Information on the Makhnovists was difficult to obtain in the west, what came from White Russian and Bolshevik sources was mainly negative propaganda, what little information from the Makhnovists point of view came from Russian Anarchist refugees most notably Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman and those few Makhnovists who managed to escape. What news there was of the movement appeared in publications whose political stance was most in sympathy with the Makhnovists namely Anarchist and far left papers and journals.

In Britain the Anarchist and anti-Parliamentary Communist movement was tiny and lost much of their support to the Bolshevik backed Communist Party of Great Britain after its formation in 1920. The coverage of the Makhnovists and of Nestor Makhno in contemporary British left-wing publications was unimportant to either the history of the Makhnovists or the British Left, but what it does show is the differences and confusion on the far left over the revolution in Russia and the nature of the Bolshevik regime. While the Anarchist paper ‘Freedom’ was quick in seeing the Bolsheviks as fundamentally opposed to Anarchist organisations and ideology and contained the most accurate information on the Makhnovists its influence was extremely small. Guy Aldred who published both the ‘Spur’ and ‘Commune’ was himself an Anarchist but he consistently supported the Bolsheviks and attacked their critics long after the rest of the British Anarchist movement had given up any support for the Bolsheviks. Sylvia Pankhurst’s paper the ‘Workers Dreadnought’ originally supported the Bolsheviks, indeed it had become the unofficial ‘organ’ of the CPGB while Sylvia was a leading member of the party until she was expelled in 1921. The ‘Workers Dreadnought’, published appeals on behalf of Russian Anarchists in Bolshevik prisons and Sylvia Pankhurst spoke at a meeting in support of Makhno in London in 1923. Information in the left-wing press on Nestor Makhno and the Makhnovist movement was tied up with that of the rest of the Russian Anarchist movement, and the plight of its prisoners and refugees.

The far left including Anarchists in Britain greeted the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 with enthusiasm. The Anarchist movement believed like most of the British left that Russia held the possibility of a socialist revolution that would end the war and begin the triumphant march to socialism throughout Europe. The British left was small and fragmented at the end of the war, many of the parties amalgamated into the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1920. The Bolsheviks October revolution was originally reported in the west as being Anarchist, confusion reigned on the British left as to the nature of the situation in Russia. The Bolshevik party advanced the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets’, in order to reach its true goal that of authoritarian rule of the Bolshevik party. There was confusion over the differences between the Soviets which were spontaneously formed workers councils, committees of recallable delegates elected by and answerable to mass meetings of working class people. Which were seen by the anti-Parliamentary Left as the means to carry out the revolution, and the Bolshevik party who claimed to represent the Soviets and had the support of several important Soviets and had seized control of the Russian government. Despite this confusion the Left united to oppose British military and economic intervention in Russia. Little information on the situation in Russia reached the west and that which did was usually highly propagandised either by the Bolsheviks or by their White Russian enemies, so any news was tainted with the suspicion that it was untrue or exaggerated. Information on the Bolsheviks anti-Anarchist activities started to emerge in the left’s publications in mid 1919 (these activities had started in 1918), though the majority of political activists took longer to convince. Many had placed all their hopes on the revolution and were unwilling to denounce it without overwhelming evidence. Articles on the Makhnovists in the British Left-wing press appear originally as part of the debate on the role of Anarchists in the revolution and Civil War. It is interesting to see that three main Anarchist publications, ‘Freedom’ and Guy Aldred’s ‘Spur’ and ‘Commune’, take opposing lines on Makhno’s role, Aldred supported the Bolsheviks and labelled the Russian Anarchists as counter-revolutionary, while the Freedom group supported the Anarchists.

