Communist's thoughts on the Spanish Revolution?

[autotrophic]

I'm just interested in what all the different types of socialists thoughts are on the spanish revolution. I would think that this has been discussed before but after searching I have found nothing. I am especially interested in non-anarchist viewpoints, simply because that is my view point.

So Trokskyists, Leninists, Marxists, Maoists, Luxembourgists, or whatever you are what are your opinions on the spanish revolution? I've been reading The Spanish Civil War by Hugh Thomas, and I've read a fair amount about it online. It seems to me that it was largely successful, and probably the closest thing to communism/anarchism ever implemented.

Did syndicalism influence any communists ideas in offering radical unions as an alternative method of organization from the party?

[Yehuda Stern]

I think (unsurprisingly) that the best things written on that revolution are Trotsky's writings, which you can find on the Marxists Internet Archive. In a nutshell, the Spanish revolution was in essence very much like the Bolshevik revolution, only there was no revolutionary party like the Bolshevik party present. There was a tiny Trotskyist group of around 8 people, but it failed to make any impact, unfortunately. Consequently, the Kerenskys of the Spanish revolution - the Socialist Party, the stalinized Communist Party, the Anarchists and the centrist POUM - managed to hold back the revolution, which in turn led to the victory of Franco's forces.

Basically, the Spanish revolution ended similarily to what would have happened had the Bolsheviks not had much influence in 1917 Russia and Kornilov's rebellion against the Kerensky government ended in his victory.

[proudhon10]

The government

[ComradeOm]

Spain is definitely interesting but, as will surely be demonstrated, people's views on it tend to be coloured by their own political affiliations. The most common opinion seems to be it was an almost-successful revolution that was stolen by the evil Communists/anarchists/Trots. Or all of them at the same time. You'd be surprised just how rarely the fascists actually feature in such discussions

In my own opinion, the most important lessons to be drawn from the affair in Spain are fairly practical. In particular the failure of the militia structure is a something that is often overlooked


Did syndicalism influence any communists ideas in offering radical unions as an alternative method of organization from the party?Long story short, no. Spain was really the last outpost of organised syndicalism in Europe and was unique in that this was the one country where its revolutionary strand became a genuine mass movement, overshadowing the more orthodox Marxists and anarchists. Following both WWI and 1917 syndicalism was fairly discredited only fragments of this once impressive movement survived the subsequent wave of 'Bolshevikisation'. It did however have a significant impact on pre-war Marxists, particularly in the US, such as Connolly or DeLeon

[proudhon10]

(sorry, i posted 2 words, im continuing it here) at the time of the spanish revolution was a Bourgeoisie socialist government. It was overthrown by the Franco, a fascist. I beleive that a bourgeoisie governemnt influenced by communists and anarchists is better than fascism. During the war, some communities transfered there businesses over to workers and ran there areas in a mix of anracho-collectivism and anarcho-syndicalism. That was the only success of the Spanish revolution, proving the left-anarchism could potentially work in small communities.

[Yehuda Stern]

Actually, what the Spanish revolution proved was that despite their ultra-radical anti-parliamentary rhetoric, and their condemnation of 'authoritarian' Marxism, in a revolution where they had power, the Anarchists acted like run of the mill reformists. It is the historical proof of the reformist nature of Anarchism in general.

As for this:


Spain is definitely interesting but, as will surely be demonstrated, people's views on it tend to be coloured by their own political affiliations.

This would make sense in, say, a liberal forum. But in a revolutionary left forum, it is generally accepted that no 'opinion' is subjective, and that everything we see and do is "coloured by ... political affiliation", i.e. ideology, i.e. class interests. The only reason to even say that is to discredit views contrary to yours, which is obviously something "coloured" by your "political affiliation." As for


You'd be surprised just how rarely the fascists actually feature in such discussions

The fact is that the Bolsheviks defeated Kornilov and came to power, while the working class parties in Spain didn't defeat Franco and consequently he came to power. For this reason, it is important to discuss the actual differences on the side of the workers, and blaming everything on the fact that the fascists were just too damn strong is nothing more than a cop out.

