country sides with blood, and sure they had to, but lets not pretend there was some grand greater good, it's because the Bolsheviks had nothing to actually offer the country side. Their political power resided in cities that couldn't produce their own food. It was the worst political problem they inflicted on themselves and some of the worst Stalinist repression came from the fact that they murdered so many peasants that the countryside was so whittled down the definition of Kulak by the 1930's became anyone who quite literally owned a butterchurn. That's frankly embarrassing.

        Furthermore lets cut the bullshit okay? This is just devolving into a typical argument cycle and I'm just going to end it here. Whenever this line of argumentation comes up people who cannot understand or admit to the faults of the Bolsheviks (and I'm not saying Makhnovischa was faultless here at all), are all trying really fucking hard not to say "It was OUR PROPERTY." All you're arguing about is who rightfully owned those things that the Black Armies took are we not?

        We can talk about the negatives of how each army and society conducted itself, but I'm not going to have a typical black-red rules lawyering property dispute with you. It's pointless, stupid, and unbecoming. Everyone "stole" during that time for whatever definition of "steal" you can think of. I don't believe in private property. Reds crying "you 'stole' my means of war production" is again frankly embarrassing for communists who believe that the proletariat should own the means of production. It relies on an incredibly technical, overly strict and point in time definition of proletarian unique to the political needs of Bolsheviks. Peasants weren't proletarians to the Bolsheviks because their political power came from cities. Frankly it's embarrassing that to this day people are caught up in this nonsense given that peasants at the time had like a decade or so of not being literal slaves and most of them were still sharecroppers. Likewise it was literally because the second industrial revolution wasn't completed in Russia by the time of the Russian revolution and so there was no mechanized agriculture to speak of, which literally turns the assumption that farm workers e.g. peasants aren't proletarians on its head. It was a unique trick that the Bolsheviks played to get them out of a jam because their own ideology had internal contradictions simply by coincidence of timing. Lenin was smart but he wasn't clairvoyant and he doubled down on this bullshit. Stalin quadruple downed on it. This is literally one of the reasons for the Sino Soviet split and Mao was fucking right that peasants are proletarians.

        • I'm sorry like the Bolsheviks or the Whites didn't steal from peasants?

          I am responding to your point about the Black Army "overperforming". They did well as a guerilla army with peasant support. They failed utterly when they left areas without peasant support and then instead depended on stealing from the peasants. They had weak to nonexistent supply lines beyond a peasant network in Eastern Ukraine and entirely alienated the cities that capitulated quickly to the Whites and openly accepted the Reds with almost no fighting. These are just the realities of their military successes and failures.

          The Bolsheviks did not make their army reliant on the ad hoc theft from peasants. They instituted quotas and taxes to feed the cities and soldiers. Once they adopted a taxation model, conflict with peasants more or less disappeared, they just opposed early war communism's heavy handedness. The Bolsheviks used proper supply lines and it is unsurprising that they beat The Black Army who constantly formed and dissolved in response to pressures.

          The Bolsheviks and the Whites literally stole people from the villages to fight in their armies under threat. Real you join our battalion or weremoved and murder your women while you watch then we kill you type shit. The Black Army was the only actual all-volunteer self defense force.

          This is ahistorical, The Black Army also used coercion, but they did so ad hoc rather than to establish a stsnding army, famously using the misleading term, "voluntary mobilization" to declare the age range of able-bodied men that could not refuse service when called upon. Towards the end of their project, when such mobilizations were needed, trust and support from the peasants began breaking down because of this and related attempts at control.

          This is a consequence of top down vs bottom up thinking. Literally see the part of my post about how the second industrial revolution created this mess to begin with. The city model is literally based in expropriation of the country-side from time immemorial and the second industrial revolution only made cities worse and more dependent.

          That is not about bottom-up vs. top-down thinking at all, it is about class and subclass interests. A commune expropriating from starving city workers is not "bottom up", it is actually a fairly authoritarian theft carried out using relative material wealth and self-sufficiency. And it would have led to a self-destructice system, it was a key weakness predicated on a romantic chauvinism, of serving the people from whom they largely emerged and found support and then needing a left-sounding way to justiy the mistreatment of workers.