The Left Communists achieved a brief period of importance at the end of the First World War. During the war the Labour party and the Trade Unions leadership lined up to support the governments war effort. The Left Communists evolved from the socialist political organisations and rejected parliamentarism as a tactic which they saw as suited only to the capitalist system and unable to be used to create a socialist order due to its very nature, the already existing working class parties were seen as class collaborators due for their support for the World War. The Left Communists welcomed the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and their policy of building socialism through the Soviets (workers councils) which the left communists saw as a suitable replacement to Parliament. However the Bolsheviks sought power through any strategy including participation in Parliamentary elections. The Bolsheviks imposed the policy of parliamentary action on the newly formed British Communist party against the bitter opposition of the anti-Parliamentarians involved in the discussions over its formation. Lenin made a vicious attack on the left Communists in his "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder’, and set out his position as regards Parliamentary action and the British Communists;

"I will put it more concretely. In my opinion, the British Communists should unite their four (all very weak, and some very, very weak) parties and groups into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in Parliament".

Guy Aldred actually put forward a compromise position of standing candidates for Parliament for propaganda purposes and to test popular support but to refuse any seats if they won an election. The CPGB adopted the policy of full involvement in the Parliamentary process and also sought affiliation to the Labour party, this decision led

to a polarisation of the extreme left with the withdrawal of the Left Communist elements within the CPGB and the creation of the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation.

I have included Sylvia Pankhurst’s ‘Dreadnought’ group because of Sylvia Pankhurst’s involvement in support for the Russian Anarchists and for the campaign over Makhno’s trial for revolutionary activity in Poland in 1923. Pankhurst’s main strength was her political journal the ‘Workers Dreadnought’ (before 1917 the Women’s Dreadnought) around which her political supporters organised. Pankhurst was based in the East End of London and her supporters will be referred to here as the ‘Dreadnought group’, due to its frequent name changes (East London Federation of Suffragettes, Workers Suffrage Federation, Workers Socialist Federation, Communist Workers’ Party). Originally Pankhurst supported the Bolsheviks and organised the ‘Hands of Russia’ campaign and became a leading light in the early Communist Party of Great Britain, but she was eventually forced out of the CPGB in September 1921 for her continued opposition to the policy of contesting Parliamentary elections and seeking affiliation with the Labour Party and her criticisms of the party in the ‘Workers Dreadnought’. During 1919 when the Makhnovists were most active the ‘Workers Dreadnought’, reported news from the Ukraine regarding the Civil War but there is no mention of Makhno, it is likely that as the Makhnovists fought as part of the Red Army there movements would be reported as such in Bolshevik Press releases. Following Sylvia’s expulsion from the CPGB the ‘Dreadnought group’, and their paper expressed solidarity with Communist opposition groups in Russia publishing articles by Alexandra Kollontai from the Russian Workers opposition, and giving support to the ‘Group of Revolutionary left-wing Communists of Russia’, which had split from the Bolsheviks and other left wing anti-Bolshevik parties. In July 1923 Nestor Makhno was in prison in Poland;

"and is to be tried shortly on a charge of organising uprisings in Poland aided by Bolshevik money. At the same time the Bolshevik Government are asking Poland for his extradition so that they can put him on trial for his so called ‘Counter-Revolutionary’, activity in Russia".

Russian Anarchists in London set up a protest meeting on the 27th July at the Mantle Makers Hall, Whitechapel, at which Sylvia Pankhurst was one of the speakers ( other speakers included T.H. Keell and W.C. Owen both of who were involved with the Freedom group and M. Hassine-Arnoni). The meeting passed a unanimous resolution protesting against Makhno’s imprisonment and trial. The court case was based mainly on the evidence of an agent provocateur working for Polish intelligence and after a five day trial Makhno and two other insurgents were acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence. ‘Workers Dreadnought’, in the same month as the meeting was condemning the Communist government for being ‘the dictatorship of a party clique of officials’. I do not know whether Sylvia Pankhurst had any involvement in the campaign other than speaking at the meeting in Whitechapel.

