Who was Makhno and what did he stand for?

by Marcas - none Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:01

As usual from these IMT articles, no references or links to sources. I find it hard to take them seriously given their record.

by Reader Mon Oct 05, 2009 15:28

Marcas what do you mean it is hard to take them seriously given their record? What record? Do you have evidence of the IMT falsifying the past in their material?

by Godot Mon Oct 05, 2009 16:19

"Do you have evidence of the IMT falsifying the past in their material?"

Their veneration of authorititarian dictators based on a revisionist version of history might give it away

by Marcas - None Mon Oct 05, 2009 17:00

Reader,

Given their track record in not giving sources for their claims and if you know what is their usual source material for articles of this type - official Soviet documents from the 1920's, speeches and letters of Lenin and Trotsky without any independent verification, its impossible to take their analysis of the period with anything but a large pinch of salt.

Marcas.

by Reader Tue Oct 06, 2009 09:42

Thank you Marcas I now understand where you are coming from. Soviet archives from the 1920s or what Lenin and Trotsky said are not credible sources according to you. What are credible sources? Anarchist writers? So if I was to provide a link to an anarchist who says that Makhno was a great revolutionary then that would be okay, yet if I provide a link to a Marxist who says that Makhno was a counter revolutionary then that would be suspect.
If the sources for the IMT article are Soviet archives from the 1920s and or Lenin and Trotsky then that is good enough for me, you couldn't get more reliable sources.

by Marcas - none Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:49

Reader,

If you think the work of Lenin and Trotsky is enough tha's your perogative. Personally I'd prefer a variety of sources. You make assumptions about me in your reply. I never once defended Makhno. I am interested in the era but there is so much muddle that it is hard to make an independent decision. This is not helped by articles that do not cite sources based on the word of people who had a particular agenda at the time. Whether Lenin and Trotsky were telling the truth or not is irrelivent. What is relevent is that you cannot accept state propaganda without independent verification. Blindly accepting the testimony of one side or other accounts for a lot of what is wrong with the left. The Leninists start from the axiom that Lenin and Trotsky (and Marx and Engels) are correct in all cases and all further arguments flow from there. This is not scientific method. This is a faith position and has no place in the study of history.

Marcas

by Reader Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:10

Marcas you say that we should not accept the word of the state! You are talking about a Socialist government, the most democratic society that has ever existed and the two people most responsible for the revolution. Unlike you you I do take what they say not out of faith but because having studied their writings for many decades I am convinced that what they said and did was correct. If your starting point is that you don't trust anything that anyone says then you are in fact nothing more than an impotent cynic.

by Marcas - None Tue Oct 06, 2009 13:06

Most democratic society of all time? You see its statements like this I'm talking about. An article of faith repeated over and over until it can not be questioned. On what basis was the "Soviet" state democratic? Workers democracy was effectively disbanded in 1918. The "workers democracy of Lenin and Trotsky" as it is so often called, lasted a few months before it was deemed contrary to the interests of the working class.

by Reader Tue Oct 06, 2009 13:49

Marcas....you are the person who quite recently said that it would have been better for the Russian Revolution to fail than for Stalinism to have emerged!
I am not surprised you are interested in Makhno... birds of a feather, Hoskins etc.

by Marcas - None Tue Oct 06, 2009 14:30

Well seeing as how you're obviously a member of the Socialist Party if you know who I am and the contents of a recent email I sent, it would be more honest of you to actually debate this either in person or by email. However, given that you are a member of the SP I'm surprised you would uncritically accept an article of the IMT.

by Also - None Tue Oct 06, 2009 15:05

I'd also like to point out that you misrepresent something I wrote. I never said it would be better if the Revolution failed, in fact the emergence of Stalinism was the failure of the revolution. I said that it would have been better that the Soviet Union fell in the twenties than lead the international working class down a series of blind alleys for 70 years. There is a difference.

by A Freeman Wed Oct 07, 2009 00:31

Well, surely Makhno can't have been as bad as Lenin and Trotsky who were a pair of bloodthirsty murderers! The so-called 'kulaks' (the term was a bolshevik invention) could be counted as rich for having more than one cow! Of course, by murdering the most industrious peasants the USSR turned into a basket case as regards agriculture and Ukraine in particular suffered an engineered famine in the 1930s in which more than 6 million starved in one of the richest agricultural lands in the world! It's just one of the many horrendous bolshevik crimes though, there are so many to choose from!