          The city model is literally based in expropriation of the country-side from time immemorial

          The city model has always depended on agriculture but the extent to which it involved expropriation is something that has varied substantially historically. There is a degree to which Western chauvinist just-so stories try to generalize the violences of Western Europe as all-encompassing truths, missing the variety of humsn organization that has occurred under similar circumstance. Ironically, the observation I hust shared is common among anarchist historians and anthropologists.

          and the second industrial revolution only made cities worse and more dependent

          Yes, city workers were dependent on food from peasants. And Makhnovschina's strategy was to hang them out to dry, to have their communes become theoretically insular and autonomous. But of course this was contradicted by the necessity of their frequent thefts from the cities. It was a romanticization, not a full reality. The peasants were also dependent on the cities for industrial goods and weaponry, they just wouldn't die of starvation and malnutrition as quickly as the city workers. They would have been overrun by the White Army in a few years without an industrial base.

          The Bolsheviks bathed the country sides with blood, and sure they had to, but lets not pretend there was some grand greater good, it's because the Bolsheviks had nothing to actually offer the country side.

          There was, of course, a grand greater good of feeding industrial workers and soldiers, securing an industrial base to fight off the rest of Europe, and the continued functioning of society in general past short-sighted views of a non-sustainable commune.

          Furthermore lets cut the bullshit okay? This is just devolving into a typical argument cycle and I'm just going to end it here. Whenever this line of argumentation comes up people who cannot understand or admit to the faults of the Bolsheviks (and I'm not saying Makhnovischa was faultless here at all), are all trying really fucking hard not to say "It was OUR PROPERTY." All you're arguing about is who rightfully owned those things that the Black Armies took are we not?

          Actually I was speaking of the material reasons the Black Army had military successes in some ways and not others and how they did not find a realistic synthesis of peasant and worker interests and that this led to a direct conflict with Bolsheviks for material reasons, not just old stories about theoretical disputes and the various other romantic mythologies of "backstabbing", which is what ignorany online "anarchists" obssess over.

          To be honest, I think I was very clear on that.

          We can talk about the negatives of how each army and society conducted itself, but I'm not going to have a typical black-red rules lawyering property dispute with you. It's pointless, stupid, and unbecoming. I don't believe in private property.

          If the topic is sectarian "anarchism" you should expect to hear critiques of sectarian "anarchism". Endlessly rehashing a false understanding of Marxist "betrayals" is a fundamental element of sectarian "anarchism".

          • The Bolsheviks did not make their army reliant on the ad hoc theft from peasants. They instituted quotas and taxes to feed the cities and soldiers. Once they adopted a taxation model, conflict with peasants more or less disappeared, they just opposed early war communism’s heavy handedness. The Bolsheviks used proper supply lines and it is unsurprising that they beat The Black Army who constantly formed and dissolved in response to pressures.

            How many of these peasants were voluntarily taxed vs how many of them were taxed at the head of a bayonette? How was that bayonette any different than the one weilded by Tsar Nicholas II? Was it because it was Red?

            There is very little difference between ad hoc theft and taxation in a civil war. At the end of the day it's some guy saying "I declare this a country, now pay tax." vs "I'm gonna need you to give me a sack of grain."

            Actually I was speaking of the material reasons the Black Army had military successes in some ways and not others and how they did not find a realistic synthesis of peasant and worker interests and that this led to a direct conflict with Bolsheviks for material reasons, not just old stories about theoretical disputes and the various other romantic mythologies of “backstabbing”, which is what ignorany online “anarchists” obssess over.

            Firstly lets introspect on "direct conflict with Bolsheviks for material reasons". Why did the Bolsheviks need to take Ukraine? Why not stay in St. Petersburg and Moscow after defeating the Whites? Why take the far east? Was there not enough land for left unity? Or was it something else? Why not stay allied with Moscow and have a Black Hulliopole and let the Western Ukranians decide their own fate when ridden of the Russian and German imperialists and their clients? These were real decisions, why were they made?