Guy Aldred published two papers during the period of the Russian revolution and civil war the ‘Spur’, which he and Rose Whitcop published as individuals and ‘Commune’, which Aldred published as the official publication of the Glasgow Communist Group (united with the Glasgow Anarchist Group at the end of 1916). Aldred supported the Bolsheviks despite their authoritarian and exclusive character mainly due to their concrete success at seizing power, and he continued to support them after the Left outside the CPGB had seized. Mark Shipway argues that Aldred’s lack of criticism of the Bolsheviks was partly due to his personal dislike for some of the people who were critical of the Bolsheviks. In 1923 Aldred criticised an article by W.C. Owen in ‘Freedom’, by questioning Owen’s revolutionary credentials. Guy Aldred also attacked Emma Goldman in the ‘Commune’ writing in December 1924 that her criticisms of the Bolsheviks were indistinguishable from White propaganda. By April 1925 he was demanding through the Pages of ‘Commune’ that the ‘Revolutionary scab’, and ‘ex-Anarchist’, Goldman be;

"Boycotted and condemned by every worker for her infamous associations. She is a traitor to Labour’s struggle who should be ‘fired’ with enthusiasm- from each and every proletarian assembly".

As regards the fate of Anarchists in Russia, while Aldred printed letters from Anarchist organisations complaining about persecution he was not fully convinced despite the deluge of information in the early twenties he remained sceptical;

"We want the truth. The cry of ‘Safeguarding the revolution’ may be used as an excuse for tyranny. The cry of ‘Anarchism and liberty’ may conceal a counter-revolutionary conspiracy. We want to cut through phrases and get down to facts".

By November 1925 Aldred’s line on the Russian Anarchists and the Bolshevik regime had changed almost totally, writing for the ‘Commune’ on the eighth anniversary of the revolution Aldred wrote of ‘our persecuted comrades in Russia’, and ‘our comrades rotting in the Soviet Prisons’. As regards Aldred’s coverage of Nestor Makhno and the Makhnovshchina I have found only two articles. The first in the issue of the ‘Spur’ for November 1920 is from an article by Robert Minor originally published in the American ‘The Liberator’, on the role of Anarchists in Russia. Minor puts forward the rumour that Makhno’s refusal to move his forces to the Polish front may have led to the Red Army’s defeat by the Poles;

"If the story is true, it means that the Soviet Red Army was defeated in Poland when the 75,000 men idle in the South with Makhno might have saved it".

In the 1924 July-August edition of ‘Freedom there is an article attacking Guy Aldred for a statement in the June edition of ‘Commune’ claiming that Makhno;

"proves his revolutionary heroism to-day by serving as a general in the Polish White guards, a tool of French reaction".

The Freedom article goes on to quote Emma Goldman who they sent a copy of Aldred’s article to in Berlin, Goldman attacks Aldred for spreading Bolshevik propaganda as regards Makhno;

"As to Makhno being in the employ of the Polish white Guard or French reaction, that is all a repetition of the outrageous defamation’s spread from Moscow....His sterling honesty and his revolutionary zeal are beyond such defamation’s as repeated by Guy Aldred".

This attack on Aldred may have led to his condemnation of Goldman in the December 1924 and April 1925 editions of ‘Commune’ (see above). Aldred’s attacks on Makhno, Goldman and the Russian Anarchists were all made in support of the Bolshevik regime. Aldred refused to believe that the Bolsheviks were persecuting revolutionaries because of personal animosity against their accusers and defended the Bolsheviks until late 1925. By which time he could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence of Bolshevik persecution of Anarchists and other left wing opposition groups.

‘Freedom’ was a mainly theoretical Anarchist paper originally set up by Prince Peter Kropotkin and produced by the small Freedom group made up of his supporters. Kropotkin had called for Anarchists to support the first World War as a war against German Imperial aggression and this had led to a split within the Freedom group and condemnation from the rest of the small British Anarchist movement who set about propagandising against it. By 1915 ‘Freedom’ was edited and controlled by T.H. Keell originally the papers printer who had also fallen out with Kropotkin over the issue of support for the war. Keell and a close group of friends produced the paper and were very critical of the Bolsheviks and the persecution of the Russian Anarchists. From July 1919 onwards ‘Freedom’ carried articles and appeals by and on behalf of the Anarchists in Russia and identified the Bolsheviks as anti-Anarchist. In January 1922 ‘Freedom’ published a letter from Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman about the treatment of the Russian Anarchists in which they stated that some Anarchists had been officially accused of being bandits and Makhnovtsy. In April of the same year ‘Freedom’ published Alexander Berkman’s article ‘Some Bolshevik Lies about the Russian Anarchists’, a large article running to three pages which mainly dealt with the Makhnovists. Berkman states that the Russian Anarchist organisations did not accept the Makhnovists as Anarchists, seeing them as peasant rebels and deals extensively with allegations of anti-Semitism laid against the Makhnovists;

