There was a positive correlation between collectivization and crop output in Ukraine during this time, and the famine began before collectivization started. This discounts the idea that collectivization caused the famine. Instead, collectivization was introduced to help deal with the famine.
Also, collectivization is not some communist ideal. It is a revolution in production that every modern country has undergone at some point in time. In America, farms are heavily collectivized with heavy subsidies from the US government. The chicken industry, for example, is an oligopoly of four major corporations.
This mode of farming where everyone owns their own subsistence farm cannot support an urbanizing population. In early 1930s USSR, farming was still done with ox and plow. Individual farmers could not afford tractors and other equipment for their small plots of land. But with pooled resources, it is possible over larger tracts of land.
You’re rewriting history. Ukraine had soviets long before Stalin. In fact, it had reached such a level of collectivization/expropriation that Lenin/Trostky had to send the Red Army to massacre the population (and the anarchist uprising).
You should do some reading about the Makhnovtchina and the anarchist communes of Ukraine.
You should do some reading about the Makhnovtchina
Okay.
forced conscription & summary executions
Kontrrazvedka
“Alexander Skirda acknowledges: “The idyllic dream of ‘cooperative enterprise’ was to dissolve in discord and bitterness, or even in ‘dismal despair,’ with commune workers quitting one after another.””
“Volin, one of the leaders of the Makhnovists, explained that there developed “a kind of military clique or camarilla about Makhno. This clique sometimes made decisions and committed acts without taking account of the Council or of other institutions. It lost its sense of proportion, showed contempt towards all those who were outside it, and detached itself more and more from the mass of the combatants and the working population.””
“The Makhnovists never developed any serious working class following in the towns they occupied. Even most anarchist supporters of Makhno, including his close collaborator Arshinov, acknowledge this reality.”
“A greater source of discontent was that the Makhnovists refused to pay workers wages. In Ekaterinoslav Makhno insisted that the workers accept payment in kind and engage in barter with the peasants. Workers in Olexandrivske also demanded wages and as Malet puts it “were not very keen” on Makhno’s proposals “to restart production under their own control, and establish direct relations with the peasants””
Some interesting critiques in there (don’t hesitate to link sources), but the interpretation is vastly exaggerated. That some people abused positions of power does not invalidate the existence of free Communes, and does not invalidate their criticism of power structures that should be dismantled (on the contrary).
That’s a big difference between anarchists and marxist-leninists: in anarchist discourse, a critical look is always welcome and encouraged, and there is no binary interpretation of “good” vs “evil”. In particular, the question of the Kontrrazvedka is an interesting one: how to protect a people’s revolution without creating an authoritarian State? From what i read about it, it seems the Kontrrazvedka’s main (sole?) purpose was to prevent authoritarians from seizing and abusing power. If that requires to shoot power-hungry psychopaths like Lenin, i can’t say that makes me happy but that’s a much happier outcome than a bolshevik Nation-State.
The question is still an open debate for example in Rojava where intelligence gathering is practiced for the struggle against ISIS and the Turkish State who try to colonize/destroy the lands. Collaborating with foreign intelligence services (eg. USA/FR) has in fact saved many lives and helped the revolution last. As much as i’m against any form of such activity, i can’t say from my comfortable village in the Global North that i can judge that line of action. I honestly don’t know how i would react in case of a civil war in my neighborhood.
Although it has a weird trot bias, the biggest condemnation is that Makhno did not understand the working class. His army was that of peasants, and what did they do? Rolled into towns, claimed to have liberated the people, and left them at the mercy of whatever happened next. They had no plans apart from preventing authority structures from emerging. But what worked for the peasantry did not work the workers of the cities, as they did not have the same material conditions. How could notaries and administrators accept payment in kind? Why did he tell rail workers they could accept payment, except for military purposes (the majority of rail traffic)?
And you could not form an organisation that Makhno disapproved of or the kontrra would shoot you (because prisons are authoritarian). He disallowed parties because of a fear of authority creeping in again, but in the process disallowed workers to band together to represent their interests – as if parties were only going to come from external, sabotaging forces. Who exactly did they liberate then, and from whom? As we saw with the workers of Olexandrivske, he ignored their concerns about being paid real wages (and not barter for food for survival, a clear step back). What exactly did he achieve, then? Is this what freedom looks like? Is it any wonder the workers then abandoned his experiment, when they firstly had no choice in joining it? Is it any surprise they were much more keen to follow the bolsheviks, who actually had answers for them?
I also really can’t understand how the kontrra is justified hierarchy but the cheka isn’t; just because the former wasn’t a state? (highly debatable also. Makhno’s armies certainly had the monopoly on violence)
That’s a big difference between anarchists and marxist-leninists: in anarchist discourse, a critical look is always welcome and encouraged, and there is no binary interpretation of “good” vs “evil”.
There is that in marxism-leninism. Self-criticism is one of the foundations of Mao Zedong Thought and has been vastly adopted by communist parties around the world. I have also literally never met an anarchist that did not long for Makhnovia. Some even told me that any struggle against authority is inherently just, even if it replaces it with another authority.
That some people abused positions of power does not invalidate the existence of free Communes, and does not invalidate their criticism of power structures that should be dismantled (on the contrary).
Why don’t you make the same good faith observation about “power-hungry psycopath … Lenin” (your words)? Makhnovia was a failed state that only survived due to a power vacuum, and it’s no wonder it lasted a couple of years while the soviet union outlived it by over 70 years.
