Peter Arshinov History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918–1921) 1923 Contents Voline’sPreface. .............................................. 5 Author’sPreface. ............................................. 18 Chapter1. DemocracyandtheWorkingMassesintheRussian Revolution. .................................................. 21 Chapter2. TheOctoberUpheavalinGreatRussiaandintheUkraine. . 27 Chapter3. TheRevolutionaryInsurrectionintheUkraine. Makhno. .. 33 Makhno. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Chapter4. TheFalloftheHetman. Petliurism. Bolshevism. ......... 45 Bolshevism. ItsClassCharacter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Chapter5. TheMakhnovshchina. ............................... 59 Chapter6. TheMakhnovshchina(Continuation). Grigor’ev’s Revolt. TheBolsheviks’FirstAssaultonGulyai-Polye. .............. 80 Chapter 7. The Long Retreat of the Makhnovists And Their Victory. ExecutionofGrigor’ev. BattleofPeregonovka. Routof Denikin’sTroops. PeriodofFreedom. ............................ 99 Chapter8. ErrorsoftheMakhnovists. SecondBolshevikAssault ontheInsurgentRegion. ..................................... 116 Chapter9. MakhnovistPactWiththeSovietGovernment. Third BolshevikAssault. ........................................... 126 Chapter 10. The Meaning of the National Problem in the Makhnovshchina. TheJewishQuestion. ......................... 156 AppendixtoChapter10 ...................................... 163 Chapter11. Makhno’sPersonality. BiographicalNotesonSome MembersoftheMovement. ................................... 166 BiographicalNotesonSomeMembersoftheMovement. . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Chapter12. TheMakhnovshchinaandAnarchism. ................ 177 Conclusion ................................................. 186 Appendix. SomeMakhnovistProclamations. ..................... 195 2 ThepresentworkisthefirstEnglishtranslationofPeterArshinov’sIstoriya MakhnovskogoDvizheniya,originallypublishedin1923bythe“GruppaRusskikh AnarkhistovvGermanii”(GroupofRussianAnarchistsinGermany)inBerlin. It wastranslatedintoEnglishbyLorraineandFredyPerlman. The English translation follows the Russian original very closely, except in instances when the translators could not find suitable English equivalents for Russian words. The words kulak (wealthy peasant), pomeshchiki (landlords, or gentry),andCheka(ChK,theinitialsof“ExtraordinaryCommission,”theBolshe- viksecretsecuritypolice)wereingeneralnottranslatedintoEnglish,sincethey refertoveryspecificRussianphenomenawhichwouldbeerroneouslyidentified withverydifferentphenomenabyavailableEnglishterms. TheRussianterrito- rialdivision,guberniya,wastranslatedas“government”(andnot“province”or “department”)forsimilarreasons. TheRussianwordrabochiireferstoworkersin thenarrowersense(industrialworkersorfactoryworkers)andwasconsistently translatedas“workers.”However,theRussianwordtrudyashchiisyaismorein- clusive and refers to all people who work. In the present translation, the term used for “all those who work” is “working people,” and in passages where the composite term would have made the sentence awkward, “workers” was used (insteadof“toilers,”“laborers,”or“workingmasses,”whichhaveoccasionallybeen usedbytranslatorswhoattemptedtomaintainthedistinctionbetweenthetwo Russianwords). ThetransliterationofRussianwordsintoEnglishfollowsgenerallyaccepted conventions, though not with absolute consistency. Common first names are given in English. The names of well-known cities and regions are spelled the waytheyappearonmostmaps. Inoneinstance,thegenerally-appliedconven- tionsoftransliterationweremodifiedforthesakeofpronunciation: Gulyai-Pole (pronouncedgool-yaipol-ye)isherespelledGulyai-Polye. InadditiontoVoline’sPreface,themapoftheinsurgentregionandtheportait ofMakhno,allofwhichappearinthepresentedition,theoriginaleditionalso contained an Appendix with a “Protest” by anarchists and syndicalists against Makhno’s arrest and imprisonment in Poland on a false charge. Makhno was releasedsoonafterArshinov’sbookappeared,andthe“Protest”isnotincluded