That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
After siding with the Bolsheviks during the Ukrainian–Soviet War, the Makhnovists were driven underground by the Austro-German invasion and waged guerrilla warfare against the Central Powers throughout 1918. After the insurgent victory at the Battle of Dibrivka, the Makhnovshchina came to control much of Katerynoslav province and set about constructing anarchist-communist institutions. […]
Surrounded on all sides by different enemies, the Makhnovist line in the battle for the Donbas eventually fell to the advancing White movement in June 1919. The Makhnovists were subsequently driven into a retreat to Kherson, where they reorganised their military and led a successful counteroffensive against the Whites at the Battle of Peregonovka. With the White advance defeated, the Makhnovists came to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine in late 1919, even taking over a number of large industrial cities, despite being a predominantly peasant movement.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
You’ll be happy to know that Makhno turned to banditry against the Soviets, which sparked a major conflict between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovshchina. Though, I don’t think anyone was claiming peaceful revolution was possible, just that revolution can result in a stable system post-revolution (which is true).
Not banditry, armed resistance against the red totalitarians.
He was in a bad spot from the beginning, and could never truly win. It’s sad, and Tankies and Fascists both paint the man in the worst light, because what he was trying to build was something beautiful.
The man had to pick sides at a time when both sides were actively his enemy, proving that the enemy of my enemy is no friend at all.
This is the first thing that came to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
Nonviolence and peaceful takeovers are liberal myths to ensure the people never take back power from those who wield violence on the daily.
Who said anything about “nonviolence” or being “peaceful”?
You’ll be happy to know that Makhno turned to banditry against the Soviets, which sparked a major conflict between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovshchina. Though, I don’t think anyone was claiming peaceful revolution was possible, just that revolution can result in a stable system post-revolution (which is true).
Your proof of this?
Not banditry, armed resistance against the red totalitarians.
He was in a bad spot from the beginning, and could never truly win. It’s sad, and Tankies and Fascists both paint the man in the worst light, because what he was trying to build was something beautiful.
The man had to pick sides at a time when both sides were actively his enemy, proving that the enemy of my enemy is no friend at all.