Michael Palij, The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921: An Aspect of the Ukrainian Revolution, 1976.

5. The Anarchism of the Peasants and Makhno

In spite of peasant following and the existence of anarchist groups in Ukraine, especially in the south, it would be a mistake to assume that the peasants in the region of the Makhno movement were anarchists; in reality, they knew and cared very little about anarchism or Marxism. They instinctively maintained their deep love of liberty and of land, for serfdom came later than in Russia or in Poland and the old ideals of individual freedom and human pride had not been eradicated. Although some of the anarchist principles were quite compatible with traditional peasant aspirations, the basic desire of the Ukrainian peasants was not the creation of an anarchist Utopia but the expulsion of all the foreign invaders who exploited them and disrupted their way of life. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the Russian-American anarchists, were told while in Kyiv during the summer of 1920 by American anarchists living there:

In Ukraine . . . the situation differed from that of Russia, because the peasants lived in comparatively better material conditions. They had also retained greater independence and more of a rebellious spirit. For these reasons the Bolsheviks had failed to subdue the south.2

Goldman was also told that "the Ukrainian peasants, a more independent and spirited race than their northern brothers, had come to hate all governments and every measure which threatened their land and freedom." Goldman's friends considered that the Ukrainian peasant partisan movement was "a spontaneous, elemental movement, the peasants' opposition to all governments being the result not of theories but of bitter experience and of instinctive love of liberty. [However] they were fertile ground for Anarchist ideas."3 Based on their experiences, the Ukrainian peasants, who had little acquaintance with political theorists, would have agreed with Bakunin's idea that every form of the state is an evil that must be combated.

Ukrainian peasants had little reason to expect any good from the state. For decades the Russian regime gave the peasants only national and sociopolitical oppression, including conscription for military service, taxation, and ruthless enforcement of order. Experiences with the "Reds," "Whites," Germans, and Austro-Hungarians had taught them that all governments were essentially alike—taking everything and giving nothing. Therefore, the peasants were more apt to revolt than to create or support a national government. They felt the Revolution gave them the right to secure the land and to live peacefully on it. Unable to see any necessity to substitute another regime for the fallen tsarist one, they wanted to be left alone to arrange their lives and affairs. Moreover, the political and national consciousness of the peasants was weak and the Ukrainian government, as has been shown, had neither time nor opportunity to strengthen it.

What was true of the peasants holds also for the partisan groups, composed as they were primarily of peasants. The third anarchist conference of "Nabat" in Kharkiv at the beginning of September, 1920, concluded:

As regards the "Revolutionary Partisan Army of Ukraine (Makhnovites)" ... it is a mistake to call it anarchist. . . . Mostly they are Red soldiers who fell into captivity, and middle peasant partisan volunteers. . . . Through two years of struggle against different regimes . . . there was created in the center of the army a nucleus that assimilated the slogans of nongovernment and free Soviet order.''

According to Goldman's American anarchist friends in Kyiv:

There was considerable difference of opinion, however, among the anarchists concerning the significance of the Makhno movement. Some regarded it as expression of anarchism and believed that the anarchists should devote all their energies to it. Others held that the povstantsi represented the native rebellious spirit of the southern peasants, but that their movement was not anarchism, though anarchisti-cally tinged. . . . Several of our friends took an entirely different position, denying to the Makhno movement any anarchistic meaning whatever.5

Makhno tried to strengthen his movement ideologically by inviting anarchists to his camp. Goldman was told that "Makhno had repeatedly called upon the Anarchists of the Ukraina and of Russia to aid him. He offered them the widest opportunity for propagandistic and educational work, supplied them with printing outfits and meeting places, and gave them the fullest liberty of action." Makhno wanted to enlist more anarchists for educational purposes among the partisans and peasants since he and his associates were insufficiently trained in propaganda. Goldman was informed that Makhno often said: "I am a military man and I have no time for educational work. But you who are writers and speakers, you can do that work. Join me and together we shall be able to prepare the field for a real Anarchist experiment."6 However, there were not many who wanted to join Makhno because the anarchists in Ukraine

. . did not idealize the Makhno movement. They knew that the povstantsi were not conscious Anarchists. Their paper Nabat had repeatedly emphasized this fact. [However] the Anarchists could not overlook the importance of popular movement which was instinctively rebellious, anarchistically inclined, and successful in driving back the enemies of the Revolution, which the better organized and equipped Bolshevik army could not accomplish. For this reason many Anarchists considered it their duty to work with Makhno. But the bulk remained away.?