That Makhno tried his hand at being a warlord is not an indictment on anarchism. That anarchists think he somehow is an example to follow is.
That’s sort of off topic though. Sure there were anarchists in Ukraine during the civil war putting their own plans into action, but by 1921, these factions did not exist anymore, and the soviet policy was then put into place.
What I meant by collectivization here was the specific policy enacted in 1929 while Stalin was leader, because that’s the topic of discussion.
Soviets were the foundation of the revolution in 1917, long before Lenin and his friends stole it. And yes, after Lenin and Trotsky shot all the revolutionaries (anarchists and libertarian communists), you can say with confidence they “did not exist anymore”.
What I meant by collectivization here was the specific policy enacted in 1929
There was a positive correlation between collectivization and crop output in Ukraine during this time, and the famine began before collectivization started. This discounts the idea that collectivization caused the famine. Instead, collectivization was introduced to help deal with the famine.
Also, collectivization is not some communist ideal. It is a revolution in production that every modern country has undergone at some point in time. In America, farms are heavily collectivized with heavy subsidies from the US government. The chicken industry, for example, is an oligopoly of four major corporations.
This mode of farming where everyone owns their own subsistence farm cannot support an urbanizing population. In early 1930s USSR, farming was still done with ox and plow. Individual farmers could not afford tractors and other equipment for their small plots of land. But with pooled resources, it is possible over larger tracts of land.
You’re rewriting history. Ukraine had soviets long before Stalin. In fact, it had reached such a level of collectivization/expropriation that Lenin/Trostky had to send the Red Army to massacre the population (and the anarchist uprising).
You should do some reading about the Makhnovtchina and the anarchist communes of Ukraine.
Okay.
Oh :/
Some interesting critiques in there (don’t hesitate to link sources), but the interpretation is vastly exaggerated. That some people abused positions of power does not invalidate the existence of free Communes, and does not invalidate their criticism of power structures that should be dismantled (on the contrary).
That’s a big difference between anarchists and marxist-leninists: in anarchist discourse, a critical look is always welcome and encouraged, and there is no binary interpretation of “good” vs “evil”. In particular, the question of the Kontrrazvedka is an interesting one: how to protect a people’s revolution without creating an authoritarian State? From what i read about it, it seems the Kontrrazvedka’s main (sole?) purpose was to prevent authoritarians from seizing and abusing power. If that requires to shoot power-hungry psychopaths like Lenin, i can’t say that makes me happy but that’s a much happier outcome than a bolshevik Nation-State.
The question is still an open debate for example in Rojava where intelligence gathering is practiced for the struggle against ISIS and the Turkish State who try to colonize/destroy the lands. Collaborating with foreign intelligence services (eg. USA/FR) has in fact saved many lives and helped the revolution last. As much as i’m against any form of such activity, i can’t say from my comfortable village in the Global North that i can judge that line of action. I honestly don’t know how i would react in case of a civil war in my neighborhood.
The source is mostly here: https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/, and they cite their own in the footnotes.
Although it has a weird trot bias, the biggest condemnation is that Makhno did not understand the working class. His army was that of peasants, and what did they do? Rolled into towns, claimed to have liberated the people, and left them at the mercy of whatever happened next. They had no plans apart from preventing authority structures from emerging. But what worked for the peasantry did not work the workers of the cities, as they did not have the same material conditions. How could notaries and administrators accept payment in kind? Why did he tell rail workers they could accept payment, except for military purposes (the majority of rail traffic)?
And you could not form an organisation that Makhno disapproved of or the kontrra would shoot you (because prisons are authoritarian). He disallowed parties because of a fear of authority creeping in again, but in the process disallowed workers to band together to represent their interests – as if parties were only going to come from external, sabotaging forces. Who exactly did they liberate then, and from whom? As we saw with the workers of Olexandrivske, he ignored their concerns about being paid real wages (and not barter for food for survival, a clear step back). What exactly did he achieve, then? Is this what freedom looks like? Is it any wonder the workers then abandoned his experiment, when they firstly had no choice in joining it? Is it any surprise they were much more keen to follow the bolsheviks, who actually had answers for them?
I also really can’t understand how the kontrra is justified hierarchy but the cheka isn’t; just because the former wasn’t a state? (highly debatable also. Makhno’s armies certainly had the monopoly on violence)
There is that in marxism-leninism. Self-criticism is one of the foundations of Mao Zedong Thought and has been vastly adopted by communist parties around the world. I have also literally never met an anarchist that did not long for Makhnovia. Some even told me that any struggle against authority is inherently just, even if it replaces it with another authority.
Why don’t you make the same good faith observation about “power-hungry psycopath … Lenin” (your words)? Makhnovia was a failed state that only survived due to a power vacuum, and it’s no wonder it lasted a couple of years while the soviet union outlived it by over 70 years.
That Makhno tried his hand at being a warlord is not an indictment on anarchism. That anarchists think he somehow is an example to follow is.
That’s sort of off topic though. Sure there were anarchists in Ukraine during the civil war putting their own plans into action, but by 1921, these factions did not exist anymore, and the soviet policy was then put into place.
What I meant by collectivization here was the specific policy enacted in 1929 while Stalin was leader, because that’s the topic of discussion.
Soviets were the foundation of the revolution in 1917, long before Lenin and his friends stole it. And yes, after Lenin and Trotsky shot all the revolutionaries (anarchists and libertarian communists), you can say with confidence they “did not exist anymore”.
Thanks for clarifying.