"There were, indeed, isolated cases of pogroms made by some Otryads (military detachments) of the Makhno army....was not the Red Army guilty of such incidents? ....Makhno is an Anarchist, and it is historic fact that he and his staff kept up a continuous propaganda and agitation against religious and nationalistic superstitions and prejudices".

Berkman’s article as far as I am aware is the largest and most accurate to appear in the contemporary British press regarding the Makhnovists. The meeting set up to support Makhno in his trial in Poland in July at the Mantle Makers Hall, Whitechapel, included T.H. Keell and W.C. Owen as speakers both were involved with the Freedom group and ‘Freedom’ reported on the meeting and the campaign in the next month’s issue;

"It is hoped that the publicity given to the case will stay the murderous hands of the reactionaries who seek to revenge themselves on this gallant fighter for freedom of the workers and peasants of the Ukraine".

There is no mention in the ‘Freedom’ volumes XL for 1926 of Peter Arshinov’s ‘Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, which was supported by Nestor Makhno and caused controversy throughout European Anarchist circles. The ‘Platform’, called for a general Union of anarchists with a central executive committee to co-ordinate policy and action. Its critics accused Arshinov of abandoning Anarchism for Bolshevism by calling for a strict party structure. In November 1934 ‘Freedom’ published an obituary of ‘Nestor Machno’, by Sh. Yanovsky the editor of the Yiddish language paper ‘Freie Arbeiter Stimme’, which had originally been published in the ‘Watchman’ in August in which he apologises for declaring Makhno a pogromist in ‘Freie Arbeiter Stimme’, and refutes any suspicion’s that Makhno was an Anti-Semite. Yanovsky begins by writing;

"In the personality of Nestor Makhno who died last week, the revolutionary world in general and the Russian Revolution in particular, have lost one of its greatest heroes, who will during the course of time be more and more valued".

‘Freedom’ was the most consistently supportive of the Russian Anarchists and carried the most information on the Makhnovists and Makhno due to its links with Berkman, Goldman and Russian Anarchist émigrés, originated through Kropotkin,s involvement in the paper and his role in Russia following his return in 1917.

The British Anarchist and Left Communist movements were tiny and after 1920 many of their followers and activists had gone to the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain attracted by the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia, indeed Sylvia Pankhurst had been an active member of the party and Guy Aldred had offered the Bolsheviks his full support through the pages of his publications. The CPGB’s adoption of fighting Parliamentary campaigns and seeking affiliation to the Labour party had prevented the Left Communists from joining the party. Later when the Bolsheviks persecution of Anarchists had become well known about in the west both the Freedom group and Pankhurst’s Dreadnought group both switched to attacking the Bolsheviks, while Aldred took far longer to convince of the authoritarian nature of the Bolsheviks. The Freedom group were the most supportive of the Russian Anarchists and published the most information on Makhno, but their readership and influence were tiny even compared to the rest of the anti-Parliamentary left at the time. The Makhnovist movement and Nestor Makhno had no impact on the British Left but what it does help show is the differences over attitudes to the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik regime on the anti-Parliamentary Left. It also shows that information on Anarchists in Russia during the revolution and Civil War was almost impossible to come by other than from Bolshevik or white sources, unless brought out by Anarchist refugees;

"We think that few students of the Russian Revolution are under any illusions as to the situation in Russia. The Bolsheviks and their supporters at home and abroad raised a smoke screen so dense that for some time it was almost impossible to get any reliable news".