Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War. by Michael Malet Review by: Frank Sysyn Slavic Review, Vol.

43, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 115-116 Published by: Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2498764 . Accessed: 15/03/2013 21:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:56:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews

115

and politicalculture. the Sovietstateand the role of institutions subordinates in building accountand subordinates, meantgreatconcernforco-workers "Leninistadministration" constantly againsttheir and discipline,yet Lenin had to fight ability,efficiency, thrift, as 1922 approached. The lesson is thatno executive,no antitheses, whichgrewstronger even withthe help of a Russian administration could transform matterhow brilliant, aside, Genkina seems to be implying Ideas of transformation massivesocial revolution. would not be a bad thingtoday. that a return to Leninistprinciples SouthernMethodistUniversity
DANIEL T. ORLOVSKY

NESTOR MAKHNO IN THE RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR. By Michael Malet. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science, 1982. xxvii, 232 pp. $42.00. [First published by Macmillan Press, 1982.] Distributed by Humanities Press, AtlanticHighlands,New Jersey 07716. forpower in the Ukraine between 1917 Of all the figures who took part in the struggle and 1921, Nestor Makhno seems to hold the most fascination forthe Westernreading public. Yet althoughtwo biographies by Michael Palij and by VictorPeters appeared in leader of peasant insurgents the 1970s,we have farfroma fullpictureof thisanarchist and political because too fewsourcesexistin the West and because romantic mythology partisanship taintmuch of the existing literature. for Makhno and his declares his sympathies AlthoughMichael Malet forthrightly work based on a considerable anarchist ideals, he has produced a balanced, intelligent body of sources. Unlike Palij who set out to place Makhno and his movementin the contextof the Ukrainianrevolution, Malet attempts to evaluate the role of the man and the movementwithinthe Civil War throughout the entire Russian empire. The most important sectionsof his book deal notwiththemilitary significance ofthemovement but withits internalorganizationand its ideology. They depend largelyon partisanwritings-Makhno's own, and those of his supportersand opponents (particularlyPetr Arshinovand Mikhail Kubanin). If at timesthe authorseems passionate in defending he does so withgood Makhno againstthe allegationsof Bolsheviks,above all ofTrotskii, cause since the Bolshevikshave been especiallyvenomous in attackingMakhno, who gained the peasant supportthattheyso clearlylacked. Malet is at his best in discussing the relationsof Makhno's forceswithsocial and politicalgroups: the reasons for their withworkers, the degree of theiroppositionto supportby the peasants,theirdifficulties politicalrivals(least to the Bolsheviks,more to the Ukrainiannational groupings,and in themovement, and themuch mostto theWhites),therole of anarchism and anarchists and alleged role in pogroms. debated question of Makhno's purported anti-Semitism and lack in his sifting of sources,thesparsefootnoting AlthoughMalet seems careful over a of discussion of,forexample,how we shouldevaluate Makhno's memoirs(written to admit that decade afterthe events) detractfromhis study.Malet would be the first because of insufficient evidencehis studyposes almostas manyquestionsas it answers. For example, he had access to only one issue of the Makhnoists'Ukrainian language and bibliognewspaper,Shliakhdo y)oli. Whilethe sourceshe cites,including interviews raphy,are impressive, he has missed a numberof important items. There are some points which Malet does not sufficiently analyze. He does not consider the relativelyprosperous nature of southeasternUkrainian peasants in his discussionof the Makhnoists'peasant base, and his discussionof the workingsof the movement's culturaland propagandaorgansand theirsuccess in reachingthe masses is rather He fails superficial (he also omitsthe role of Makhno's wife,Halyna Kuzmnenko). to mentionthe Makhnoists'treatment of religion,whichis important forunderstanding theirrelationsnot only withOrthodoxpeoples but also withthe MennoniteGermans.

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:56:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

116

Slavic Review

At times,moreover,his terminology is imprecise.By callingthe UkrainianCentral Rada and Ukrainian National Republic "nationalist"(using the modest and neutral Englishconnotation of the term)whenin factthesegovernments were largelybacked by the Socialist Revolutionariesand Social Democrats, and by describing Hetman Skoropads'kyi as a "White," Malet may confusereaders who do not realize that it was the Ukrainian liberal and conservative"nationalist"camp which took an active role in Malet's geography is sometimessorelywantSkoropads'kyi'sgovernment. Regrettably, ing. At one point Makhno is pursued "as far east as Galicia," and he operates in the region of the former"Zaporczhian (sic) Sich." The most serious error is Malet's placementof Chernihiv and Poltava provinces westof the Dnieper or on the right bank, thus making an entire discussionof the regional strength of the Ukrainian national movementincorrect.In any event, the Ukrainian lands of the Russian empire were probably divided more sharplybetween north and south-and it was the national movement'sweakness in the southernterritories that explains Makhno's successes. Bibliographic omissionsand occasional errorsdo not detractgreatly fromthe merit of Malet's sweepingand cogentdiscussionof thisfascinating man and his movement.A definitive and detailed studymay only be possible if the Soviet authorities relentand allow researchin theirlibrariesand archives.
FRANK SYSYN

Harvard University

THE LEGACY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION: VOLUME I OF A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE USSR. By Dal,id Roiusset. Translatedby Alan Freeman. New York: St. Martin'sPress, 1982. vii,333 pp. $27.50. [Originally publishedunder the titleLa societe clatee.] When this book appeared in its entirety in France ten vears ago, it was heralded as possibly the nextDas Kapital,bothforitsdialecticalprediction of a new worldrevolution and for the ponderous and obscure way in whichthe authordeveloped his theory. La socie&teclat&e, over 800 pages long, posited a comingworld revolutionbased on class conflict, but Rousset's classes were definedby ownershipnot of the mealls of The production but of intellectual property: intellectuals would lead the nextrevolutioil. of two translated first volumesis devotedto the historical data Rousset uses to construct his theory.Justas Marx used the industrialrevolutionin England for his raw data, Rousset uses the experienceof the Soviet Union since 1917. It is in this sense that the book is a criticalhistory of the USSR. is that There are fourmain themesin the work.The first, whichis mostcompelling, in 1917 any socialist revolutionwas doomed to failure because the level of world technology was too low to permit a rationalsocialized economy.The subsequenthistory of the Soviet Union followedfromthe objective impossibility of socialism. Hence the second theme-that the New Economic Policy usheredin a systemof state capitalism. a class Third, in the process those who managed state property became by definition was the big victorin the second civil apart fromthe proletariat: thisstate bureaucracy war,waged againstthepeasantry in 1929-1931.Rousset'sfourth theme,whichdominates natureof thisbureaucratic two-thirds of the book, is the repressive regime,the concentrationcamp society, based both in Soviet law and in the experience of the power struggles of the 1930s. But Rousset does not adequatelyconnectthisthemeeitherto his revolution or to his overallconceptionof the marchof Soviet prediction of technological He has read widelybut randomly. Readers willnoticehis relianceon the critical history. to important works worksof Trotskiibut will especiallyregret the absence of reference

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:56:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions