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

[…] skipping a paragraph and a quote for brevity

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.

military discipline and conscription:

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.

food requisitioning:

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

secret police:

While condemning the Soviet Cheka as an authoritarian betrayal, Makhno created two secret police forces that carried out numerous acts of terror.⁸³ 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

This is an excerpt from a longer article. I added the three headings for readability