Also, according to Volin, one of the reasons the anarchists were reluctant to join Makhno was their "distrust for an 'unorganized' and impure anarchism."

Makhno was aware of the social nature of the revolution whose instrument he felt he was and his close familiarity with the needs of the peasants enabled him to exploit the affinities between their goals and his own. Makhno's attitude concerning the state was in close harmony with the mood of his partisans, who from personal experience were inclined to regard the state as an unmitigated evil. Profound hatred and distrust of political parties and of the state as an organ of power characterize all Makhno's actions and public proclamations. For example, as soon as the Makhno forces entered a city or town they immediately posted on the walls notices to the population such as:

This army does not serve any political party, any power, any dictatorship. On the contrary, it seeks to free the region of all political power, of all dictatorship. It strives to protect the freedom of action, the free life of the workers against all exploitation and domination. The Makhno Army does not therefore represent any authority. It will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever. Its role is confined to defending the freedom of the workers. The freedom of the peasants and the workers belongs to themselves, and should not suffer any restriction.9

This philosophy appealed to peasants who had acquired their land from big proprietors and wanted to retain possession. They believed as strongly that land was intended by God for their use as the tsar believed in divine right. According to the resolution on the land question adopted by the congress of the Huliai-Pole area of the Makhno movement on February 12, 1919, "The land belongs to nobody and it can be used only by those who cared about it, who cultivated it. The land should be transferred to the working peasantry of Ukraine for their use without compensation.'

Makhno was not only against landlords, but he contested the power of all invaders into the territory of his movement and thereby offered the peasants freedom from both landlords and bureaucrats. He vividly expressed this attitude after his return from Russia in the summer of 1918:

I returned again to you [comrades] so we might work together to expel the Austro-German counterrevolutionary armies from Ukraine, to overthrow the government of Hetman Skoropads'kyi and to prevent any other regime from replacing him. We will work in common to organize this great thing. We will work in common to destroy slavery so we may set ourselves and our brothers and sisters on the road of the new order. 11

Makhno's attitude stemmed primarily from his anarchist convictions. On another occasion, he said:

During its long history under the yoke, the Ukrainian peasantry, not exploiting other's work, unyielding to outside pressure, preserved in itself the spirit of freedom. Everywhere, this spirit of practical revolution of workers and peasants broke through the walls of reaction and found space in the spontaneous impulses of revolution to gain as much freedom as possible for its development. Therein is openly revealed the peasantry's kinship with the ideas of anarchism. 12

Although Makhno was adequately trained to understand the basic ideology of anarchism, he made no real attempt to put the anarchist ideal of a free, nongovernmental society into practice. His partisans and the peasants understood the slogan "free anarcho-communes" to mean free individual farms, and decentralized democratic self-government. This was a spontaneous manifestation of the Ukrainian peasants' anarchism. Makhno saw anarchism in the context of the peasants' struggle for freedom, for to him anarchism and freedom from social oppression were one and the same.

The group to which Makhno adhered, the Anarchist-Communists, was established in Huliai-Pole in 1905,14 and it was in contact with the anarchists of Katerynoslav via Valdemar Antoni, who was responsible for establishing the Huliai-Pole group. It was supported primarily by local peasants, and employed both expropriation and terror against the local bourgeoisie, government institutions, and police. In such an environment Makhno had no opportunity to acquire much theoretical knowledge of anarchism. He recalled:

Our group had in its ranks not a single educated theoretician of anarchism. We all were peasants and workers. We came from school with incomplete education. Anarchist schools did not exist. The bulk of our knowledge of revolutionary anarchism came from long years of reading anarchist literature and the exchange of opinions among us and the peasants with whom we exchanged all we read and understood in the works of Kropotkin [and] Bakunin. For all these we are obliged to com[rade] Valdemar Antoni (he was Zarathustra).!6

Although Makhno later improved on his knowledge of anarchism through his reading in prison and talking with anarchist prisoners, especially Peter Arshinov, the situation in Huliai-Pole worsened in comparison with the prerevolutionary years, because many anarchists were arrested or executed. In this respect Katerynoslav, even after the Revolution, was not much better. According to Makhno:

Cfomrade] Mironov and I came to the Federation of Anarchists to get from its ranks a few brave propagandists and call them from the city into the village; however, although the Federation had improved in comparison with the month of August, when I . . . visited its organization—club and so on—still its manpower was small. It barely served the city and its satellites Amur, Nyshn'odniprovs'k, and Kodak. 18

Although some anarchists and nonanarchists credited Makhno with being a theoretician, he was not of much account as an anarchist theorist, though he was imbued with anarchist ideas.19 To him anarchism was not a doctrine, but a way of life; he strove toward anarchism "not from idea to life, but from life to idea."20 I. Teper, one of Makhno's former followers, quoted Makhno: "I am a revolutionary first and an anarchist second."21

Before the Revolution there were various anarchist groups in Ukraine, such as Anarchist-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, and Anarchist-Individualists, whose ideological differences were not clearly defined. They all retained the elements of Proudhon's theory—particularly his federalism and emphasis on workers' associations. While all three groups drew their adherents mainly from the intelligentsia and the working class, the Anarchist-Communists made efforts to enlist soldiers and peasants into their ranks. Although they might appear as an off- shoot of international anarchism imported via Russia, these groups were in reality a typical Ukrainian phenomenon.

The Anarchist-Communists drew their inspiration from Bakunin and Kropotkin. The term anarchism-communism was coined by the latter who advocated its use at an international anarchist congress in Switzerland in October 1880. Kropotkin believed that it conveyed the idea of harmony between individual freedom and a "well-ordered" social life. Anarchism-communism viewed the individual as a social being who could achieve full development only in society, while society could profit only when its members were free. Individual and social interests were not contradictory but complementary and would attain natural harmony if the state did not interfere. The Anarchist-Communists envisioned a free federation of communities in which each member would be rewarded according to his needs.

The Anarcho-Syndicalist doctrine was a blend of anarchism, Marxism, and trade unionism. The Anarcho-Syndicalists believed that trade unions or syndicates could serve both as an organ of struggle to ameliorate the conditions of the workers and as a foundation on which the future free society might be constructed. In their opinion social change could be achieved through economic or industrial action. The Anarcho-Syndicalists were strongly against a centralized state; indeed, they intended to abolish the state and to run society through syndicates associated with industries and localities. The state might be overthrown by acts of sabotage, boycotts, and local strikes, but the supreme instrument for overthrowing the state was the general strike. The Anarcho-Syndicalists' economic principles were sometimes accepted by Anarchist-Communists. Hence small-town anarchists often made no clear-cut distinction between the postulates of anarchism-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. 24

The Anarchist-Individualists believed in absolute freedom of the individual, who had the right to do whatever he wanted. Everything that would curtail his freedom was opposed. The Anarchist-Individualists were against the state and sought its abolition; they were against all of the values of bourgeois society—political, moral, and cultural. They wanted the total liberation of the human personality from the fetters of organized society. Moreover, they rejected both the territorial communes of the Anarchist-Communists and the workers' trade unions of the Anarcho-Syndicalists because they believed that only unorganized individuals were safe from coercion and domination and thus capable of remaining true to the ideals of anarchism.25

These anarchist groups in Ukraine were weak and without prominent leaders, but Bolshevik persecution of anarchists in Soviet Russia served to strengthen anarchist groups in Ukraine. The reason for their persecution was, according to the statement of Feliks E. Dzierzynski, supreme head of the Russian Cheka, to a correspondent of Izvestiia:

Among them were distinctly counterrevolutionary characters. We had definite evidence that the leaders of counterrevolution wanted to use criminal elements centered around the Federation groups to rise against the Soviet authority. . . . [However] the blow inflicted by the Soviet authority against the anarchists on April 12, 1918, in Moscow was of great importance in strengthening the achievements of the October and the Soviet authority. In the heart of the young Soviet republic were liquidated rotten centers of treason and counterrevolution. "Simultaneously with disarmament of the anarchists, crime in Moscow decreased 80 percent," while counterrevolution lost a number of strongholds upon which it reckoned.26

