It’s pretty cut and dry that the Makhnovists worked with other groups against the Red Army at certain times, as I showed. “Alliance” doesn’t mean that the Makhnovists were hardcore Whites or anything, just that, like all factions, they were opportunistic and dealing with an intense crisis. Also, there was never a “genocidal campaign against Ukraine,” so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. The Makhnovists opposed the Marxist formations propped up by the soviets, and tried to build an entirely different structure in Ukraine, which ultimately failed. There were ideological differences between the two groups that could not be reconciled, even if they could temporarily ally, just as they did with other factions during the civil war.
I already showed it, there was a time where the Red Army was fighting both the White and Black Armies. I already said there was no codified alliance, no formal ties, but the constant back and forth between Makhnovschina and the Soviets led them in shaky alliances, temporary conflict, back to a shaky alliance, before ultimately resulting in a final conflict where the Soviets drove out Makhno’s forces. Within this complex web was the ever-present (until the end) White Army.
You can call it goalpost shifting if you like, I can own up to misleading (though unintentional) wording on my part. I did not mean to indicate that there was an actual, codified, formal alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, etc. Hopefully that’s enough to satisfy you. My opinion on Makhno is rather negative in general, even without a codified alliance with the Whites. Policies like accepting all currency, abolishing all local laws, drawing rent for train use, all of these dramatically hurt local economy in an already chaotic time.
No, you absolutely did not. You tried to pass off some of Petliura’s wranglings with Poland as some kind of “alliance” between Petliura (who wasn’t even a part of the White forces) and Makhno and between Makhno and the Whites in general against the Bolsheviks.
It’s typical tankie thumbsucking and little else.
I did not mean to indicate that there was an actual, codified, formal alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, etc.
No, you tried to indicate that there was some kind of informal co-operation between Makhno and the Whites… and you have thoroughly failed to prove that as well.
My opinion on Makhno is rather negative in general,
There’s no need to tell me that… feeling threatened by any leftist that doesn’t fall on their knees to worship your holy party apparatus and the even holier political elites in control of it is exactly what we expect from you lot.
I did not try to pass off anything as an “alliance,” I already stated that there was no such codified alliance. I even accepted that my wording was unintentionally misleading, which is a mistake on my part. My issues with Makhno are not because I feel “threatened” by the Makhnovists, who are a relic of history at this point (like the soviets as well). My issues with Makhno are as I already stated, incredibly poor policy and an over-reliance on the Red Army for supplies, while simultaneously flip-flopping between working with the Red Army and working against them.
The fact that you deliberately left those criticisms of Makhno off, and instead inserted the strawman argument about some holy worship of political figures, is intensely dishonest. I’ve ignored your provocations as well, I don’t intend on getting into a big debate on the merits of Marxism vs. Anarchism here, as I know this is predominantly an anarchist space. That’s why I’m more here to combat those spreading social democrat apologia.
I am a Marxist, so of course I would rather the Marxists win the Russian Civil War than the anarchists. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. None of that reasoning has to do with thinking political parties, or those within them, are “holy,” and such accusations are weak dismissals of the actual reasons why Marxists support the creation of disciplined, proletarian political parties.
as I know this is predominantly an anarchist space.
Oh… well, in that case, I have news that you might enjoy hearing. If you look over there on the sidebar, you might notice that three out of the five mods here are tankies - which makes this a de facto marxist-leninist space. That’s right, tankie… this (supposedly) anarchist space has been successfully hijacked by your ilk. So feel free to agitate for the quasi-religious technocratic cultism you try to pass off as political theory.
Sooooo… I’ll just go ahead and write this…
who are a relic of history at this point
…off as the opportunistic pretensions that it is, shall I? I can hardly criticise Makhno for not appreciating the danger posed by the cynical and self-serving realpolitik of the Bolsheviks when anarchists to this day are still failing to thwart the cynical and self-serving realpolitik of the Bolsheviks’ ideological successors to this very day.
I already admitted to unintentionally misleading verbiage. I can own up to my own mistakes. All you’ve done is continue to double-down on bad-faith smearing of points I have made to you, and deliberately dismiss clear points I have clairified for you.
As for this space being “predominantly ML,” no, it isn’t. Dbzer0 is overwhelmingly anarchist. The fact that this comm has some Marxist mods does not mean these mods can act willy-nilly banning anarchism on a predominantly anarchist space.
