[fuser]

Thanks to government regulation, I am entitled of obligatory leave for vacations from my employer unlike the medieval peasants who lived on the mercy of their lord protector. Then, you seem to underestimate the economical circumstances from where all these concepts of "freedom" arise. What is the use of freedom of going to France, when you can't afford to go to France?

I here by declare all poor in sub Saharan Africa to be absolutely free for moving into las vegas, now how good that freedom is?

[SolarCross]

When the modern peasent can travel where he will with only the permission of those he is in direct contract with then you might have a point until then you don't.

[fuser]

No, you don't decide the rule of this debate, you are trying to shift the goal posts now, while totally ignoring my second point. We are not living in a libertarian paradise right now (thank whomever the god/s may be), the point was about "freedom to travel" and not how that freedom comes into conception. For all your rhetoric about "freedom", it seems that you care more about "how" that freedom comes of rather than the freedom itself.

The point is a person nowadays is far more freer than a medieval peasant economically and politically with the increasing size of government.

[Quantum]

The only reason why America originally had a "small" government was simply because it lacked the technological and infrastructural mean to enforce such a large country and had little manpower to do so. A person back then could have slipped beyond the Appalachians, far beyond the outreach of the government and with global telecommunications, monitoring is cheaper than ever. Big government is here to stay and won't wither away like anarchists wish.

[Rich]

Most freedoms of today are technological in origin rather than political. If a medieval english peasent wanted to go on a pilgrimage to france he would need the permission of his employer only but he would have to walk. The modern peasent must get the persmission of his employer, the permission the government of england (passport) and the government of france (visa) but having got all that he can take a plane rather than walk. So the modern peasent has less political freedom yet more technical freedom.

Stop talking drivel. First you don't need a visa. You can leave your employer at any time. You can go on a holiday or get a job. In medieval times you had to to doff your cap to every Lord and superior. if the local Lord didn't want you in his domain then that was that. At times even dress codes were enforced according to social class. Religious rules were often rigidly enforced, no deviation from official doctrine was allowed. Peasants could be whipped or have other savage punishments inflicted on them by their social superiors. King, Lord, Church and Guild put massive restrictions on what you couldn't do and what you had to do. Attending church for example was not a voluntary act.

[SolarCross]

Fuser - Ah the twisted orwellian logic of the statist, 'the bigger the government the bigger the freedom' cos you know 'freedom is slavery' right? I am of course in no way suggesting we go back to medieval technology or political-economic models. But I do wonder what the least free member medieval society, the serf, would make of the modern lord's lust to have people buy permission to drive a car, travel, build a house, trade and the modern lord's quest to know every intimate detail of his subjects' life. More technology and less government is just obviously the way to go forward.

Such economic freedoms as we have come from technology, cars instead of carts, telephones instead of shouting etc not from bureaucrats with their endless petty permission rackets. Quantum raises an interesting point how technology also enhances governments ability to restrict human freedom and autonomy. So technology whilst enhancing the practical freedom of the people also enhances the power of the state to restrict the freedom of the people.

[Phred]

I've only scan read the posts so far and I'm not very knowledgeable about US political history (not my country) but so far no one seems to disagree with Rothbardians original point that Minarchism doesn't work as evidenced by the US.

No, it shows that minarchism suffered from "mission creep" in the US. This does nothing to show minarchism qua minarchism can't work, it merely shows that the people of the US allowed their federal government to engage in more than minarchism.


Phred

[fuser]

No taxizen, read rich's post first, you are just being dogmatic, a medieval peasant had far less political freedom than today's working folk. You can't deny that. Freedom can be restricted through different channels other than a formal government (as in case of a medieval serf)and your failure to see that is plain dogmatism.

