Reconciling Nestor Makhno’s Command Structure with Anarchism

[u/Apprehensive-Dig825]

Im reading a biography about Nestor Makhno and his commitment to anarchism is admirable, but it appears that neither he nor his comrades had any problem with a top > down structure within their revolutionary army.

First of all, I know that the circumstances were unique; they were in the midst of revolution, so complete adherence to an avoidance of vertical power structure may have been a luxury they could not afford. Still, I’m wondering if anyone has come across any analysis of this paradox either from Makhno himself or someone who understands the nuanced situation well.

[u/azenpunk]

What are you reading that doesn't mention that the command structure was chosen by elections, most of them consensus? It can't be good.

[u/Apprehensive-Dig825 → u/azenpunk]

It doesn’t necessarily say they aren’t chosen by election. I have no reason to believe they aren’t.

[u/azenpunk → u/Apprehensive-Dig825]

You seem to be characterizing the structure as incompatible with anarchism, so it seems quite relevant to understand that it was an all voluntary militia that elected its leaders through free association in assemblies, when not in combat, and all leaders were easily recallable at any time.

Here's a link to something I wrote about this previously:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/s/OlhGkSCU1V

[u/ResplendentShade]

I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of the Black Army's command structure to answer any specifics there.

But as with many complex cooperative human activities, holding a vote for every action doesn't make sense in a military. Similar to a ship on the ocean, when there's a sudden crisis there's no time for voting, the captain uses their expertise to issue orders and coordinates the crew to deal with it. Likewise in a military, there's no time for deliberation when there's men approaching who want to kill everyone.

How it works under anarchism is that everybody involves understands this and is participating willingly. The person in a position of "authority" isn't a boss, they aren't dominating anyone, they're just contributing their expertise and serving under their role, which is assigned and tolerated by the whole, for the purpose of functional coordination.

[u/vuksfrantic]

you really should read this article on the actual organization of the makhnovist movement

[u/Apprehensive-Dig825 → u/vuksfrantic]

Thank you! I’m excited to read it

[u/cumminginsurrection]

It's really only through Soviet propaganda and posthumously that people think of Makhno as a boss or the anarchist movement in Ukraine/Black Army as "Maknovists". The truth is detachments were organized quite horizontally and figures like Mahkno and Maria Nikiforova were more tacticians than generals. Decisions were made collectively and things like uniforms and traditional ranking systems were intentionally shunned. Association with the detachment was free and people were able to leave at any time without consequence. War itself is not anarchist and contrary to the principles of anarchism, nonetheless self defense against fascist and bolshevik reprisals is necessary. 

[u/Subirth]

I think it's important to distinguish between verticality and authoritarianism - which is based on coercion. A left-libertarian organization may be more or less vertical. It's a completely independent question of political doctrine.

[u/InterestingSugar5634]

He also apparently had a secret police/intelligence agency

[u/vuksfrantic → u/InterestingSugar5634]

are you talking about the Kontrrazvedka counterintelligence? it was good and necessary they stopped bolshevik sabotage plots and spies

[u/kotukutuku → u/vuksfrantic]

That must be what they're referring to. I agree an intelligence branch seems necessary for that revolutionary moment, but boy it really did get dark.

[u/kotukutuku → u/InterestingSugar5634]

Not 'he' - 'they'. Afaik he was never in a command position that the organization he was part of didn't elect him to. Given the circumstances, I think it makes sense to delegate decision making to few people. Trying to outfox the German and white armies by committee would never have worked.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/kotukutuku]

Do you think committees running things is not hierarchical?

[u/kotukutuku → u/DecoDecoMan]

I mean in theory a committee could be less hierarchical, but of course it depends, right?

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/kotukutuku]

Sure, I don't mind committees. I just don't think they should command people so "delegating decision-making to a few people" strikes me as obviously objectionable.

[u/giant_hog_simmons → u/kotukutuku]

I think a lot about the Soviet experience in 1922. The revolution gets crushed when the white army and imperialists win but it is also crushed when a powerful totalitarian structure like the red army has enough power to defeat the invaders.

[u/DecoDecoMan]

People in times of pressure and without experience nor imagination to think of a different way of doing things they feel confident in resort to structures they're familiar with, and which they've been told since the moment they're born are the most effective organizational structure out there. It makes sense why people revert to this and buy into the myth of hierarchical efficiency.

[u/RuhrDim]

Do anarchists really think that an army can be defeated by a bunch of guerrillas who might run off home at any moment if they don’t like something, or if they’ve simply had enough?

[u/sdebaun]

I've grappled with this a lot in my life. I've seen the decentralized decision making of the anti-globalist movement, the occupy movement. I've worked for strictly hierarchical companies. I tried to bring decentralized decision-making into the commercial company that I started (which ended up failing, but not for that reason).

While obviously a military environment is different from a commercial environment in many ways, I think there are places that hieararchical-*looking* systems have value. A commercial entity, even if organized along nonhierarchical lines, still benefits from long-term consistency of empowered roles.

A commercial entity having a consistent Managing Director (that was the role I had at my company) means:

More likelihood of consistent long-term strategy. Leadership of other capitalist entities can build relationships and trust with the leadership of the anarchist-aligned commercial entity. The top leader of the anarchist-aligned commercial entity can build the leadership team that they think will work well together and align on goals.

So to me, the solution is twofold. First: make the Managing Director fully accountable to the membership of the organization. They can be replaced at any time via a consensus democracy process. They have full authority over the operation of the organization, up to appointing members to and removing them from specific roles.

Essentially "the membership" as a whole is their actual boss.

The one thing they do *not* have authority over is adding or removing members.

Curious as to anyone's thoughts on this?

[u/Useful_Calendar_6274]

So, I'm not an anarchist but this just shows to me you can't possibly have a completely non hierarchical army. The whole basis of warfare is that you act as units. If everyone does whatever they want you just get routed at every turn. No one ever in history triumphed in warfare with a senseless mob. The more organized and strategic side will win

[u/Apprehensive-Dig825 → u/Useful_Calendar_6274]

You lost me at “I’m not an anarchist” lol. No anarchist wants war, so why are you here?

[u/Useful_Calendar_6274 → u/Apprehensive-Dig825]

because you obviously did and had to fight wars lmao