It’s pretty cut and dry that the Makhnovists worked with other groups against the Red Army at certain times, as I showed. “Alliance” doesn’t mean that the Makhnovists were hardcore Whites or anything, just that, like all factions, they were opportunistic and dealing with an intense crisis. Also, there was never a “genocidal campaign against Ukraine,” so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. The Makhnovists opposed the Marxist formations propped up by the soviets, and tried to build an entirely different structure in Ukraine, which ultimately failed. There were ideological differences between the two groups that could not be reconciled, even if they could temporarily ally, just as they did with other factions during the civil war.
Do I need to remind you off your own claim? Here it is…
You have provided no evidence that such an alliance ever existed. And now…
…you are attempting to modify your claim after the fact.
This conversation goes no further until you admit to your error.
The Makhnovists joined with white forces against the Red Army in 1919, I think you’re trying to word-lawyer over the term “alliance.”
Again… where is your proof, tankie?
I already showed it, there was a time where the Red Army was fighting both the White and Black Armies. I already said there was no codified alliance, no formal ties, but the constant back and forth between Makhnovschina and the Soviets led them in shaky alliances, temporary conflict, back to a shaky alliance, before ultimately resulting in a final conflict where the Soviets drove out Makhno’s forces. Within this complex web was the ever-present (until the end) White Army.
You can call it goalpost shifting if you like, I can own up to misleading (though unintentional) wording on my part. I did not mean to indicate that there was an actual, codified, formal alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, etc. Hopefully that’s enough to satisfy you. My opinion on Makhno is rather negative in general, even without a codified alliance with the Whites. Policies like accepting all currency, abolishing all local laws, drawing rent for train use, all of these dramatically hurt local economy in an already chaotic time.
No, you absolutely did not. You tried to pass off some of Petliura’s wranglings with Poland as some kind of “alliance” between Petliura (who wasn’t even a part of the White forces) and Makhno and between Makhno and the Whites in general against the Bolsheviks.
It’s typical tankie thumbsucking and little else.
No, you tried to indicate that there was some kind of informal co-operation between Makhno and the Whites… and you have thoroughly failed to prove that as well.
There’s no need to tell me that… feeling threatened by any leftist that doesn’t fall on their knees to worship your holy party apparatus and the even holier political elites in control of it is exactly what we expect from you lot.
Just assume we already know, okay?
I did not try to pass off anything as an “alliance,” I already stated that there was no such codified alliance. I even accepted that my wording was unintentionally misleading, which is a mistake on my part. My issues with Makhno are not because I feel “threatened” by the Makhnovists, who are a relic of history at this point (like the soviets as well). My issues with Makhno are as I already stated, incredibly poor policy and an over-reliance on the Red Army for supplies, while simultaneously flip-flopping between working with the Red Army and working against them.
The fact that you deliberately left those criticisms of Makhno off, and instead inserted the strawman argument about some holy worship of political figures, is intensely dishonest. I’ve ignored your provocations as well, I don’t intend on getting into a big debate on the merits of Marxism vs. Anarchism here, as I know this is predominantly an anarchist space. That’s why I’m more here to combat those spreading social democrat apologia.
I am a Marxist, so of course I would rather the Marxists win the Russian Civil War than the anarchists. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. None of that reasoning has to do with thinking political parties, or those within them, are “holy,” and such accusations are weak dismissals of the actual reasons why Marxists support the creation of disciplined, proletarian political parties.
Do you, once again, need reminding of the very words you typed and entered into this conversation?
Yeah… I wonder what could possibly have given anyone that idea, huh?
It’s a complete mystery, I tell you.
Oh… well, in that case, I have news that you might enjoy hearing. If you look over there on the sidebar, you might notice that three out of the five mods here are tankies - which makes this a de facto marxist-leninist space. That’s right, tankie… this (supposedly) anarchist space has been successfully hijacked by your ilk. So feel free to agitate for the quasi-religious technocratic cultism you try to pass off as political theory.
Sooooo… I’ll just go ahead and write this…
…off as the opportunistic pretensions that it is, shall I? I can hardly criticise Makhno for not appreciating the danger posed by the cynical and self-serving realpolitik of the Bolsheviks when anarchists to this day are still failing to thwart the cynical and self-serving realpolitik of the Bolsheviks’ ideological successors to this very day.
I already admitted to unintentionally misleading verbiage. I can own up to my own mistakes. All you’ve done is continue to double-down on bad-faith smearing of points I have made to you, and deliberately dismiss clear points I have clairified for you.
As for this space being “predominantly ML,” no, it isn’t. Dbzer0 is overwhelmingly anarchist. The fact that this comm has some Marxist mods does not mean these mods can act willy-nilly banning anarchism on a predominantly anarchist space.