[SolarCross]

The charge of dogmatism is funny, to my knowledge most people believe the meme that they have more political freedom now than ever, so my suggestion that in some respects the reverse might be true practically constitutes heresy. Part of the trouble of determining relative freedom is that politics is invariable interlinked with economics very closely. Maybe comparing a serf with a modern citizen / wage earner is not too easy because your view will depend a lot on whether you see his relationship with his lord as an economic business arrangement or a political one. I think people in modern times tend to see it as a political arrangement but to me it seems more an economic one. The lord with whom the serf has a vassal contract is really an employer (equivalent to a modern capitalist) or at least a landlord not a politician. Economically the serf is equivalent to a modern wage-earner and tenant and in this respect is quite less free than the modern wage-earner or tenant although did have the perhaps dubious but now rare advantage of a 'job for life'. Outside of the direct contractual economic arrangement with his lord the serf practically has no political masters, the closest to being so is the church but that contrary to Rich's pop culture assertions was not typically a coercive relationship, the local vicar did not usually threaten to kill people if they failed to go to church. The clincher comes when we see what happens if the serf gives up the economic security of vassalage and leaves the lord's service. Then he becomes a freeman. Freemen in the middle ages were men without a lord or master and had to make their own way in the world but they were both economically and politically free to an extent unimaginable today. Of course because the aristos had stolen most if not all the land, making a living could be really marginal. If a serf becomes a freeman he will likely have to resort to beggary, banditry, busking, charcoal burning or other really poor means of making a living, which is why not many opted for that lifestyle. Many freeman were not ex-serfs though, and some were quite rich, especially artisans, traders, merchants, freehold farmers, mercenaries and the like.

The modern serf is doubly a serf, he is serf to his employer and a serf to his political masters, the government. See the permission and protection rackets run by politicians and bureaucrats are really just about extracting wealth from the modern serf / citizen; the obedience they obtain through their police force serves this purpose foremostly.

[fuser]

Yes, you are being dogmatic with your narrow world view i.e basically, "government = evil, no government = paradise" irrespective of any hard facts.

[SolarCross]

No, it shows that minarchism suffered from "mission creep" in the US. This does nothing to show minarchism qua minarchism can't work, it merely shows that the people of the US allowed their federal government to engage in more than minarchism.
Phred

Yes I see that argument, but government's tendancy to 'mission creep' does mean though that keeping a minarchy in its place necessitates a constant vigilance on the part of the people and some means by which they can periodically whip the beast back into its cage. Do you have any suggestions how that may be done?

[Rothbardian]

Thanks to government regulation, I am entitled of obligatory leave for vacations from my employer unlike the medieval peasants who lived on the mercy of their lord protector. Then, you seem to underestimate the economical circumstances from where all these concepts of "freedom" arise. What is the use of freedom of going to France, when you can't afford to go to France?

I here by declare all poor in sub Saharan Africa to be absolutely free for moving into las vegas, now how good that freedom is?

So if I am willing to work a job that does not offer vacation, I am not free to do so, and you would argue that this means freedom.

Or if I, as an employer, want to offer jobs without vacation knowing full well that I'm already cutting out the best candidates, I am not free to do so, and that, to you, is an atmosphere of freedom.

I would call this the obvious blatant hypocrisy of statism.

Can you point to whose position specifically you are referring?

Anyone that's not an anarchist, especially minarchists, take this position.

The only reason why America originally had a "small" government was simply because it lacked the technological and infrastructural mean to enforce such a large country and had little manpower to do so. A person back then could have slipped beyond the Appalachians, far beyond the outreach of the government and with global telecommunications, monitoring is cheaper than ever. Big government is here to stay and won't wither away like anarchists wish.

How can you say that considering the nature of governments, including the monarchy, prior to the industrial revolution, and all the revolutions that followed in Europe? Even Marx acknowledged that the far smaller capitalist governments that emerged were better than the systems that existed previously.

Stop talking drivel. First you don't need a visa. You can leave your employer at any time. You can go on a holiday or get a job. In medieval times you had to to doff your cap to every Lord and superior. if the local Lord didn't want you in his domain then that was that. At times even dress codes were enforced according to social class. Religious rules were often rigidly enforced, no deviation from official doctrine was allowed. Peasants could be whipped or have other savage punishments inflicted on them by their social superiors. King, Lord, Church and Guild put massive restrictions on what you couldn't do and what you had to do. Attending church for example was not a voluntary act.

And this challenges the position that governments do not bring freedom how?

No, it shows that minarchism suffered from "mission creep" in the US. This does nothing to show minarchism qua minarchism can't work, it merely shows that the people of the US allowed their federal government to engage in more than minarchism.


Phred

Minarchism can't work because it violates the non aggression principle. The U.S. is the most recent and best evidence that violating the non aggression principle never works as intended. It was by far the best attempt ever made to make it work and such an opportunity will never come again, except maybe when we colonize Mars. A libertarian can generally tell you why a state run economic or social program will fail, yet most simply can't apply that logic to the very existence of government.

Yes, you are being dogmatic with your narrow world view i.e basically, "government = evil, no government = paradise" irrespective of any hard facts.

I'm sorry you didn't understand the position, assuming you're not being intentionally deceptive.

The argument is not that no government means paradise. Living standards in the U.S. Empire are obviously far better than stateless Somalia, for example. The argument is that it's impossible to keep a minimalist government small.

There are a number of principled reasons that libertarians USUALLY understand very well that explain this. It's unfortunate that rather than discuss these seriously, you want to a comment as silly as 'libertarians think that if there's a free market in health care, no one will ever get sick!'

[lucky]

I just don't understand this position that we absolutely have to betray our values, otherwise society will cease to function

Anyone that's not an anarchist, especially minarchists, take this position.

False: I am not an anarchist and I do not take that position. I don't think many people take such a position. The position can be interpreted in two ways, but neither applies:
- I am not betraying my own values by not being an anarchist since my values are not anarchist.
- I also don't take a position that society will cease to function unless anarchists betray their values. You guys are not that important.

[Joe Liberty]

I find this a great thread, since as a minarchist I have often pondered this same question. The Constitution as written is a pretty darned good attempt (though not perfect) at establishing a limited federal government. At the very least it clearly establishes the principles upon which it is based; the fact that it has strayed from those principles doesn't invalidate them in any way. But the question asked in this thread is a very good one, and I'm enjoying most of the discussion.

No, it shows that minarchism suffered from "mission creep" in the US. This does nothing to show minarchism qua minarchism can't work, it merely shows that the people of the US allowed their federal government to engage in more than minarchism.

Yes I see that argument, but government's tendancy to 'mission creep' does mean though that keeping a minarchy in its place necessitates a constant vigilance on the part of the people and some means by which they can periodically whip the beast back into its cage. Do you have any suggestions how that may be done?

Two ideas off the top of my head: demolish the government school system, and end income tax withholding.

The Prussian model on which the school system is based is designed to indoctrinate and train obedient worker bees, not teach people to think. As someone else once said: religious schools are designed and intended to support religion, so it follows that government schools are designed and intended to support government.

Instead of having your taxes withheld automatically, you'd have to sit down and write a check to Uncle Sam every quarter. Withholding shields people from the true cost of government spending. I think that would go a long way toward sparking a tax revolt.

Minarchism can't work because it violates the non aggression principle.

I disagree. A government that is empowered to defend borders and provide redress of grievances (a court system and police) is not in and of itself violating the NAP. It is established to respond to the initiation of aggression, not initiate aggression itself. So unless the NAP is now about pure pacifism instead of opposing just the initiation of aggression, a minarchist government is not a violation of it.

[Nunt]

I disagree. A government that is empowered to defend borders and provide redress of grievances (a court system and police) is not in and of itself violating the NAP. It is established to respond to the initiation of aggression, not initiate aggression itself. So unless the NAP is now about pure pacifism instead of opposing just the initiation of aggression, a minarchist government is not a violation of it.

A government has two basic properties:
1) It has a monopoly enforced with violence, that is: if you try to provide the same goods/services as the government provides, then the government will forcibly stop you.

2) A government will use tax money to provide for these services.

Both are a violation of the NAP. It agresses against people who have not committed a crime against others.

If you have a law enforcement organization who arrests and imprisons criminals, then the government will stop you and punish you. Even though you are doing exactly the same thing as the government does. This is clearly a violation of the NAP. Either punishing criminals is a violation of the NAP and the government is right to stop you, but not right to arrest criminals. Or punishing criminals is not a violation of the NAP and the government has no right to stop you. The NAP is universally applicable. It cannot be that an action that is not a violation of the NAP when the government does it, is a violation of the NAP when someone else does it.

Taxation is likewise a violation of the NAP. Taxation is by definition a non-voluntary, enforced by violence, transfer of property. If the government taxes someone who has committed no crime, then this isnt opposing the inititation of aggression. As the person did not iniate agression. If you tax, you have to initiate agression against someone, thus it is a violation of the NAP.