In Moscow on April 12, 1918, according to Dzierzynski, "during four hours all anarchists disappeared, everything was expropriated."2 In Petrograd, on April 23, the Cheka disarmed anarchists in all clubs and apartments. In other cities the anarchists either resisted the Cheka, or simply capitulated. According to Izvestiia, on April 26, 1918: "Under the flag of 'ideological' anarchism in the [metropolitan] centers and in the provinces different dark characters and robbers continued to rise, creating panic and terrorizing the population." By May all anarchist groups in Soviet Russia were disarmed or destroyed. According to the Bolshevik authorities, "The experience in Moscow, Petrograd and other cities proved that under the flag of the anarchist organizations were hooligans, thieves, robbers, and counterrevolutionaries, secretly preparing to overthrow the Soviet Government."29

In the light of this situation in Soviet Russia, the Russian and Jewish anarchists began to escape to Ukraine where they enjoyed more freedom than in Russia. Among prominent anarchists who participated in anarchist activities and joined the Makhno movement were Volin (Boris M. Eichenbaum), Peter A. Arshinov (Marin), Aaron Baron and his wife Fania, IAkov Sukhovolskii (called Alyi), and Aronchik. Besides them, a number of lesser known anarchists from Soviet Russia came to Ukraine either individually or in groups. For example, in May 1919, a group of thirty-six anarchists from Ivanovo-Voznesenske, near Moscow, arrived at Huliai-Pole and joined either village communes, combat detachments, or propaganda sections. A few of them became prominent m the Makhno movement. Among them were Makeev, Aleksandr Cherniakov, Petr Rybin (called Zonov), Viktor Popov, Mikhalev-Pavlenko, and IAkovlev (Kohan, called IAsha). Subsequently refugees from Russia linked up with the anarchists in Ukraine to unite the various anarchist groups, including Anarchist-Communists, Anarchist-Individualists, and Anarcho-Syndicalists, into one movement.

From November 12 to 16, 1918, at the First Conference in Kursk, all of those groups organized a Confederation of Anarchist Organizations of Ukraine named Nabat (Alarm), with a six-man Secretariat. Kharkiv was chosen as the headquarters, but there were branches in other major Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, Odessa, and Katerynoslav. The conference dealt with world-wide, Russian, and Ukrainian conditions, participation in the partisan movement, and above all, the unity of all anarchist groups. It considered the Russian Revolution as the first stage of a world-wide revolution that would be followed by revolution in Central Europe, including German, Austro-Hungary, and Bulgaria. The future revolution in West Europe, including France, Great Britain, and Spain, would be the third and last stage of the European revolution and would presage a world-wide revolution that would then develop along social and anarchist lines.

The conference recognized that because of "totally exceptional circumstances" a new, second revolution was developing with the Ukrainian partisans that was a favorable base for the social and anarchist revolution, and hence the necessity for wide, active participation on all levels by anarchists in the partisan and the general revolutionary movement in Ukraine.

The final organization of the Nabat was accomplished at its First Congress, at IElysavethrad on April 2—7, 1919. In the light of the positive anarchist role in the development of the Revolution, the congress called upon anarchists of Ukraine, Russia, and abroad to form a "united anarchism" while guaranteeing a substantial measure of autonomy for every participating group and individual. As the Kursk conference had done before, the congress resolved that the anarchists should ignore the Bolshevik regime and, if necessary, carry armed struggle against it, while disavowing those anarchists who supported the regime. They decided to boycott the Red Army, denouncing it as an authoritarian organization and called on the anarchists to carry on a propaganda campaign among its soldiers. But the most pressing task of the anarchists was to shape the Revolution into a social and anarchist revolution and to defend it. The congress pinned its hope for such a change on a partisan army organized spontaneously by the revolutionary masses themselves, undoubtedly considering the army of Makhno to be such a "partisan army." 2 In late spring of 1919, after the IElysavethrad congress, a few of the members of the Nabat's Secretariat, including Volin and Baron, came to Makhno proposing an organizational scheme. The Secretariat would join the Revolutionary Military Council and head the cultural section of the partisan army to conduct political and ideological propaganda. The partisan army, instead of moving from one area to another, should try to establish a territorial base, and Makhno was to make efforts to unify all partisan groups in the region, making his army a formidable force that would be able to defend its territorial base. Thus would begin the anarchist third revolution that would lead to the establishment of a classless society. Some of the anarchists from the Nabat organization joined the Revolutionary Military Council and directed the cultural section of the army. Some joined fighting detachments, though not many remained in them for long.33 The establishment of a territorial base, however, was impossible to realize because of the overwhelming forces Makhno faced, demanding the tactic of constant movement.

Meanwhile, as the organization Nabat established its headquarters and branches in some major Ukrainian cities, it began to publish leaflets, pamphlets, and newspapers. Circumstances favored such activities since a number of educated and experienced anarchists had already come from Soviet Russia, including Volin, Arshinov, and Baron. Moreover, Makhno "had repeatedly urged the anarchists through the country to take advantage of the propaganda possibilities the south offered. [He promised] he would put everything necessary at our disposal, including funds, a printing-press, paper, and couriers." A number of newspapers, mostly entitled Nabat, appeared in Ukrainian cities and towns, including Kharkiv, IElysavethrad, Oleksandrivs'k, Odessa, and Huliai-Pole, in either Russian or Ukrainian. Among the most important were three. Put' k Svobode (Road to Freedom) appeared daily and sometimes weekly and was devoted primarily to libertarian ideas and everyday problems including information on partisan activities, military proclamations, and orders. This paper was also published in Ukrainian under the title Shliakh do Voli; Holos Makhnovtsia (The Makhnovist Voice) and dealt primarily with the interests, problems, and tasks of the Makhno movement and its army.36 The third, Nabat, the main anarchist weekly newspaper, was concerned largely with anarchist theory and doctrine. The Nabat organization also published a pamphlet dealing with the Makhno movement's problems, the economic organization of the region, the free Soviets, the social basis of the society that was to be built, and the problem of defense.37

Nabat shared the vicissitudes of the Makhno movement. It carried °n its activities freely as long as the region was controlled by Makhno, but whenever the Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik Russian forces prevailed, the anarchists were forced underground. Finally, when the Soviet Russian forces overwhelmed the Makhno army in 1921, the anarchist movement ceased to exist as a vital force in Ukraine and in Russia. Many anarchists were either executed, arrested, banished, or silenced. When Goldman and Berkman visited Lenin in 1920 to plead on behalf of the anarchists in the Russian prisons, Goldman reported that Lenin responded indignantly: "Anarchists? Nonsense! Who told you such yarns, and how could you believe them? We do have bandits in prison, and Makhnovtsy, but no ideiny anarchists."39 For those anarchists who survived both at home and in exile there remained the bitterness of having seen the Revolution develop into the antithesis of all hopes and expectations.


1. Margolin, From a Political Diary, p. 24.

2. Emma Goldman, Living My Life, p. 109.

3. Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, pp. 96, 104.

4. D. Erde, "Politychna prohrama anarkho-makhnovshchyny," LR, no. 1 (40) (1930), p. 53.

5. Goldman, Living My Life, p. 109.

6. Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, pp. 103, 104.

7. Ibid., p. 105.

8. Volin, "Nestor Makhno," DT, no. 82 (1934), p. 6.

9. Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 158.

10. P. Str[uve], ed., "Istoricheskie materialy i dokumenty: Ideologiia makhnov-shchiny," Russkaia mysl', nos. 1—2 (1921), p. 231.

11. Makhno, Ukrainskaia revoliutsiia, 3 : 7—8.

12. Nestor Makhno, Makhnovshchina i ee vchorashnie soiuzniki-bol'sheviki, p. 16.

13. V. Holubnychyi, "Makhno i makhnivshchyna," in Entsyklopediia ukrainoz-navstva, 4:1494.

14. P. Arshinov, Istoriia makhnovskogo dvizheniia, 1918—1921 gg., p. 49; David Footman, "Nestor Makhno," in St. Antony's Papers, no. 6, p. 79; Struve, "Istoricheskie materialy i dokumenty," p. 228; Edward Hallett Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923 (New York: Macmillan Co., 1951), 1:320.

