Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 07:46 PM CST

yes, but the commies had to have had a whole lot of supporters to get into power and keep it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 02:22 PM CST

well makhno was so great, why did he losse?
why were the commies so populare?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 02:50 PM CST

more munitions and broken treaties beat the makhnovists. and there were ukrainian nationalists, socialists, royalists, cossaks etc. for the makhnovists to contend with. commies weren\'t that popular in the ukraine; of all the socialists, it was the socialist revolutionaries who were more popular.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 02:59 PM CST

well, you can say that the communists were \"so
popular\" only if you have not read the article.
As it makes clear, the Communists used state
terrorism to impose their rule on the Ukraine
(as elsewhere).

ultimately, no matter how good your politics are,
if you are faced with the full might of a party
dictatorship, its likely you will loose. And being
on the loosing side does not signify that the cause was a bad one.

all in all, I think that George should re-read the
article...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 04:49 PM CST

There are a lot of trolls here lately. He may have been trolling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2002 @ 08:50 PM CST

george, the Makhnovists lost because of the increasing power of the Bolshevik dictatorship. It\'s pretty amazing that an anarchist army made up mostly of ordinary workers and peasants could have led a battle against both the whites (Denikin, Austrian Hetman, etc.) and the Reds (Lenin, Trotsky) and in many cases succeeded! Nestor Makhno was a genuine revolutionary who dedicated his life to the liberation of the Ukrainian peasants, and he actually put his theories into practice. Large parts of the Ukraine were taken over by self-governing peasant communes, aided in large part by the anarchist-communist Nabat federation. These communes were run on an anarchist basis, based on direct democracy, until the Bolsheviks finally succeeded in destroying all political opponents (around 1920). The failure of the Makhnovists doesn\'t mean that anarchism is destined to fail, it means that anarchists should learn from the past and shouldn\'t cooperate with authoritarian elements and should fight and dis-credit them when they are small so they don\'t grow up to create more damage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2002 @ 03:05 AM CST

The Bolsheviks invaded the Ukraine. They did have
a lot of support in 1917, but by early 1918 that
support had basically been lost. The Bolsheviks
then started to disband soviets which had been
elected with non-Bolshevik majorities.

By the time the Civil War started, many workers
would have preferred them to the Whites, but that
did not mean active support. Indeed, mass strikes
in opposition to the Bolsheviks continually occurred during 1919-21 -- the Kronstadt uprising
was in solidarity with the last, and biggest,
strike wave.

If you read part one of the article, you would
see that by 1919 the Bolsheviks were arguing for
the \"dictatorship of the party\" -- which would not
be requried if they did have mass support.

And as regards the Ukraine, the Bolshevik regime
was imposed by the Red Army, so this debate is
somewhat beside the point.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2002 @ 04:00 PM CST

You guys will love this. I talked to a former ISO member today and they told me that the ISO was taking money directly out of his bank account when he was a member. He gave them his account routing numbers and so on. Former members have come forward before with stories about the ISO meddling in the personal life of its members and asking them for lots of money. This practice is even more insidious. I feel sorry for people who are coerced into supporting that worthless Socialist Worker rag with their personal money.

[ Reply to This | # ]