inthepresentedition. TheAppendixtothepresenteditioncontainsdocuments oftheMakhnovistmovement: elevenproclamationsissuedbytheMakhnovist insurgentarmy. TheseproclamationsweretranslatedfromRussianbyAnnAllen. Thepeoplewhotookpartinthepublicationofthepresentworkareneither publisherswhoinvestedcapitalinordertoprofitfromthesaleofacommodity onthebookmarket,norwageworkerswhoproducedacommodityinordertobe paidfortheirtime. Everyphaseofthework—fromthetranslationandediting ofthemanuscript,tothetypesettingandprintingofthebook—wascarriedout 3 byindividualswhoweremovedbyArshinov’saccount,andwhowerewillingto dothenecessaryworkinordertosharethisimportantandvirtuallyunknown bookwithalargernumberofreaders. 4 Voline’s Preface. As the reader approaches this book he will first of all want to know what kindofworkthisis: isitaseriousandconscientiousanalysis,orafantasticand irresponsiblefabrication? Canthereaderhaveconfidenceintheauthor,atleast withrespecttotheevents,thefactsandthematerials? Istheauthorsufficiently impartial,ordoeshedistortthetruthinordertojustifyhisownideasandrefute thoseofhisopponents? Thesearenotirrelevantquestions. ItisimportanttoexaminethedocumentsontheMakhnovistmovementwith great discretion. The reader will understand this if he considers some of the characteristicsofthemovement. Ontheonehand,theMakhnovshchina1—aneventofextraordinarybreadth, grandeurandimportance,whichunfoldedwithexceptionalforceandplayeda colossalandextremelycomplicatedroleinthedestinyoftherevolution,undergo- ingatitanicstruggleagainstalltypesofreaction,morethanoncesavingtherevo- lutionfromdisaster,extremelyrichinvividandcolorfulepisodes—hasattracted widespreadinterestnotonlyinRussiabutalsoabroad. TheMakhnovshchinahas given rise to the most diverse feelings in reactionary as well as revolutionary circles: fromfeelingsoffiercehatredandhostility,ofastonishment,distrustand suspicion,allthewaytoprofoundsympathyandadmiration. Themonopolization of the revolution by the Communist Party and the “Soviet” power forced the Makhnovshchina, after long hesitation, to embark on a struggle — as bitter as itsstruggleagainstthereaction—duringwhichitinflictedonthePartyandthe central power a series of palpable physical and moral blows. And finally, the personality of Makhno himself — as complex, vivid and powerful as the move- mentitself—hasattractedgeneralattention,arousingsimplecuriosityorsurprise amongsome,witlessindignationorthoughtlessfrightamongothers,implacable hatredamongstillothers,andamongsome,selflessdevotion. ThusitisnaturalthattheMakhnovshchinahastemptedmorethanone“sto- ryteller,”motivatedbymanyconsiderationsotherthanagenuineknowledgeof the events or by the urge to share their knowledge by elucidating the subject and by placing accurate materials at the disposal of future historians. Some of themaredrivenbypoliticalconsiderations—theneedtojustifyandstrengthen theirpositions,degradingandslanderinganinimicalmovementanditsleading figures. Others consider it their duty to attack a phenomenon which frightens 1 [MakhnovistMovement.] 5 and disturbs them. Still others, stimulated by the legend which surrounds the movement and by the lively interest of the “general public” in this sensational theme,aretemptedbytheprospectofearningsomemoneybywritinganovel. Yetothers,finally,aresimplyseizedbyajournalisticmania. Thus“material”accumulateswhichcanonlycreateboundlessconfusion,mak- ingitimpossibleforthereadertosortoutthetruth.2 Ontheotherhand,theMakhnovistmovement,inspiteofitsscope,wasforced byaseriesofcircumstancestodevelopinanatmosphereofseclusionandisolation. Beingamovementcomposedexclusivelyoftheloweststratumofthepopula- tion,beingastrangertoallostentation,fame,dominationorglory;originatingat theoutskirtsofRussia,farfromthemajorcenters;unfoldinginalimitedregion; isolatednotonlyfromtherestoftheworldbutevenfromotherpartsofRussia, themovement—itsfundamentalandprofoundcharacteristics—wasalmostun- knownoutsideofitsownregion. Developinginconditionsofincrediblydifficult and tense warfare, surrounded by enemies on all sides, and having almost no friends outside the working class, mercilessly