15. G. Novopolin, "Makhno i guliai-pol'skaia gruppa anarkhistov," Katorga i ssylka, no. 34, p. 71. Valdemar Antoni was a Czech who in his youth lived with his uncle, a saloon owner, in Huliai-Pole where he attended school. After graduation Antoni left the town for Katerynoslav. Upon his return some years later he carried out political activities among his friends, bringing anarchist pamphlets and brochures from Katerynoslav, where he was a member of an anarchist group. Having gained the confidence of his friends, he suggested that they form an anarchist group under the direction of the Katerynoslav group headquarters, and Antoni acted as liaison between the two groups. The irony is that while many of the original members of the group paid with their lives for their activities, Antoni, the organizer of the first anarchist group at Huliai-Pole, emigrated to the United States in 1911 or 1912 (Anatol' Hak, "Pravda pro Huliai-Pole," Suchasnisf 12, no. 9 [1972]: 68, 72; Victor Peters, Nestor Makhno, pp. 19—24).

16. Makhno, Russkaia revoliutsiia, 1:58—59.

17. I. Teper [Gordeev], Makhno, pp. 22-23.

18. Makhno, Russkaia revoliutsiia, 1:107.

19. G. D. H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought (London: Macmillan & Co., 1958), 4:1, 211;Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution, 1917-23, 2:232.

20. Muromets, "Nestor Makhno," Probuzhdenie, nos. 52—53 (1934), p. 16.

21. Teper, Makhno, p. 27.

22. Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p. 56; George Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 20; Iwan Majstrenko, Borot'bism, p. 2.

23. D. Novak, "The Place of Anarchism in the History of Political Thought," The Review of Politics 20 (1958): 321; Paul Avrich, "The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution," The Russian Review 26, no. 4 (1967): 341-42.

24. Novak, "Place of Anarchism," pp. 321—22; Avrich, Russian Anarchists, pp. 72—73; Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 21; M. Ravich-Cherkas'kyi, Anarkhisty, pp. 37 ff.; Erde, "Politychna prohrama anarkho-makhnovshchyny," p. 44.

25. Novak, "Place of Anarchism," pp. 322—23; Avrich, Russian Anarchists, p. 56; Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 324.

26. V. V. Komin, Anarkhizm v Rossii, p. 203.

27. Ibid., pp. 203-4.

28. Izvestiia, no. 83 (347), April 26, 1918, as quoted in Komin, Anarkhizm v Rossii, p. 204.

29. Izvestiia, no. 91 (355), May 10, 1918, as quoted in Komin, Anarkhizm v Rossii, p. 205; see also B. I. Gorev, " 'Anarkhizm podpol'ia' i makhnovshchina," in Anarkhizm v Rossii, pp. 126—27.

30. Arshinov, Istoriia makhnovskogo dvizheniia, pp. 236—37; Romuald Wojna, "Nestor Machno," Z pola walki 13, no. 2 (50) (1970): 66; P. Rudenko, Na Ukraine, p. 21;Teper, Makhno, p. 38.

31. Pervaia konferentsiia anarkhistskikh organizatsii Ukrainy "Nabat," pp. 5—7.

32. Rezoliutsii pervogo s'ezda Konfederatsii anarkhistskikh organizatsii Ukrainy "Nabat," pp. 7-19.

33. Teper, Makhno, pp. 16—18; Volin, "Primechaniia" in Makhno, Pod udarami kontr-revoliutsii, 2:158; Anatolii Gorelik, Anarkhisty v rossiiskoi revoliutsii, pp. 19—20; IA. IAkovlev, Russkii anarkhizm v velikoi russkoi revoliutsii, p. 16; Wojna, "Nestor Machno," p. 66.

34. Teper, Makhno, pp. 38, 111.

35. Goldman, Living My Life, p. 813.

36. During its existence over forty issues were published, but only a few numbers are to be found in the libraries of Western countries; some of the thousands of leaflets issued by the Makhno army can likewise be found in the West (I. J. van Rossum, ed., "Proclamations of the Makhno Movement, 1920," International Review of Social History 13, pt. 2:249).

37. Voline, Unknown Revolution, p. 157; Ravich-Cherkas'kyi, Anarkhisty, pp. 58—59; Footman, "Nestor Makhno," pp. 110—11; Anatolii Gorelik, Goneniia na anarkhizm v Sovetskoi Rossii, p. 20; G. P. Maximoff, The Guillotine at Work, p. 358; Kubanin, Makhnovshchina, p. 206.

38. Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 424; Volin, "Delo 'Nabata,'" DT, nos. 7—8 (1925—26); p. 4; Rudenko, Na Ukraine, pp. 22—24; Kubanin, Makhnovshchina, p. 213.

39. Goldman, Living My Life, p. 765.