A VISIT FROM THE UKRAINA
Early in May two young men from the Ukraina arrived in Petrograd. Both
had lived in America for a number of years and had been active in the
Yiddish Labour and Anarchist movements. One of them had also been
editor of an English weekly Anarchist paper, _The Alarm_, published
in Chicago. In 1917, at the outbreak of the Revolution, they left for
Russia together with other emigrants. Arriving in their native country,
they joined the Anarchist activities there which had gained tremendous
impetus through the Revolution. Their main field was the Ukraina.
In 1918 they aided in the organization of the Anarchist Federation
_Nabat_ [Alarm], and began the publication of a paper by that name.
Theoretically, they were at variance with the Bolsheviki; practically
the Federation Anarchists, even as the Anarchists throughout Russia,
worked with the Bolsheviki and also fought on every front against the
counter-revolutionary forces.
When the two Ukrainian comrades learned of our arrival in Russia they
repeatedly tried to reach us, but owing to the political conditions and
the practical impossibility of travelling, they could not come north.
Subsequently they had been arrested and imprisoned by the Bolsheviki.
Immediately upon their release they started for Petrograd, travelling
illegally. They knew the dangers confronting them--arrest and possible
shooting for the possession and use of false documents--but they
were willing to risk anything because they were determined that we
should learn the facts about the _povstantsi_ [revolutionary peasants]
movements led by that extraordinary figure, Nestor Makhno. They wanted
to acquaint us with the history of the Anarchist activities in Russia
and relate how the iron hand of the Bolsheviki had crushed them.
During two weeks, in the stillness of the Petrograd nights, the two
Ukrainian Anarchists unrolled before us the panorama of the struggle
in the Ukraina. Dispassionately, quietly, and with almost uncanny
detachment the young men told their story.
Thirteen different governments had "ruled" Ukraina. Each of them had
robbed and murdered the peasantry, made ghastly pogroms, and left
death and ruin in its way. The Ukrainian peasants, a more independent
and spirited race than their northern brothers, had come to hate all
governments and every measure which threatened their land and freedom.
They banded together and fought back their oppressors all through the
long years of the revolutionary period. The peasants had no theories;
they could not be classed in any political party. Theirs was an
instinctive hatred of tyranny, and practically the whole of Ukraina
soon became a rebel camp. Into this seething cauldron there came, in
1917, Nestor Makhno.
Makhno was a Ukrainian born. A natural rebel, he became interested in
Anarchism at an early age. At seventeen he attempted the life of a
Tsarist spy and was sentenced to death, but owing to his extreme youth
the sentence was commuted to _katorga_ for life [severe imprisonment,
one third of the term in chains]. The February Revolution opened the
prison doors for all political prisoners, Makhno among them. He had
then spent ten years in the Butirky prison, in Moscow. He had but a
limited schooling when first arrested, but in prison he had used his
leisure to good advantage. By the time of his release he had acquired
considerable knowledge of history, political economy, and literature.
Shortly after his liberation Makhno returned to his native village,
Gulyai-Poleh, where he organized a trade union and the local soviet.
Then he threw himself in the revolutionary movement and during all of
1917 he was the spiritual teacher and leader of the rebel peasants, who
had risen against the landed proprietors.
In 1918, when the Brest Peace opened Ukraina to German and Austrian
occupation, Makhno organized the rebel peasant bands in defence against
the foreign armies. He fought against Skoropadski, the Ukrainian
Hetman, who was supported by German bayonets. He waged successful
guerilla warfare against Petlura, Kaledin, Grigoriev, and Denikin. A
conscious Anarchist, he laboured to give the instinctive rebellion of
the peasantry definite aim and purpose. It was the Makhno idea that the
social revolution was to be defended against all enemies, against every
counter-revolutionary or reactionary attempt from right and left. At
the same time educational and cultural work was carried on among the
peasants to develop them along anarchist-communist lines with the aim
of establishing free peasant communes.
In February, 1919, Makhno entered into an agreement with the Red
Army. He was to continue to hold the southern front against Denikin
and to receive from the Bolsheviki the necessary arms and ammunition.
Makhno was to remain in charge of the _povstantsi_, now grown into
an army, the latter to have autonomy in its local organizations, the
revolutionary soviets of the district, which covered several provinces.