attacked by the governing party and smothered by the bloody and deafening din of it?statist activity, losing at least 90% of its best and most active participants, having neither the time, nor thepossibility,norevenaparticularneedtowritedown,collectandpreservefor posterityitsacts,wordsandthoughts,themovementleftveryfewtangibletraces ormonuments. Itsrealdevelopmentpassedbyunrecorded. Itsdocumentswere 2 InadditiontothelargequantityofarticleswhichhaveappearedinvariousRussianandforeign newspapers,andwhichdemonstrateanextraordinarytalentforslanderoranunbelievableliterary shamelessnessontheauthor’spart,therearealreadyfairlyextensiveworkswhichpretendtohave acertainideologicalorhistoricalimportance,butwhichinrealityareconsciousfalsificationsor ineptfables. Forexample,wecancitethebookofYa. Yakovlev,RussianAnarchismintheGreat RussianRevolution(publishedinseveralRussianaswellasforeigneditions)—asteadystream offalsificationsandoutrightlies. Orwecouldcitethelongandpretentiousarticleofacertain Gerasimenkointhehistorical-literaryanthologyIstorikiSovremenik(publishedbyOlgaD’yakov andCo.,BookIII,Berlin,1922,p. 151,articleon“Makhno”),wheresuchfantasiesarereportedthat oneisashamedforthe“author”andthe“anthology.”Weshouldalsomentionthattheanarchistpress, whichgenerallytreatstheMakhnovistmovementseriously,thoughtfullyandhonestly,analyzingit fromothervantagepointsandwithotheraimsthantheabove-mentioned“authors,”alsocontains numerouserrorsandinaccuracieswhicharecausedbythefactthattheauthorsthemselvesdidnot personallytakepartinthemovement,werenotinclosecontactwithit,andwroteaboutitonthe basisofhearsay,onthebasisofpublishedmaterialsorsecond-handaccountsandarticles. (See, forexample,thepamphletbyP.Rudenko,“IntheUkraine—theInsurrectionandtheAnarchist Movement,”publishedbytheWorkers’PublishingHouse,Argentina,March,1922,reprintedfrom thejournalVol’nyiTrud,organofthePetrogradFederationofAnarchistGroups,October,1919. In thepamphletaswellasinthearticle,majorerrorsappearedwhichcanbeexplainedbythefact thattheauthordidnotpersonallytakepartinthemovementanddidnotactuallyexperienceits complexproblems.) 6 neither widely circulated nor preserved. Consequently it has to an enormous extentremainedhiddenfromtheviewoftheoutsiderorthegazeoftheresearcher. Itisnoteasytograspitsessence. Justasthousandsofhumbleindividualheroesof revolutionaryepochsremainforeverunknown,theheroicepicoftheUkrainian workersoftheMakhnovistmovementhasremainedalmostcompletelyunknown. Untiltodaythetreasureoffactsanddocumentsofthisepichasbeencompletely ignored. And if some of those who took part in the movement, who are thor- oughlyfamiliarwithitandarealsoabletoreportthetruthaboutit,hadnotby chanceremainedalive,itmighthaveremainedunreported. . . Thisstateofaffairsputstheseriousreaderandthehistorianinadifficultand delicatesituation: theymustcriticallyuntangleandevaluateextremelydifferent and contradictory facts, works and materials, not only without orientation or originaldata,butalsowithouttheslightestindicationwheresuchdatamightbe obtained. Thisiswhyitisnecessary,fromtheverybeginning,tohelpthereaderseparate thewheatfromthechaff. Thisiswhyitisimportantforthereadertoestablish fromthestartwhetherornottoconsiderthisworkapureandhealthysource. This iswhyquestionsabouttheauthorandthecharacterofhisworkareparticularly importantinthiscase. Ihavetakenituponmyselftowriteaprefaceforthisbooktothrowlighton thesequestionssince,bychance,Iamoneofthefewsurvivingparticipantsofthe Makhnovistmovement,andthuspossesssufficientknowledgeofthemovement, oftheauthor,andfinallyoftheconditionsinwhichthisbookwasconceived. *** FirstIwillallowmyselfasmalldigression. Icouldbeasked(and,infact,amfrequentlyasked)whyIdon’twriteaboutthe Makhnovistmovementmyself. Formanyreasons. Icanmentionseveralofthem. Itispossibletosetoutonthetaskofdescribingandclarifyingtheeventsofthe Makhnovistmovementonlyonthebasisofathoroughandpreciseknowledge ofthefacts. Thethemerequiresprotracted,intensiveandpainstakingwork. But such work has been impossible for me, for numerous reasons. This is the first reasonwhyIconsidereditnecessarytorefrainfromdealingwiththistopicnow. The