            I think I was fairly clear in the fact that I was expressing a feeling that anarchists feel. A lot of the feelings you express regardless if you admit to them or not, are from a point of view that does not have a clear moral superiority. My attempt here is to stop the engagement of apologetics and counter arguments. There is not point to any of this but to learn from the mistakes of Bolsheviks and Anarchists and that includes to admitting to them and not rationalizing and justifying them. My attempt at comparing Bolsheviks to Anarchists is an attempt to point out that mistakes are made on both sides. If you're attempting to explain away my answer to the OP question, you're barking up the wrong tree. I literally do not want to have a typical red black fight over ancient history that we' both should be better than defending as if they were our favorite sports team.

            If we want to talk about the feelings of online bolsheviks, very often they say things like this:

            There was, of course, a grand greater good of feeding industrial workers and soldiers, securing an industrial base to fight off the rest of Europe, and the continued functioning of society in general past short-sighted views of a non-sustainable commune.

            The problem with these things is that these are not moral absolute fact, they are by and large apologetic, that seek to explain away horror rather than admit to the mistakes of horror. Sometimes there is no "right" or "moral" way out of a problem and that's life, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't admit it, and it also doesn't mean that in those moments we should abdicate making tough decisions, but those decisions should always clearly bear the weight of our sins.

            If you hurt innocent people it doesn't matter how valiant your ends are, you have still sinned. Consistent open acknowledgement and remorse for those actions is the path to absolution. Arguing it away as the greater good is simply hardening yourself to commit graver and graver injustices without recognizance or penance.

            That is ultimately the core problem of Bolshevism from an anarchist perspective. When against the wall, they make tough decisions, and then they hide the bodies. That is the last tool in a toolbox of ruthless efficiency. That is what makes the definition of a kulak go from a landlord with sharecroppers to the owner of a butter churn.

            Makhno wasn't an angel. As a sister thread points out he had a lot of shitty sexual proclivities, he treated women as objects and I agree with you that voluntarism when the chips were down often was cajoled in reality. A lot of these comparisons must be relative to the context under which they happened. We'll be here all day with endless exclaimers, we have to approximate. The Reds cajoled a lot more and a lot worse, but that's not the point.

            ML's and MLM's treat Lenin and Mao as gods. Like Makhno they were men. Like Makhno they were very flawed men, you cannot be a perfect person at that level. Like Makhno were men who were intelligent, and did good things. Like Makhno they also committed great evils both personal and systemic. However you do not get this honesty from MLs or MLMs. Often you cannot even get MLs and MLMs to the same table.

            I agree anarchists are annoying, they often hold the position of arguing from absolute morality having done nothing, they certainly haven't created a large global society. But for all their wishy washyness and their annoyingness, they do have a point. We should be honest about the human costs of civilization and production, who bears them, and how we can make that process as fair as humanly possible. Otherwise it's very easy to go from landlord to guy with a butter churn.

            • How many of these peasants were voluntarily taxed? How was that bayonette any different than the one weilded by Tsar Nicholas II? Was it because it was Red?

              I'm unaware of anyone that is voluntarily taxed.

              However, this is going in an oddly sectarian direction whete you are missing the point being made to go for a "both sides" attack. This is actually doing the thing my point is criticizing. Why do the Bolsheviks have to be "just as bad" in order for you to acknowledge falee histories? When did I suggest this was the kind of discussion I was having?

              If you can trim your responses to a recognition of what I am actually saying instead of getting angry at the partisan in your head and projecting them onto me, I will continue engaging. Otherwise, I am not interested in feeding into this or playing around with your straw men.

              • Why do the Bolsheviks have to be “just as bad” in order for you to acknowledge falee histories?

                Can you clarify your statement for me:

                • "just as bad" as whom?
                • and which "false histories"?

                • "just as bad" as whom?

                  I am referencing your knee-jerk "both sides" rhetoric that pops up instead of even acknowledging the point I've made.

                  and which "false histories"

                  The ones I have already corrected you on, such as the Black Army "overperforming". It performed as well as any guerilla group under circumstances favorable to guerillas of the time, i.e. with sufficient support from the peasantry. Given how dramatically it ultimately failed, and its many faults, this is really a romantic characterization that doesn't do justice to anyone involved. Did they really overperform? How well "should" they have performed? Such ahistorical romantic characterizations, along with backstabbing narratives, are the main theme of "anti-Marxist" mythologies among self-proclaimed Western anarchists.

                  • The ones I have already corrected you on, such as the Black Army “overperforming”. It performed as well as any guerilla group under circumstances favorable to guerillas of the time, i.e. with sufficient support from the peasantry. Given how dramatically it ultimately failed, and its many faults, this is really a romantic characterization that doesn’t do justice to anyone involved. Did they really overperform? How well “should” they have performed? Such ahistorical romantic characterizations, along with backstabbing narratives, are the main theme of “anti-Marxist” mythologies among self-proclaimed Western anarchists.

                    This is the problem with internet Bolsheviks you envision yourself as Central Committe members in 1949 at the height of the glory of the Soviet Union, at the height of being able to plug your ears because for once the people have seen that the ends justified the means but only temporarily.

                    I was born in the Soviet Union. My great grandparents and grandparents generation were the generations that was made whole on the Bolshevik promises. My grandparents not so much by the time they were 25 thanks Kruschev. By the time my parents generation was born it was obvious they were locked into a future that would be worse for their children. And the party did nothing, the party would try to ride this out through the classic democratic centralism and ends justify the means. They plugged their fucking ears.

                    Does that sound familiar to a party who considers themselves "the good guys" who has been plugging their ears to the needs of the working class? Who has consistently been berating the people, that its the people who failed them and not the party that could fail. A party that has failed to achieve any significant long term wins for the people in 20+ years? A party that has completely failed for generations because its refusal to read the actual political circumstances on the ground?

                    In a bizzaro universe you are acting like a Fedayeen for the Democratic Party who lives overseas. You're acting like my parents generation, the jeans generation of the Soviet Union. Who think that America is paved with gold, and jeans, and rock and roll music. A reality that soon was snuffed out for the majority of them who could immigrate. They jumped from a crumbling empire that ultimately did not listen to its own people to another crumbling empire that ultimately did not listen to its own people.

                    In short you can take your little "Western anarchist" slurring and shove it. You're filling in all of the gaps with your imagination. I have real life experience of the Soviet Union. I learned Soviet History through out my whole life on both sides of the wall. I've stood in bread lines comrade, have you? I had extended family who were party members, did you? You can post all you want, but the reality is that the majority of online Bolsheviks would have been anti-Bolshevik immediately after graduating high school, because their principal would have hated their annoying ass, and he was a party member, and he could decide if your career trajectory was to go test into an institute or to work the mines or the fields or the factories.

                    Listen the Soviet Union warts and all helped a lot of people, it also hurt a lot of people, it was a country, like every country it has problems and it does bad shit and it doesn't listen to its people. It's not a magical wonderland. You would not have been a Central Committee member, you're too gullible. Your clinging to Bolshevik party line history about the Civil war literally proves it.

                    First off the Blacks did overperform. The Whites were comprised of an officer class and trained traditional soldiers that were supplemented with commoners. The Reds were lead by one of the greatest logisticians to ever grace this fucking earth. Trotsky literally created a traditional European army out of the mud. He brought in specialists to head up officer classes. He was so good at recreating a traditional army that the commonors who made up the Red Army's ranks fucking hated it. That's what lead to the Military Oppositoon. What was the Black Army in comparison? Makhno gave guns to whoever showed up and said figure it out. And they fucking did.

                    Not only that but the Whites military capacity was literally donated from European powers. The Reds after throwing human waves at the Entente in the East literally just rolled through all those places. The Reds had a resource and supply chain victory over both Armies before the war began because they held Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Blacks in comparison had no capacity. Hualiapole was an industrial town sure, but for agricultural machinery.

                    The Black Army was the weakest in military strategists, trained soldiers, resources, industrial capacity, industrial knowledge, and geographically they were positioned between two opposing fronts. It's fair to say they overperformed.

                    As far backstabbing narratives you plainly do not read history. The Reds broke the Starobilsk agreement. And this was after the Bolsheviks sold out Ukraine to the Central Powers, and the Maknovists took back Huliaipole.