It was agreed that the _povstantsi_ should have the right to hold
conferences, freely discuss their affairs, and take action upon them.
Three such conferences were held in February, March, and April. But
the Bolsheviki failed to live up to the agreement. The supplies which
had been promised Makhno, and which he needed desperately, would
arrive after long delays or failed to come altogether. It was charged
that this situation was due to the orders of Trotsky who did not look
favourably upon the independent rebel army. However it be, Makhno was
hampered at every step, while Denikin was gaining ground constantly.
Presently the Bolsheviki began to object to the free peasant Soviets,
and in May, 1919, the Commander-in-Chief of the southern armies,
Kamenev, accompanied by members of the Kharkov Government, arrived at
the Makhno headquarters to settle the disputed matters. In the end
the Bolshevik military representatives demanded that the _povstantsi_
dissolve. The latter refused, charging the Bolsheviki with a breach of
their revolutionary agreement.
Meanwhile, the Denikin advance was becoming more threatening, and
Makhno still received no support from the Bolsheviki. The peasant army
then decided to call a special session of the Soviet for June 15th.
Definite plans and methods were to be decided upon to check the growing
menace of Denikin. But on June 4th Trotsky issued an order prohibiting
the holding of the Conference and declaring Makhno an outlaw. In a
public meeting in Kharkov Trotsky announced that it were better to
permit the Whites to remain in the Ukraina than to suffer Makhno.
The presence of the Whites, he said, would influence the Ukrainian
peasantry in favour of the Soviet Government, whereas Makhno and his
_povstantsi_ would never make peace with the Bolsheviki; they would
attempt to possess themselves of some territory and to practice their
ideas, which would be a constant menace to the Communist Government.
It was practically a declaration of war against Makhno and his army.
Soon the latter found itself attacked on two sides at once--by the
Bolsheviki and Denikin. The _povstantsi_ were poorly equipped and
lacked the most necessary supplies for warfare, yet the peasant army
for a considerable time succeeded in holding its own by the sheer
military genius of its leader and the reckless courage of his devoted
rebels.
At the same time the Bolsheviki began a campaign of denunciation
against Makhno and his _povstantsi_. The Communist press accused him of
having treacherously opened the southern front to Denikin, and branded
Makhno's army a bandit gang and its leader a counter-revolutionist
who must be destroyed at all cost. But this "counter-revolutionist"
fully realized the Denikin menace to the Revolution. He gathered new
forces and support among the peasants and in the months of September
and October, 1919, his campaign against Denikin gave the latter its
death blow on the Ukraina. Makhno captured Denikin's artillery base
at Mariopol, annihilated the rear of the enemy's army, and succeeded
in separating the main body from its base of supply. This brilliant
manoeuvre of Makhno and the heroic fighting of the rebel army again
brought about friendly contact with the Bolsheviki. The ban was lifted
from the _povstantsi_ and the Communist press now began to eulogize
Makhno as a great military genius and brave defender of the Revolution
in the Ukraina. But the differences between Makhno and the Bolsheviki
were deep-rooted: he strove to establish free peasant communes in the
Ukraina, while the Communists were bent on imposing the Moscow rule.
Ultimately a clash was inevitable, and it came early in January, 1920.
At that period a new enemy was threatening the Revolution. Grigoriev,
formerly of the Tsarist army, later friend of the Bolsheviki, now
turned against them. Having gained considerable support in the south
because of his slogans of freedom and free Soviets, Grigoriev proposed
to Makhno that they join forces against the Communist régime. Makhno
called a meeting of the two armies and there publicly accused Grigoriev
of counter-revolution and produced evidence of numerous pogroms
organized by him against the Jews. Declaring Grigoriev an enemy of the
people and of the Revolution, Makhno and his staff condemned him and
his aides to death, executing them on the spot. Part of Grigoriev's
army joined Makhno.
Meanwhile, Denikin kept pressing Makhno, finally forcing him to
withdraw from his position. Not of course without bitter fighting all
along the line of nine hundred versts, the retreat lasting four months,
Makhno marching toward Galicia. Denikin advanced upon Kharkov, then
farther north, capturing Orel and Kursk, and finally reached the gates
of Tula, in the immediate neighbourhood of Moscow.
