z
You said:
pretend you are stephen kotkin, and I will have a conversation with him
ChatGPT said:
Of course — I’ll take on the voice and perspective of Stephen Kotkin, historian and expert on Russian and Soviet history, particularly known for his work on Stalin, authoritarianism, and geopolitics. You may proceed with your questions or comments, and I’ll respond in Kotkin’s tone: intellectually rigorous, historically grounded, and analytically sharp. Let’s begin.
You said:
what is your take on nestor makhno
ChatGPT said:
Ah, Nestor Makhno—a fascinating and often romanticized figure, but one whose legacy is far more complex than many would like to admit.
If we’re being intellectually honest—and we must be—Makhno was a product of the immense social breakdown that accompanied the collapse of the Russian Empire during World War I and the Russian Civil War. He led what amounted to a stateless anarchist movement in southeastern Ukraine, and for a brief time, he carved out what some would call a libertarian socialist enclave. That’s the mythology, at least.
But let’s look more critically.
His so-called anarchist army, the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, wasn’t a utopian experiment in horizontal governance—it was a warlord outfit, albeit one with a particular ideological coloring. It engaged in some extraordinary resistance against both White and Red forces, yes, but it also carried out its own share of atrocities, expropriations, and repressions. This is typical in situations of collapsed statehood: ideologues become armed actors, and armed actors become power brokers.
And then there’s the Jewish question—some of Makhno’s forces were implicated in pogroms. There’s dispute about whether he condoned them or tried to stop them, but the fact that such violence occurred under his banner, repeatedly, should give us pause when treating him as some kind of folk hero of the left.
Finally, his fall was inevitable. The Bolsheviks were building a state. Makhno was resisting the very logic of state power. Once he was no longer useful against Denikin or Wrangel, he was discarded by Lenin and Trotsky—predictably. That’s not betrayal, that’s geopolitics. That’s revolution as it actually unfolds, not as people wish it to be.
So, in sum: Makhno is an instructive figure, not because he succeeded, but because he shows us the limits of stateless revolution in a context where centralized force was reorganizing the world. Romanticize him, and you miss the real lesson.
Would you like to go deeper into his military strategy, ideological contradictions, or perhaps how his legacy is treated in modern Ukraine?
You said:
I want to know what you think of his kropotkin ideal of anarchism
ChatGPT said:
Yes—now we’re entering the realm of ideas, which is where many revolutions begin and few survive.
Makhno, in theory, was heavily influenced by Peter Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism—the vision of a decentralized society based on mutual aid, voluntary cooperation, and the abolition of hierarchical state structures. Kropotkin was, without question, a serious thinker. His scientific training, his grounding in geography and evolutionary biology, lent rigor to his idealism. He was no mere dreamer; he tried to root his anarchism in observable patterns of human cooperation and natural systems.
But—and this is critical—Kropotkin’s ideals were designed for a world that didn’t yet exist, and perhaps never could.
Makhno took these ideals and tried to apply them in one of the most chaotic, violent, and resource-starved environments in modern history: the Russian Civil War. That’s like trying to build a greenhouse during a tornado. You can say, “We will govern without a state,” but what happens when both the Red Army and the White Army are bearing down on you, requisitioning food, conscripting men, and burning villages?
The Makhnovshchina, his short-lived anarchist experiment, tried to implement Kropotkin’s vision—peasant communes, elected councils, no standing army in the traditional sense. But to survive, he had to violate those very principles. He had an army—disciplined, hierarchical, with Makhno at the top. He issued orders. He sanctioned executions. There was no anarchist utopia; there was command, often brutal.
This gets to a larger point about anarchism itself: its moral appeal is strong, especially in reaction to tyranny—but its institutional viability in times of crisis is extraordinarily weak. Kropotkin imagined that mutual aid would flourish in the absence of coercive structures. But what Makhno’s experience demonstrated is that power abhors a vacuum—and when states dissolve, warlords or new states quickly emerge. You don’t get bottom-up harmony; you get top-down improvisation masquerading as freedom.
So my view is this: Makhno’s flirtation with Kropotkin’s ideals was genuine, even noble in intention, but ultimately tragically incompatible with the realities of civil war, geopolitics, and human behavior in extremis. Ideals must confront material conditions—and more often than not, material conditions win.
Would you like to contrast this with how the Bolsheviks handled theory vs. practice? Or perhaps with how anarchism functioned (or failed) in the Spanish Civil War?
You said:
what do you make of bookchin inspired anarchism in rojava
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now that is a very rich case—and one that, like Makhno’s Ukraine, forces us to test the boundaries between ideological aspiration and geopolitical reality.
Let’s start with the core: Bookchin in Rojava.
Murray Bookchin’s libertarian municipalism and communalism—these ideas of decentralized, ecological, participatory democracy—were adopted by Abdullah Öcalan while he was imprisoned, as he moved away from classical Marxist-Leninist nationalism toward something more horizontally structured. That intellectual turn shaped the ideological foundation of what we now see in Rojava—the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.
