Tfw no anarchist Ukraine

...

...

...

It was closer to a stratocracy, actually.

Is Makhno the guy who slaughtered Mennonite children just because he was jealous of them living on a wealthy farm? Fuck him.

They were filthy bourgeoisie though, so it was okay.

>children
>bourgeois

I don't think Makhno was jealous of the Mennonites any more than Stalin was "jealous" of the Kulaks

Mennonites were the kulaks, technically. Makhno assembled a band of literal criminals that went around burning down farms and raping little kids, pretty much a Rhodesia type scenario.

[citation needed]

He did expropriate land from Mennonites and kill those who resisted, but he was actually pretty strict about executing soldiers that started shit unnecessarily.

>tfw no reborn Mongol Empire

>In 1924, Nestor Makhno was arrested in Danzig, charged with having persecuted German settlers in the Ukraine (Skirda, p-408). He escaped before trial, and the alleged terrorisation of pacifist Mennonites is now the most serious stain on the Makhnovists’ reputation
>The Russian Mennonite diaspora recall the ‘uncontrolled terror’ inflicted by the Makhnovists as they slaughtered hundreds of men, women, and children (Huebert, H.T. & W. Schroeder, p-138);3 ‘Driven by mad violence’ (Toews, p-252) the bandits displayed ‘the bestiality of men who had become raging animals’ (Toews, p-142); ‘Helpless and defenseless, [the Mennonites] were exposed to the horrible reality of an unprecedented, bestial anarchy that expressed the basest human instincts’ (Dick, p-137); ‘This part-targeted, part-random horror lives on in the Mennonite imagination as a kind of ultimate Manichean abomination’ (Dyck, n.d.); etc. ‘By the time of the German withdrawal,’ writes one memoirist, [Makhno] had an army of 100,000 followers, all criminals, all hostile to humanity, their hatred directed against everybody (…) Having stolen most of the horses in the countryside, they exemplified terror on horseback as they carried out their program of plunder, rape and murder with a vengeance.’4 The story of this ‘terrible, hated man’ has become a centrepiece of Mennonite identity and a historical truth passed between generations; here is a representative example from a young Mennonite: ‘In Muensterberg, Makhno beheaded a whole family and set all the heads on display on tables’ (Schroeder, n.d.)

Source please?

Also, call me crazy, but I'm going to take the opinion of the people he was taking land from and killing for resisting with a grain of salt.

The sources are listed in the text moron.

What's next, Holocaust denial?

My mistake.

The holocaust is verified independently by multiple sources. The only groups I know of that claim Makhno committed these ridiculous crimes, which as far as I know can't be verified are Mennonites and the Soviets, who both have a vested interest in propagandizing against him.

I mean you literally said that people Makhno was killing shouldn't be taken seriously because they were biased against him since he was killing them. Think of that for a second.

I wouldn't trust the monarchy in France to have a fair opinion of the revolutionaries either.

Should we take every accusation at face value just because someone has made it?

Monarchy in France was an authoritarian regime excercising brutal force against their opponents, Mennonites were literal pacificts who abhorred violence and their biggest "crime" was owning land.

The Mennonites also provided extensive support to white forces.

I'm not claiming Makhno was a saint or anything, and I don't doubt his soldiers probably did do some terrible things in the course of the revolution, I just doubt he himself ordered them to go on a rape campaign against Mennonite children. I validate this with his approach to land expropriation (which was typically to offer them the chance to surrender the deeds voluntarily before taking them by force and then parceling out land to everyone in the region based on how much they could work individually) and how he was known to execute his soldiers for trying to start pogroms.

Makhno actually worked on a Mennonite farm in when he was young and was literally steaming with jealousy over their prosperity, you can look that up.

>At this time I began to experience anger, envy and even hatred towards the landowner [Janzen] and especially towards his children – those young slackers who often strolled past me sleek and healthy, well-dressed, well-groomed and scented; while I was filthy, dressed in rags, barefoot, and reeked of manure from cleaning the calves' barn.
His own quote. There's a reason why specifically Mennonites got targeted this hard and the reason was Makhno himself.

I already knew that. He hated them as wealthy landowners that exploited workers. The same reason most socialists hated wealthy landowners.

As far as I know, he didn't target them any harder than any other landowners that supported white forces.

They didn't exploit anything, he wasn't beaten or enslaved or starving by them. They merely hired him as a farmhand and he got butthurt that they had clean clothes and looked good while he was covered in cow shit from working in a barn. Literally an entire ideology born out of asspain.