Makhnovist epic is too serious, lofty and tragic, too heavily drenched withthebloodofitsparticipants,tooprofound,complicatedandoriginal,tobe described and judged “lightly,” — for example on the basis of the accounts and contradictoryinterpretationsofvariousindividuals. Todescribethemovementby meansofdocumentsisnotourprojecteither,sincedocumentsbythemselvesare deadthingsandcanneverfullyexpresslivedexperience. Towriteonthebasisof 7 documentswillbethetaskoffuturehistorians,whowillhavenoothermaterials at their disposal. A contemporary must be much more demanding and severe towardhisworkandtowardhimself,sinceitispreciselyonhimthathistorywill toagreatextentdepend. Acontemporarymustavoidjudgmentsandstoriesabout importanteventsunlesshehaspersonallyparticipatedinthem. Norisitthetask ofacontemporarytopounceonthenarrativesanddocumentswiththeaimof “makinghistory,”butrathertosetdownhispersonalexperience. Ifthisisnotdone, thewriterwillriskobscuringor,worseyet,corruptingtheveryessence,theliving souloftheevents,misleading,thereaderandthehistorian. Personalexperience, tobesure,isnotexemptedfromerrorsandinaccuracies. Butinthepresentcase thisisnotimportant. Anauthenticandvividpictureoftheessenceoftheevents willhavebeendrawn—whichiswhatismostimportant. Comparingthispicture withdocumentsandotherdatawillmakeiteasytolocateminorerrors. Thisis whytheaccountofaparticipantorawitnessisparticularlyimportant. Themore completeandprofoundthepersonalexperience,themoreimportantandurgent suchaworkis. If,inaddition,theparticipanthimselfhasdocumentsaswellas accountsofotherparticipants,hisnarrativeacquiresarelevanceofthefirstorder. IwillwriteabouttheMakhnovshchinaatalatertime,inmyownway. ButI cannotwriteacompletehistoryoftheMakhnovistmovementpreciselybecause Idonotpretendtohaveafull,detailedandthoroughknowledgeofthesubject. Itookpartinthemovementforabouthalfayear,fromAugust1919toJanuary 1920—inotherwords,Ihardlyobserveditinitsentirety. ImetMakhnoforthe firsttimeinAugust1919. IcompletelylostsightofthemovementandofMakhno in January 1920, when I was arrested; I was in contact with both for only two weeks in November of the same year, at the time of Makhno’s treaty with the Sovietgovernment. AfterthatIagainlostsightofthemovement. Therefore,even though I saw, experienced and thought a great deal about this movement, my personalknowledgeofitisincomplete. WhenIamaskedwhyIdon’twriteabouttheMakhnovshchina,Ianswerthat thereissomeonefarmorecapablethanIaminthisrespect. ThepersonIrefertoistheauthorofthepresentwork. Iknewofhisunceasingactivityinthemovement. In1919weworkedthere together. Ialsoknewthathewascarefullycollectingmaterialonthemovement. Iknewthathewasarduouslywritingitscompletehistory. Andfinally,Iknew thatthebookwasfinishedandthattheauthorwaspreparingtopublishitabroad. And I considered that it was precisely this work that should appear before any other—acompletehistoryoftheMakhnovshchinawrittenbyamanwho,having himselfparticipatedinthemovement,atthesametimepossessedalargenumber ofdocuments. 8 ManypeoplearestillsincerelyconvincedthatMakhnowasa“commonban- dit,” a “pogromshchik,”3 a leader of a gloomy, war-corrupted, plundering mass ofsoldier-peasants. ManyothersconsiderMakhnoan“adventurer,”andbelieve that he “opened the front” to Denikin, “fraternized” with Petliura, and “allied” withWrangel. . . ImitatingtheBolsheviks,manypeoplestillpersistinslander- ingMakhno,accusinghimofbeingthe“leaderofacounter-revolutionarykulak movement”;theytreatMakhno’s“anarchism”asanaiveinventionofcertainanar- chistsskillfullyappliedbyhimforhisownpurposes. . . ButDenikin,Petliuraand Wrangelareonlyvividmilitaryepisodes: peoplelatchontothemtoaccumulate apileoflies. TheMakhnovshchinacannotbereducedtothestruggleagainstthe counter-revolutionary generals. The essence of the Makhnovist movement, its innercontent,itsorganiccharacteristics,arealmostcompletelyunknown. This state of things cannot be remedied by short, isolated articles, fragmented observations,partialworks. Inrelationtosuchanenormousandcomplexeventas theMakhnovshchina,sucharticlesandworksofferverylittle,failtoshedlight