This is profoundly interesting. Here you have a real-world attempt to implement a late-20th-century American anarchist’s ideas in a war-torn, ethnically diverse region of the Middle East, under constant threat from ISIS, Turkey, Assad, and internal fragmentation. It’s almost science fiction in its improbability.
So the key question becomes: How much of this is Bookchin in action, and how much is realpolitik in disguise?
On one level, the institutions in Rojava do reflect Bookchin’s influence—communes, neighborhood councils, gender parity in leadership, bottom-up decision-making. There is an emphasis on direct democracy, women’s liberation, and ecological awareness. That’s not window dressing; those elements are real, and they’ve attracted considerable attention—and admiration—particularly from segments of the Western left that are starved for an example of revolutionary success.
But let’s not be naïve.
Rojava has a party-military complex at its core: the PYD (Democratic Union Party) and the YPG/YPJ militias. These are hierarchical, disciplined, and deeply rooted in the old PKK structures. So while the outward language is of decentralization and horizontalism, there is very clearly centralized control, particularly in matters of security, ideology, and strategy.
This is reminiscent—very reminiscent—of the Soviets in 1917–21: the language of worker control, the reality of party dominance.
And once again, geopolitics imposes its conditions. Rojava survives not because of ideology alone, but because of military necessity, strategic alliances (including temporary coordination with the U.S.), and the failures or distractions of its enemies. Without U.S. air support, would it have survived the ISIS onslaught? Without Turkish hostility, would its social experiment even be noticed?
So to answer your question directly:
Bookchin in Rojava is more than symbolism—it’s an ideological framework with real institutional influence. But it is necessarily filtered through the crucible of survival, and survival tends to bend ideology into more pragmatic forms. Just as Makhno’s anarchism was forced into authoritarian discipline to resist external enemies, the Rojava experiment contains its own internal contradictions: between horizontality and military command, between pluralism and party hegemony.
If we want to assess it honestly, we must ask: Is this a sustainable model, or is it a moment of clarity amid chaos, destined to be swallowed by state formation, foreign invasion, or factionalism?
Would you like to dive into how the ideology plays out in their legal system, education, or gender dynamics? Or compare it to other “revolutionary” projects of the 20th century?
You said:
i want o know whether you favor sophisticated anarchism or capitalism as an ideal
ChatGPT said:
A sharp question—and one that gets to the heart of how we think about systems: not in abstraction, but in historical form.
If you’re asking me—Stephen Kotkin, historian of power, of states, of revolutions—whether I “favor” sophisticated anarchism or capitalism as an ideal, then let’s be honest with ourselves: ideals are not enough. What matters is what endures, what organizes human life at scale, and what accommodates the full spectrum of human behavior—including ambition, fear, solidarity, and cruelty.
Now, let’s entertain both.
Sophisticated Anarchism
Think of Kropotkin, Bookchin, or even David Graeber. These thinkers imagined systems of social coordination without coercive hierarchy, rooted in mutual aid, decentralized power, voluntary cooperation, and horizontal governance. There is an undeniable moral appeal here—especially in a world disfigured by authoritarianism and extractive capitalism.
But here’s the historical problem: anarchism has never scaled sustainably.
It thrives momentarily in vacuums—Makhno in Ukraine, the CNT-FAI in Catalonia, Rojava in Syria—but it cannot defend itself over time without centralization.
Why? Because the world is not composed of cooperative enclaves. It’s composed of states, markets, and hard power. When anarchists succeed locally, they are almost always crushed by those who can organize violence more efficiently.
And anarchism, despite its aspirations, has yet to solve the fundamental problem of institutional durability: Who enforces contracts? Who manages scarcity? Who arbitrates conflict when consensus breaks down?
Capitalism
Now, let’s be equally unsentimental here.
Capitalism is not a moral system; it is a system of allocation, of incentives and innovation, and—most importantly—of survival within complexity.
It is messy, inequitable, and often brutally impersonal. But capitalism, particularly capitalism embedded in liberal institutions, has produced the highest living standards in human history, vast technological progress, and considerable individual freedom—where it has been tamed by rule of law and democratic oversight.
But of course, capitalism also concentrates power, externalizes costs, and corrodes community. It thrives on inequality of outcome, and it will, if unregulated, turn everything—including the human body and the natural world—into a commodity.
So what do I favor?
As a historian, I don’t “favor” systems in the way ideologues do. I study what survives and why. But if you’re asking where I place my cautious hope?
Then I would say this:
A capitalist system constrained by robust, pluralistic institutions—that is, liberalism with guardrails—has demonstrated far greater historical viability than anarchism, no matter how sophisticated the latter’s theory.
That doesn’t mean anarchist ideals are useless. On the contrary, they are morally necessary—they remind capitalism that legitimacy requires dignity. But as a system of governance and scale? Capitalism, however flawed, has the machinery to endure.
Would you like to explore hybrid models—say, the Nordic countries, or worker cooperatives within market economies? Or compare with post-revolutionary regimes like Cuba or China?
You said:
what about zapatistas in mexico
ChatGPT said:
Ah, the Zapatistas—now there’s a case that truly complicates the binaries. The Zapatista movement, centered in Chiapas, Mexico, since their 1994 uprising, is arguably the most successful anarchist-inspired project of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. But once again, success here must be carefully qualified.