In contrast, in an anarchy:1) nobody has a legal monopoly and 2) funds are voluntarly transferred (donations,...). So either you would forbid the government from doing 1 and 2 and you are an anarchist. Or you are a minarchist, which means violating the NAP.

[SolarCross]

Yeah I agree with Nunt, rigorously speaking government by definition violates the NAP no matter how minimalist it is just as Nunt demonstrated. But I see what Joe L is aiming for.. an single organisation that provides internal and external security, you could have such a thing and avoid violating the NAP but it wouldn't qualify as a government or minarchy it would have to be anarchic. Something like Nestor Makhno's Black Army of the Ukrainian Free Territories for instance.

[Rich]

If you have a law enforcement organization who arrests and imprisons criminals

You mean arrests and imprisons suspects. The NAP is ridiculous. Lets say I'm arrested. The alleged offence of course might not even be a violation of the NAP under my chosen legal arbitration body. But leaving that aside. I then call up my law enforcing body and get them to come over and arrest your officials for false imprisonment. You presumably then have to then arrest my officials for falsely imprisoning your officials. And so it goes on. Lets all remember that people would be free to wander around fully armed. Guns, anti tank, anti air weapons. There's no reason every pick up trucks couldn't have its own built in mortar. Even cars could be armed with White Phosphorous. So arresting a person wouldn't necessarily be easy. Anyone's free to try to arrest anyone they want if they consider them to have committed a crime. They can try them by any method they choose. Use any standards for evidence they want. Set any punishment scheme they want. Anyone is free to resist. Everyone only has to answer to their conscience and their own higher legal body which could be themselves if they want it to be.

All human societies have a centralised monopoly on the legitimisation of violence, whether that's a clan elders council, a clan chief, a local Mafia boss or the federal government. Where the boundaries bewteen those polities are unclear and dispute we get war. That's why tribal societies have endemic warfare and the Roman empire was relatively peaceful.

Yeah I agree with Nunt, rigorously speaking government by definition violates the NAP no matter how minimalist it is just as Nunt demonstrated. But I see what Joe L is aiming for.. an single organisation that provides internal and external security, you could have such a thing and avoid violating the NAP but it wouldn't qualify as a government or minarchy it would have to be anarchic. Something like Nestor Makhno's Black Army of the Ukrainian Free Territories for instance.

I don't claim the following as Gospel. Its authors are Trotskists who I completely disagree with. It just starts to put de-construct the ridiculous Anarchist fantasy that you can do without a State. The only reason Makno maintains his pure image is because nobody was really interested in him, except sycophantic white washers (or Black washers if you prefer). The Maknovist territory was in reality a one party state under the Dear leader Chairman Makno.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

If it walks like a duck…

Anarchists identify authority as the root cause of human oppression. There is a wide range of opinion over what kind of authority is the “bad” kind—some reject all authority, others just hierarchical authority, and others just state authority. Most believe the authority of the majority over the minority (i.e., democracy) is antithetical to freedom. The inherent contradictions in this approach have been addressed in this magazine and elsewhere.60 When occupying cities or towns, Makhno’s troops would post notices on walls that read:

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.61

But left in control of territory that they wanted to secure, the Makhnovists ended up forming what most would call a state. The Makhnovists set monetary policy.62 They regulated the press.63 They redistributed land according to specific laws they passed. They organized regional legislative conferences. 64 They controlled armed detachments to enforce their policies.65 To combat epidemics, they promulgated mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health.66 Except for the Makhnovists, parties were banned from organizing for election to regional bodies. They banned authority with which they disagreed to “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves.”67 They delegated broad authority to a “Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.” The Makhnovists used their military authority to suppress rival political ideas and organizations.68 The anarchist historian Paul Avrich notes, “the Military-Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Guliai-Pole.”69

Why did self-proclaimed anarchists create a state? They were not confused or impure. They built a state because they had no choice. Ultimately, states are coercive instruments whereby one class rules society. A workers’ state is unique in history because the class wielding power does so in the interests of the vast majority. During the civil war, the Ukraine was far from a classless society, as the actions of the Makhnovists show. Of course, they never called their instrument a “state.” When reality overwhelms theory, anarchists have traditionally just created new labels. In 1873, Marx, Engels, and Lafargue wrote this analysis of the anarchist program:

Thus in this anarchistic organization…we have first the Council of the Commune, then the executive committees, which, to be able to do anything at all, must be vested with some power and supported by a public force; this is to be followed by nothing short of a federal parliament, whose principal object will be to organize this public force. Like the Commune Council, this parliament will have to assign executive power to one or more committees which by this act alone will be given an authoritarian character that the demands of the struggle will increasingly accentuate. We are thus confronted with a perfect reconstruction of all the elements of the “authoritarian State”; and the fact that we call this machine “a revolutionary commune organized from bottom to top” makes little difference. The name changes nothing of the substance.70

Anarchist attacks on the Bolsheviks’ civil war policies often focus on the severe military discipline, conscription, grain requisitioning, and creation of a secret police. Yet, under the same conditions of civil war, Makhno’s army adopted all these measures, albeit with different names.

In his army, Makhno claimed that units had the right to elect their commanders. However, he retained veto power over any decisions.71 He increasingly relied on a close group of friends for his senior command.72 As Darch notes, “Although some of Makhno’s aides attempted to introduce more conventional structures into the army, [Makhno]’s control remained absolute, arbitrary and impulsive.”73 One regiment found it necessary to pass a resolution that “all orders must be obeyed provided that the commanding officer was sober at the time of giving it.”74 As the war went on, his forces moved from voting on their orders to carrying out executions ordered by Makhno to enforce discipline.75

The pressures of war forced Makhno to move to compulsory military service, a far cry from the free association of individuals extolled in anarchist theory. Tellingly, all the anarchist histories call it a “voluntary” mobilization (complete with quotation marks).76 Historian David Footman describes the linguistic back-flips:

Accordingly, at Makhno’s insistence, the second Congress passed a resolution in favor of “general, voluntary and egalitarian mobilization.” The orthodox Anarchist line, expressed at an Anarchist gathering of this period, was that “no compulsory army…can be regarded as a true defender of the social revolution,” and debate ranged round the issue as to whether enlistment could be described as “voluntary” (whatever the feelings of individuals) if it took place as the result of a resolution voluntarily passed by representatives of the community as a whole.77

Just in case people did not understand the meaning of “voluntary,” the Makhnovists issued a clarifying bulletin:

Some groups have understood voluntary mobilization as mobilization only for those who wish to enter the Insurrectionary Army, and that anyone who for any reason wishes to stay at home is not liable…. This is not correct…. The voluntary mobilization has been called because the peasants, workers and insurgents themselves decided to mobilize themselves without awaiting the arrival of instructions from the central authorities.78

The Makhnovists needed conscription for the same reason the Bolsheviks did: the bulk of the peasantry was sick of fighting. The difference between the two is that the Bolsheviks had a political outlook that saw conscription as part of a transitional period with the future depending on world revolution, when the productive power of humanity first unleashed by capitalism could be brought to bear on all spheres of life, in the interest of the vast majority. The peasants of Russia and the Ukraine were still using wooden ploughs and harvesting by hand. They stood to gain immensely from an increase in both productivity and leisure time. In contrast, Makhno had no similar perspective and had no generalized plan or vision for the future.

An army needs to eat. As they moved through the Ukraine, locals would point out the kulaks who would “agree” to provide food.79 Despite orders to the contrary, Makhnovists would loot town after town, adding to the workers’ misery. One witness recalled:

Food supply was primitive, on the traditional insurgent pattern: the bratishki—the Makhnovists’ name for each other—would scatter to the peasant huts on entering a village, and eat what God sent; there was thus no shortage, although plundering and thoughtless damage to peasant stock did occur; I saw them shoot peasant cattle for fun more than once, amid the howls of women and children.80

From their earliest days, they took the equipment they needed from those who had it.81 As they passed through towns and villages, they required the populace to quarter them.82
While condemning the Soviet Cheka as an authoritarian betrayal, Makhno created two secret police forces that carried out numerous acts of terror.82 After a battle in one village, they shot a villager suspected of treachery with no trial. They summarily executed many of their prisoners of war.84 Their secret police were tasked with getting rid of “opponents within or outwith [sic] the movement.”85 Their activities led to one anarchist Congress asking Makhno to explain his activities:

It has been reported to us that there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik Cheka. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported.86

Makhno was not the saint his supporters suppose. He accepted a number of political posts despite, in Skirda’s words, it “amount[ing] to a relative infringement of the anarchist teaching that forbade acceptance of any formal authority.” But fear not—he took them only to “reduce the authority of those committees.” This is a standard weakness with anarchism. In the real world, it is impossible to dispense with all authority. Instead, anarchists rely on morally upstanding and special individuals. After all, the reasoning goes, authority is bad because ordinary people would quickly abuse it.87

Makhno declared public drunkenness of his soldiers a capital offense, but placed himself above his own law.88 As his close collaborator, Voline, notes in a chronicle of the movement:

His greatest fault was certainly the abuse of alcohol…. Under [its influence], Makhno became irresponsible in his actions; he lost control of himself. Then it was personal caprice, often supported by violence, that suddenly replaced his sense of revolutionary duty; it was the despotism, the absurd pranks, the dictatorial antics of a warrior chief.89

Others also note Makhno’s alcoholism.90

More disturbing was Makhno’s treatment of women. According to Voline, Makhno and his commanders would hold drunken parties that turned into “orgies in which certain women were forced to participate.”91 Again, Skirda defends Makhno. First, he quotes Makhno’s boasting to a comrade that “he could have any woman he wanted in his glory days.” Presumably Makhno was not raping women—they all wanted it. Then, Skirda asserts that Makhno’s wife, who traveled with him, would not have allowed it.92 However, theirs was clearly a complicated relationship. She tried to kill him when they were in exile. In later photos, his face bears a huge scar from her knife attack.93 What we know about the treatment of women in Makhno’s army reflects the politics of the peasantry whose struggles do not necessarily challenge the ruling ideas of society.

[Nunt]

You mean arrests and imprisons suspects. The NAP is ridiculous.

My arguement was about what the NAP is. Whether it is ridiculous or not is a whole other discussion.

[Rich]

Authoritarian societies can get away with less government structure. For example the Constitution didn't say anything about Sabbath observance, but that didn't mean that Sabbath observance wasn't enforced. The authoritarianism of the modern liberal state is very much on show. Less liberal societies can enforce tyranny much less openly. Its like a Mafia controlled area. The libertarians love it because their are no written laws. Thats why they love places like Somali. There's absolutely oodles of government, taxation, regulation and tyrrany but its just not done by an entity fan-faring itself as the "govnmunt". The fact is the United States at the end of the nineteen century was highly authoritarian. Society was still considerably less authoritarian than it had been a hundred and fifty years earlier. Which is why white slavery was vastly reduced. In a seventeenth century Britain when terrorist slaver filth like John Locke were strutting about and wanking off about liberty and social contract, a poor person could be seized, press ganged, shipped off to the colonies, indentured for seven years, the master then could invent crimes and get the rich / middle class run courts to keep lengthening their servitude till they keeled over and died. Somethings change slowly. The Nazis SS slavers even had the same jokes as the lazy Presbyterian slaver parasites three hundred years earlier and the poor oppressed Confederates who only kept slaves for the improvement of the Negro: "Arbeit Macht Frei"

As for imagining that the American founders were trying or even pretending to implement the so called no aggression principle. For God's sake get real. Violence was endemic to society. Parents beat their kids, husbands their wives, teachers their pupils, Guilds-men their apprentices, masters and their overseers beat their slaves and servants and the justices of the peace and the Lords and gentry and their retainers felt free to beat any of the lower orders who didn't treat the so called gentle folk with due deference. Of course in the 1770s as Dylan said the times they were a changing. The Red necks in Boston and the northern ports were starting to get decidedly uppity. But the leftie liberal lawyers of the North and the Southern slaver oligarchy rode the tiger well.

[SolarCross]

Black Army - Getting you ideas about the Black Army from the Bolsheviks is like getting your ideas about jews from nazis..

Wikipedia is much less biased
- Ukrainian Free Territory
- Black Army
- Nestor Makhno

For a more sympathetic look - Pyotr Ashinov's History of the Maknovist Movement