ontheentirepicture,andarelostintheseaofprintedwords,leavinghardlyany traces. Todealadecisiveblowagainstallthesenarrativesandtogiveimpetus toseriousinterestandfamiliaritywiththesubject,itisnecessary,firstofall,to makeavailableamoreorlessexhaustivework;onlythenwillitbefruitfultoturn totheindividualquestions,thespecificeventsandthedetails. The present book is precisely such an exhaustive work. Its author is better suitedforthistaskthananyoneelse. Weonlyregretthefactthat,becauseofa seriesofunfortunatecircumstances,thisworkappearsafterconsiderabledelay.4 *** ItisnoteworthythatthefirsthistorianoftheMakhno-vistmovementshould beaworker. Thisfactisnotaccidental. Throughoutitsexistence,themovement, both ideologically and organizationally, had access only to those forces which couldbeprovidedbythemassofworkersandpeasants. Therewere,onthewhole, nohighlyeducatedtheorists. Duringtheentireperiod,themovementwasleft toitself. Andthefirsthistorianwhoshedslightonthemovementandgivesita theoreticalfoundationcomesoutofitsownranks. Theauthor,PeterAndreevichArshinov,sonofanEkaterinoslavfactoryworker, himself a metalworker by trade, educated himself through strenuous personal 3 InstigatorofJewishpogroms. 4 Beforethepublicationofthepresentwork,theauthorpublishedtwoarticlesinforeignjournals, “NestorMakhno”and“TheIMakhnovshchinaandAnti-Semitism,”inordertoacquaintforeign workersandcomradeswithcertainfactsabouttheMakhnovshchina. 9 effort. In1904,whenhewas17,hejoinedtherevolutionarymovement. In1905, when he was employed as a metalworker in the railway yards of the town of Kizyl-Arvat(inCentralAsia),hebecameamemberofthelocalorganizationof the Bolshevik Party. He quickly began to play an active role, and became one oftheleadersandeditorsofthelocalillegalrevolutionaryworkers’newspaper, Molot(TheHammer). (Thisnewspaperwasdistributedthroughouttherailway networkofCentralAsiaandhadgreatimportancefortherevolutionarymove- ment of the railway workers.) In 1906, pursued by the local police, Arshinov left Central Asia and moved to Ekaterinoslav in the Ukraine. Here he became an anarchist and as such continued his revolutionary work among workers of Ekaterinoslav(especiallyattheShoduarfactory). Heturnedtoanarchismbecause oftheminimalismoftheBolshevikswhich,inArshinov’sview,didnotrespond totherealaspirationsoftheworkersandcaused,togetherwiththeminimalism oftheotherpoliticalparties,thedefeatofthe1905–06revolution. Inanarchism Arshinovfound,inhisownwords,acollectionofallthelibertarian-egalitarian aspirationsandhopesoftheworkers. In1906–07,whentheTsaristgovernmentcoveredallofRussiawithanetwork ofmilitarytribunals,extensivemassactivitybecamecompletelyimpossible. Ar- shinov,becauseofpersonalcircumstancesaswellashisaggressivetemperament, carriedoutseveralterroristacts. _ OnDecember23,1906,heandseveralcomradesblewupapolicestationinthe workers’districtofAmur,nearEkaterinoslav. (TheexplosionkilledthreeCossack officers,aswellaspoliceofficersandguardsofthepunitivedetachment.) Dueto thepainstakingpreparationofthisact,neitherArshinovnorhiscomradeswere discoveredbythepolice. OnMarch7,1907,ArshinovshotVasilenko,headofthemainrailroadyardof Aleksandrovsk. Vasilenko’scrimetowardtheworkingclassconsistedofhishav- ingturnedovertothemilitarytribunalmorethan100workingpeoplewhowere accusedoftakingpartinthearmeduprisinginAleksandrovskinDecember,1905; manyofthemwerecondemnedtodeathorforcedlaborbecauseofVasilenko’s testimony. Beforeandafterthisevent,Vasilenkowasalwaysanactiveandpitiless oppressorofworkers. Onhisowninitiative,butwiththeagreementandgeneral encouragement of masses of workers, Arshinov bluntly settled accounts with this enemy of the workers, shooting him near the yards while many workers watched. AfterthisactArshinovwascaughtbythepolice,cruellybeaten,and twodayslaterthemilitarytribunalsentencedhimtohanging. Suddenly,when thesentencewasabouttobeadministered,itwasestablishedthatArshinov’sact shouldbylawnotbetriedbythemilitarytribunal,butbyahighermilitarycourt. This postponement gave Arshinov the chance to escape. He escaped from the AleksandrovskprisononthenightofApril22,1907,duringEastermass,while 10