                    On 14 November, the Bolshevik plans to liquidate the Makhnovshchina were finalised by the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee, with the approval of both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.[114] The insurgents began reporting to their high command that Makhnovist supporters were being harassed and arrested on charges of banditry, as Mikhail Frunze began issuing orders to sweep Ukraine of all "bandits".[115] On 17 November, Frunze issued Order 00106, which integrated the Insurgent Army into the 4th Army and transferred it to the Caucasian Front, although the order was never actually sent to insurgent command.[116] The following week, on 23 November, Frunze issued Order 00149 directly to Makhno, instructing the Insurgent Army to dissolve itself. He then issued Order 00155 to his own troops, instructing them to prepare to liquidate the Makhnovshchina within 48 hours.[117] Copies of these orders, in which Frunze declared the Makhnovists to be outlaws and ordered the concentration of Red Army forces in the Makhnovist region, were not sent to Huliaipole or the delegation in Kharkiv.[118] Vladimir Lenin also directly ordered Rakovsky to covertly initiate the criminalisation of the Ukrainian anarchist movement and to begin preparing charges against them.[119] That same day, spies from the 42nd Rifle Division were discovered attempting to locate the exact whereabouts of the insurgent command, with the purpose of aiding a Red Army offensive against the Makhnovshchina.[120] The delegation in Kharkiv responded by pressing Christian Rakovsky to arrest the 42nd Division's commanding officers and prevent any Red Army incursion into insurgent-held territory, but the Soviet government claimed it had all been a misunderstanding and promised to investigate it

                    On 26 November, when the Makhnovist delegation inquired about the status of the investigation, they were arrested and sent to Moscow, where they were shot.[122] In total, 346 of the anarchists in Kharkiv were arrested,[123] with a number of prominent Makhnovists being charged with treason and shot by the Moscow Cheka,[124] and almost the entire membership of the Nabat being imprisoned.[125] Coordinated mass arrests of anarchists were also carried in the other major cities of southern Ukraine,[126] including Yelysavethrad.[127] The 42nd Division simultaneously led an attack against Huliaipole,[128] while the 2nd Cavalry Corps surrounded the town.[129] Makhno's 150-strong Black Guard detachment quickly rallied the towns defense,[130] but decided to make their escape after spotting a break in the Red lines.[131] After the 3rd Makhnovist Regiment was captured by the 126th Division at Malaya Tokmacha, Makhno's forces led a counterattack that pushed the Red forces back to Novouspenivka,[129] taking the opportunity to regroup the insurgent forces, with some Red soldiers even defecting to his ranks.[132] With 1,500 infantry and 1,000 cavalry at their disposal,[130] the insurgents retook Huliaipole from the 42nd Division after hours of fighting, capturing 6,000 Red soldiers in the town, 2,000 of whom also joined the Makhnovist ranks.[133] Among the captured soldiers, the Makhnovists found that they had been given orders to attack the Makhnovists as early as 16 November, a day before the Crimean campaign had even reached its conclusion.[119] Despite the victory, the Makhnovists were forced to abandon Huliaipole and retreat.[134]

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik–Makhnovist_conflict#Surprise_attack

                    After the combined Bolshevik-Makhnovist forces defeated Pyotr Wrangel in Crimea and ended the Russian Civil War's Southern Front, the Bolsheviks once again turned on their anarchist allies.[226] In late November 1920, the Red Army launched a surprise attack against the insurgent forces, putting the Makhnovist capital of Huliaipole under siege.[227] Caught unprepared, Makhno rallied together 150 Black Guards to defend the town. After spotting a gap in the Red lines, he escaped with his detachment[228] and led a counterattack that pushed the Red forces back to Novouspenivka. His own forces regrouped[229] and gained some defecting Red soldiers before recapturing Huliaipole a week later.[230] The Red Army command justified the attacks against the Makhnovists on grounds that Makhno had refused orders and intended to betray them,[231] though the Red Army had planned to break the alliance with the Makhnovists even before the beginning of the offensive against Wrangel's White Army.[232]

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#Anti-Bolshevik_rebellion

                    Your desperate need to have everyone bend the knee to a Party reading of Bolshevik history is insane.

    • Ben-Gurion

      You simply hate to see it

You've viewed 196 comments.