M Y T H S A N D I N T E R P R E T A T I O N S .

The Makhnovshchina and Nestor Makhno remain largely forgotten, overshadowed by the massive struggle for Russia between Red and White armies. The Makhnovists Anarchism was very much based on the traditional freedoms and organisation of the Cossack’s and raw forms of village democracy which had been influenced by the Cossack traditions and persisted in the South East of Ukraine. While in the rest of the Ukraine Nationalism, long suppressed by the Tsarist authorities gained popular support. In the South East this home grown peasant democracy radicalised by Makhno’s Anarchist beliefs took root. The majority of the movements peasant followers did not consider themselves Anarchists however with the help of the Makhnovshchina’s activists they followed a policy of redistributing the land equally amongst themselves. The Makhnovists encouraged the setting up of ‘free’, agricultural communes organised on the principles of full equality and mutual aid. The Makhnovists attempted to run both their civilian and military organisations on Anarchist principles (with varying degrees of success). The Makhnovists were a peasant movement whose main support came from the town of Gulyai-Pole and surrounding peasant communities in the province of Ekaterinoslav. The Makhnovshchina remained a regional phenomenon which was confined to this area which contained the conditions for the movements creation and development. Its failure to build support among the urban working class in towns and cities under the Makhnovistss control weakened the movement, and was due to the peasant nature of the Makhnovshchina which made it so successful in the Ukrainian countryside.

The Makhnovists were extremely successful in their military operations considering the lack of experienced commanders or military supplies. Makhno’s cunning and inventiveness in his use of the Tachanka (peasant carts) for example and the excellent quality of his locally raised cavalry forces gave him the ability to manouvre far more effectively than his enemies. This mobility plus the Makhnovists large number of machine guns helped to allow the Makhnovists to ‘punch above their weight’ against larger forces. The power vacuum in the South East left by the conditions of the Civil War allowed the Makhnovists to evolve from small peasant bands into a large military and civilian project that both the Red and White Russians had to take into account. The Bolsheviks were prepared to co-operate with the Makhnovists against the White forces of reaction, but once the threat from the White armies was removed they turned the Red Army against the Makhnovists intent on destroying a movement which they saw as a hindrance to the Communist control of the Ukraine. The White Army had to divert forces from the Moscow front to deal with the Makhnovists operating in their rear, thus weakening their major offensive against the Bolsheviks.

Anti-Semitism was widespread in the Ukraine and Makhnovist insurgents did carry out Pogroms against Jewish communities. This anti-Semitic violence however was not a deliberate policy, nor was it condoned by the Makhnovists governmental organisations or military leadership. Anti-Jewish violence was an indication of the deep feelings of hatred towards Jews among the Ukrainian peasantry. Despite this many Jews and Jewish communities were involved in the Makhnovist movement and even small anti-Semitic incidents were severely punished. Indicating how seriously the Makhnovist movement saw such acts. This severity is explained by the fear that if smaller incidents went unpunished, more severe acts might have followed by Makhno’s peasant supporters amongst who prejudice against the Jews was widespread. No army in the Ukraine was innocent of Pogroms but the Makhnovists and the Bolshevik Red army both of which had many Jews among their ranks did not carry out Pogroms as a deliberate strategy to curry favour and support from among the peasantry, who had been encouraged in their anti-Semitism by the Tsarist regime. Rather it came about when there was a break down in discipline during periods when the Makhnovist organisations were unable to impose their authority on their supporters.

The British anti-Parliamentary Left Communists and Anarchists response to the Makhnovshchina was as part of their condemnation of the Bolsheviks for the persecution of revolutionary opposition groups including the Russian and Ukrainian Anarchists and Makhnovists. The Makhnovshchina had no influence on the British left politically but the coverage of the movement in different left wing publications show the different reactions to the Bolsheviks by the anti-Parliamentary Left.

In looking at the Makhnovist Movement it is impossible not to be struck by the role of Nestor Makhno himself. This short poorly educated and alcoholic peasant was able not only to gain the support, trust and admiration of Anarchist activists and more importantly thousands of peasants who followed him through a terrible and bloody Civil War, but also defeated vastly larger and better equiped enemies his ingenious tactics. The conditions in the South East were there for a regional insurgency without the influence of Makhno Indeed many groups commonly known as ‘Greens’, grew up and fought independently from other military forces. But without Makhno’s leadership and strategic daring it is unlikely that the insurgent movement would have been so successful and it would have given its political support to either the Nationalists or Bolsheviks, which party likely depended on their policies of land reform and distribution. Makhno’s sincere Anarchist convictions shaped the movement that bore his name and as Peter Marshall states in his history of Anarchism led to the first major historical example of constructive Anarchy in action.

In November 1934 the British Anarchist paper 'Freedom', published an obituary of 'Nestor Machno', written by S. Yanovsky the editor of the Yiddish language paper 'Freie Arbeiter Stimme', who began by writing;

"In the personality of Comrade Nestor Machno 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. And more so after being misunderstood and shamefully calumniated, not only by his opponents, but by some of his own comrades".