Successful Makhnovchtchina [Anarchist Ukraine]

Hi folks,

The Makhnovchtchina was an anarchist army that appeared during the Russian Revolution and was initially successful enough before being double crossed by the communists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

It lasted a good few years and, being anarchist, had a distinct project, quite apart from Leninist communism.
Looks to me like they were anarcho-syndicalist, in the line of Proudhon.

So here you go, how would you make them last a bit and what would be the consequences? Would the Western Countries fear Anarchist Uprising more than a Red Uprising? Could they be economically successful?

It's rare enough to see large scale anarchist movements like that (Only ones I can think of are some Spanish Republicans and some strands of the Commune, but both were absorbed with other elements) so figured it'd be an interesting question!
 
I think their position actually gives them interesting potential - between the Donbass and Kryvbas.

If you have the Russian Civil War result in some kind of incomplete victory or stalemate, you could see an RIAU that more or less acts as a buffer state between something like a more successful Poland (/its definitely independent Ukrainian Directorate) and a weak post-civil war Russia, used as a way to keep those two economically important regions from falling to either side.

Of course, I'm not sure to what extent a Makhnovchtchina-Ukraine could have foreign relations; I think it wouldn't work for long, but it could be around for a longer period than IOTL. If they control the Donbass and Kryvbas, they could live off of coal/iron/steel exports; depending on how successful they are in the civil war, they may even be able to function fairly well on their own, with coal, iron and grain production in their territory.
 
If you have the Russian Civil War result in some kind of incomplete victory or stalemate, you could see an RIAU that more or less acts as a buffer state between something like a more successful Poland (/its definitely independent Ukrainian Directorate) and a weak post-civil war Russia, used as a way to keep those two economically important regions from falling to either side.
Also, as far as I understand, anarchism might be less aggressive than Leninist communism, with a focus more on organising local cooperatives than creating an International
 
The irony is that the Mahnovists have a better chance of survival supporting the Whites rather than the Reds. IOTL, they had an on-and-off alliance with the Bolsheviks that ultimately bit them in the ass. Working with their ideological polar opposites, the Whites, may be anathema and may even fracture the anarchist forces, but the White Movement's own fragility means that a White victory would certainly result in a continued civil war between the various factions, who now lacked a central enemy to fight against. This, of course, is anarchy (doh), and it's one where the Makhnovists would thrive in.
 
The irony is that the Mahnovists have a better chance of survival supporting the Whites rather than the Reds. IOTL, they had an on-and-off alliance with the Bolsheviks that ultimately bit them in the ass. Working with their ideological polar opposites, the Whites, may be anathema and may even fracture the anarchist forces, but the White Movement's own fragility means that a White victory would certainly result in a continued civil war between the various factions, who now lacked a central enemy to fight against. This, of course, is anarchy (doh), and it's one where the Makhnovists would thrive in.
While interesting, I'm not sure I see that happening. This kind of alliance against nature can work if you have a strong central power who can see the maybe-bigger-picture and can then coerce his troups into following it, but here, I don't think you'd see it.
The Whites were THE enemy, everything that had to be sworn off.

But that's the Black side. What would the White side think? To them, I doubt the Anarchists were any better than the Reds?
 
While interesting, I'm not sure I see that happening. This kind of alliance against nature can work if you have a strong central power who can see the maybe-bigger-picture and can then coerce his troups into following it, but here, I don't think you'd see it.
The Whites were THE enemy, everything that had to be sworn off.

But that's the Black side. What would the White side think? To them, I doubt the Anarchists were any better than the Reds?

Hence the irony. The option that would likely save them is also the one that's far less likely to be taken realistically. The Bolsheviks were always going to be closer to them ideologically, but their unity and centralized nature is exactly what ultimately killed the Black Army. Once the Reds picked off the White Army, Makhno was no longer of use to them. I think having the anarchists and the Whites focus on the Reds concurrently might work, but again, what's to stop them from going at each other's weak spots?
 
Hence the irony. The option that would likely save them is also the one that's far less likely to be taken realistically. The Bolsheviks were always going to be closer to them ideologically, but their unity and centralized nature is exactly what ultimately killed the Black Army. Once the Reds picked off the White Army, Makhno was no longer of use to them. I think having the anarchists and the Whites focus on the Reds concurrently might work, but again, what's to stop them from going at each other's weak spots?
I kinda get the feeling that the Blacks only wanted to be left alone and do their own thing. That's anarcho-syndicalism at the end of the day: create spaces of freedom where people can self organise. If the Whites give a wide berth in exchange for supplies, both can focus on the Red without being formally allied
 
Top