The Red Army seemed powerless to check the advance of Denikin, but
meanwhile Makhno had gathered new forces and attacked Denikin in
the rear. The unexpectedness of this new turn and the extraordinary
military exploits of Makhno's men in this campaign disorganized the
plans of Denikin, demoralized his army, and gave the Red Army the
opportunity of taking the offensive against the counter-revolutionary
enemy in the neighbourhood of Tula.
When the Red Army reached Alexandrovsk, after having finally beaten
the Denikin forces, Trotsky again demanded of Makhno that he disarm
his men and place himself under the discipline of the Red Army. The
_povstantsi_ refused, whereupon an organized military campaign against
the rebels was inaugurated, the Bolsheviki taking many prisoners and
killing scores of others. Makhno, who managed to escape the Bolshevik
net, was again declared an outlaw and bandit. Since then Makhno had
been uninterruptedly waging guerilla warfare against the Bolshevik
régime.
The story of the Ukrainian friends, which I have related here in
very condensed form, sounded as romantic as the exploits of Stenka
Rasin, the famous Cossack rebel immortalized by Gogol. Romantic and
picturesque, but what bearing did the activities of Makhno and his
men have upon Anarchism, I questioned the two comrades. Makhno, my
informants explained, was himself an Anarchist seeking to free Ukraina
from all oppression and striving to develop and organize the peasants'
latent anarchistic tendencies. To this end Makhno had repeatedly called
upon the Anarchists of the Ukraina and of Russia to aid him. He offered
them the widest opportunity for propagandistic and educational work,
supplied them with printing outfits and meeting places, and gave them
the fullest liberty of action. Whenever Makhno captured a city, freedom
of speech and press for Anarchists and Left Social Revolutionists was
established. Makhno often said: "I am a military man and I have no time
for educational work. But you who are writers and speakers, you can do
that work. Join me and together we shall be able to prepare the field
for a real Anarchist experiment." But the chief value of the Makhno
movement lay in the peasants themselves, my comrades thought. It was
a spontaneous, elemental movement, the peasants' opposition to all
governments being the result not of theories but of bitter experience
and of instinctive love of liberty. They were fertile ground for
Anarchist ideas. For this reason a number of Anarchists joined Makhno.
They were with him in most of his military campaigns and energetically
carried on Anarchist propaganda during that time.
I have been told by Zorin and other Communists that Makhno was a
Jew-baiter and that his _povstantsi_ were responsible for numerous
brutal pogroms. My visitors emphatically denied the charges. Makhno
bitterly fought pogroms, they stated; he had often issued proclamations
against such outrages, and he had even with his own hand punished
some of those guilty of assault on Jews. Hatred of the Hebrew was of
course common in the Ukraina; it was not eradicated even among the Red
soldiers. They, too, have assaulted, robbed, and outraged Jews; yet
no one holds the Bolsheviki responsible for such isolated instances.
The Ukraina is infested with armed bands who are often mistaken for
Makhnovtsi and who have made pogroms. The Bolsheviki, aware of this,
have exploited the confusion to discredit Makhno and his followers.
However, the Anarchist of the Ukraina--I was informed--did not idealize
the Makhno movement. They knew that the _povstantsi_ were not conscious
Anarchists. Their paper _Nabat_ had repeatedly emphasized this fact.
On the other hand, the Anarchists could not overlook the importance of
popular movement which was instinctively rebellious, anarchistically
inclined, and successful in driving back the enemies of the Revolution,
which the better organized and equipped Bolshevik army could not
accomplish. For this reason many Anarchists considered it their duty
to work with Makhno. But the bulk remained away; they had their larger
cultural, educational, and organizing work to do.
The invading counter-revolutionary forces, though differing in
character and purpose, all agreed in their relentless persecution of
the Anarchists. The latter were made to suffer, whatever the new
régime. The Bolsheviki were no better in this regard than Denikin or
any other White element. Anarchists filled Bolshevik prisons; many
had been shot and all legal Anarchist activities were suppressed. The
Tcheka especially was doing ghastly work, having resurrected the old
Tsarist methods, including even torture.
My young visitors spoke from experience: they had repeatedly been in
Bolshevik prisons themselves.