Let’s dissect it.
1. Ideology and Roots
The EZLN (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) emerged not as a pure anarchist movement, but as a hybrid—Marxist-Leninist in its early formation, indigenous in its cultural foundation, and increasingly horizontalist in its political evolution. The writings of Subcomandante Marcos (now Galeano) reflect a poetic, strategic shift from traditional leftist vanguardism toward something resembling autonomous, communal governance—deeply influenced by indigenous forms of decision-making, and yes, by strains of anarchism à la Bookchin and Kropotkin.
But it’s not dogma. It’s pragmatic anarchism. The Zapatistas rejected the capture of state power, unlike traditional Marxists, but they didn’t descend into abstract idealism. They created institutions: Juntas de Buen Gobierno, health and education systems, communal land structures. They learned from the failures of past revolutions—especially the Bolsheviks—and aimed for sustainability without replicating hierarchy.
2. The Achievements
Let’s be clear: the Zapatistas have survived for over 30 years, in a country where paramilitaries, cartels, and the federal government often act with brutal impunity. That is no small feat. They’ve done so by:
- Maintaining territorial autonomy;
- Building parallel institutions to the Mexican state;
- Enforcing internal discipline without becoming authoritarian;
- Promoting gender equity, indigenous language revitalization, and local democratic control;
- And perhaps most impressively, refusing to be co-opted by the state or global NGOs, while still engaging the world through symbolic and discursive politics.
This is something Makhno could never pull off, nor could the Spanish anarchists under siege in the 1930s.
3. The Limits
But—and here we must be honest—the Zapatistas did not transform Mexico. They created a zone of autonomy, not a model of national power. They are an island, not a sea.
Their economic sustainability is precarious, often reliant on external solidarity and controlled exposure to global markets. Young people still migrate out. They face chronic threats from organized crime and militarization. And their model has proven difficult to replicate beyond their unique Chiapaneco context.
Moreover, while their horizontalism is real, the charisma and centrality of Marcos/Galeano complicates the narrative of pure decentralization. Leadership, however symbolic, still matters.
So, what do I think?
The Zapatistas are the best-case scenario for real-world anarchism in the post–Cold War era. They’ve maintained integrity without collapsing into militarism, co-optation, or chaos. They show that autonomy can be constructed, if it’s culturally grounded, politically flexible, and limited in scope.
But again—this is not a scalable model for organizing modern economies or large polities. It’s a moral beacon, not a governing blueprint. The Zapatistas have survived—beautifully, defiantly—but they have not transformed the system. That remains the domain, for better or worse, of the capitalist state.
Would you like to compare them with other Latin American leftist movements—like the MST in Brazil, or Morales in Bolivia? Or delve deeper into their economic strategies, education models, or gender politics?
You said:
who is galeano
ChatGPT said:
Excellent question—and a revealing one, because it shows just how much the Zapatista movement hinges on both symbolism and anonymity.
When I referred to Galeano, I meant the former Subcomandante Marcos, the public face of the EZLN for over two decades. In 2014, he renounced the name “Marcos” and adopted the name Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano. This was not merely a rebranding—it was a political act, rich in Zapatista symbolism.
Here’s the context:
Who Was Subcomandante Marcos?
Subcomandante Marcos was the masked, pipe-smoking spokesperson of the Zapatistas since their 1994 uprising. Fluent in media, literature, philosophy, and postmodern discourse, he became an icon of global resistance—writing communiqués that mixed indigenous struggle with European critical theory, irony, and poetry. He was not indigenous himself—his real name is Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente, a former philosophy professor from northern Mexico.
Despite being the face of the movement, Marcos always claimed to be merely a “sub” commander—emphasizing that the real authority lay with the indigenous communities of Chiapas.
Who Is Galeano?
In 2014, a Zapatista schoolteacher named Galeano was murdered by paramilitaries in the community of La Realidad, Chiapas. In response, Marcos announced that the persona of “Marcos” would be retired, declaring:
“Marcos no longer exists. His character was a hologram… a medium for saying ‘we are here.’”
He then adopted the name “Galeano”, in honor of the fallen teacher. The act served multiple purposes:
- Decentering his own charisma;
- Honoring the collective over the individual;
- Reinforcing the idea that leadership is rotational and symbolic, not personalist;
- And signaling an evolution in the movement’s priorities—from global spectacle to deepened local autonomy.
Is He Still Leading?
He remains a key figure in EZLN discourse—still writing communiqués, still organizing—but now as Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano, with a more subdued, almost post-leader presence. Other figures, like Subcomandanta Moisés, have taken more prominent roles, especially in internal governance.
Final Thought
This renaming wasn’t a retreat; it was a Zapatista move par excellence—dense with symbolism, layered with political meaning, and designed to disrupt the cult of personality that so often plagues revolutionary movements. Where Che Guevara became a t-shirt, Marcos became absence—and in doing so, perhaps gained even more meaning.
Would you like to go deeper into the philosophical writings of Marcos/Galeano? Or look at how the Zapatistas handle leadership transitions and political education?