>capitalize on starving state of worker to profit from his labour
>not exploitation

Kay.

If anything he should be thankful for them hiring him. Instead he repaid their kindness with massacring them.

Meant for Also this demented doublethink is fucking annoying. If the socialist in question is from a working-class background, they're "jealous" or have "tall-poppy syndrome" or in this case "asspained." But if they come from a wealthy background, such as Lenin, or Bakunin, they don't represent the workers and are just looking for power.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason people from different backgrounds become socialists is because they think that feudal and capitalist economies are fundamentally wrong in some way.

You don't understand left-wing logic.

Hiring someone and paying for their work is exploitation. Massacring people and looting their shit is "revolutionary justice".

But it isn't just a speculation, he outright said it himself.

>Massacring people and looting their shit
They were bourgeoisie though, so it's all okay in the end.

>bourgeoisie
>not living in a town (burg)

Yes, and? That doesn't mean he became a communist out of envy. I'd imagine plenty of people from poor background just aspired towards being wealthy landowners themselves.

They weren't bourgeoise, they were rural landowners.

...

Look, I'm not a communist, so I don't think employment is inherently exploitative, but the conditions of employment in the time period were not balanced at all in the favour of the poor bastard who had to sell themselves to survive.

This is like saying that those guys in bum fight movies should be happy that they were offered money to eat glass.

>it's ok to kill those with different beliefs
This kind of bullshit makes you question if Hans-Hermann Hoppe was right and you should throw all commies off helicopters.

Nonsense. I'm not denying some people historically did indeed live in squalid conditions when they were enserfed by their feudal lords and whipped blind, but to portray the fucking Mennonites of all people on Earth as evil oppressors is top kek tier.

>working with cows is on par with eating glass

>evil oppressors

Exploiters. There's a difference. They didn't establish or even enforce the system, they just took advantage of it and did nothing to improve it.

In Ukrainian winters without proper weather gear or even shoes. Grueling labour in conditions that routinely killed or resulted in maiming via frostbite.

If you pay someone to eat glass the reason for it can be nothing but your sadistic cruelty, I bet the Mennonite landlords weren't paying Ukrainians to work on a farm just to see them being covered in poop.

>If you pay someone to eat glass the reason for it can be nothing but your sadistic cruelty

Hardly. Their motive is primarily to make money off those movies.

No, they were paying them to work on their farms to spare themselves the labour and profit off the work of others more desperate than them. Their motives behind it weren't high-minded in the slightest.

The Bumfight films didn't even make much money, the only point of making them was the filmmakers being bored and edgy.

>No, they were paying them to work on their farms to spare themselves the labour and profit off the work of others more desperate than them.
More like there was work to be done and they couldn't do it all by themselves so they paid others to help them.

>muh chilluns
lul

>have stuff
>hire people to make stuff
>implying owning and managing a farm isn't both a just reward for labor and a form of productive labor in and of itself

>Hardly. Their motive is primarily to make money off those movies.

Also, regardless, the point here is that the simple act of paying someone to do something is not grounds enough to be considered to be doing a good thing for them. If this can be considered exploitative, so can other exchanges of this nature.

I would say the conditions Makhno was expected to work in were exploitative.

>muh explotashun

>The Bumfight films didn't even make much money, the only point of making them was the filmmakers being bored and edgy.

The fact they weren't commercially successful doesn't change the fact they were made to make money.

>More like there was work to be done and they couldn't do it all by themselves so they paid others to help them.

Which is totally why they didn't see fit to provide their workers shoes or cold weather gear.

>they were made to make money
Proofs?

The fact they didn't just sit in the creator's private collections and instead were extensively advertised and sold.

That doesn't mean it was the primary motivation to make them.

Regardless, since we can't read minds, we can safely assume that they spent money advertising and producing these at least in part to make money. But that's beside the point. We have established those films that paying someone to do something is not sufficient justification for them to be considered a benefactor.

Bump

There's just way too many cool little factions in the Russian Civil War

>try to keep some food away from Soviet requisitioning so you don't starve to death
>end up instigating a massive rebellions involving of tens of thousands in the heart of Russia
>get gassed
>tfw your endgame was land reform for the peasants but everything gets collectivized a decade later

>Hear me out Fyodor okay this is great
>so we have all these horses and wagons right?
>what if we put a fucking MACHINE GUN on the back of the carriage?
>hahahaha the peasants are gonna love this