[ComradeOm]

This would make sense in, say, a liberal forum. But in a revolutionary left forum, it is generally accepted that no 'opinion' is subjective, and that everything we see and do is "coloured by ... political affiliation", i.e. ideology, i.e. class interests. The only reason to even say that is to discredit views contrary to yours, which is obviously something "coloured" by your "political affiliation."Well that would be uncharitable of me. Who am I to accuse someone of being a petit-bourgeois fool whose sole preoccupation is mindlessly perpetuating byzantine sectarian feuds just because their opinion differs from my own? I mean, I might think it but if I allowed myself to act on this logic then they would be no scope for discussion on this forum at all. That's just an excuse to write off somebody else's opinion/stance altogether


The fact is that the Bolsheviks defeated Kornilov and came to power, while the working class parties in Spain didn't defeat Franco and consequently he came to power. For this reason, it is important to discuss the actual differences on the side of the workers, and blaming everything on the fact that the fascists were just too damn strong is nothing more than a cop out.And there were absolutely no material differences between Spain 1936 and Russia? The strength of the counter-revolutionary forces was the exact same? The only difference between the two scenarios was the absence of a "revolutionary party"?

There are many, many facets of the Spanish Civil War that are worth looking at. The complex interplay of class relations and political manoeuvrings is equally an important analysis as the operational history of the war. The problem is that your stance (Socialists, Communists, Trots, anarchists... all wrong except for 8 Trots of a different stripe) precludes either. You're not interested in an actual history of the war, just sallying forth to combat old foes in an endless exercise of futile sectarianism. I doubt you'll be alone in this - and you've already got the "anarchists were wrong, hur hur" ball rolling - but then that's RevLeft

[ZeroNowhere]

It is the historical proof of the reformist nature of Anarchism in general.
Do you know what the fuck you're talking about? Because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


The fact is that the Bolsheviks defeated Kornilov and came to power
...Defeated? They never actually engaged in battle, one side defeating the other would be fairly difficult. Of course, it did mean that the bolshies got armed by Kerensky's government, though they didn't really need that many for the October Revolution. Now, see, claiming that the existence of a 'revolutionary Party' would have made Franco not even attempt a coup, as you seem to be doing here with the comparison, is rather baseless. Presumably Kornilov got large amounts of foreign aid too. Uh huh.
Of course, the bolshies were quite happy to make up bullshit about it to demonize the Provisional Government, but anyhow. Anyways, the Kornilov affair was to the bolshies' advantage, while Franco's coup was not, and there is no reason to believe that more Trots would have suddenly turned it that way. Presumably Franco's forces would have suddenly gone, "Oh fuck, if we do this, maybe we'll be bugged by those annoying Trots again. Blah. Forget it."


blaming everything on the fact that the fascists were just too damn strong is nothing more than a cop out.
Yes, because Kornilov's force that didn't even fight the bolshies is comparable with Franco's Western-aided force that took power and fought the resisting armies. Hell, without foreign aid, he probably would've lost. Kornilov may or may not have been defeated, he didn't engage in combat to begin with.

As for syndicalism, I'm a De Leonist.

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you know what the fuck you're talking about? Because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I have no doubt that this is just part of a much more general problem of yours. Anyway, since Anarchists in the Spanish revolution acted no differently than common reformists, it discredited completely their claim to be anti-authoritarian and 'really revolutionary', unlike the Bolsheviks.

Re Spain, as you obviously have that problem I was talking about earlier, it is not very surprising that you did not understand my position. The bottom line was that a revolutionary party would've been able to conduct an effective struggle against fascism, and the coming to power of the workers could've certainly stopped the rise of Franco's rebellion, and also turned his colonial soldiers against him, seeing as they supported him mainly because the 'democratic' government refused to let go of the colonies. But then, none of this really matters when all we want to is to protect Anarchists, throw around the word "fuck", and try to sound cool.

[Pogue]

I have no doubt that this is just part of a much more general problem of yours. Anyway, since Anarchists in the Spanish revolution acted no differently than common reformists, it discredited completely their claim to be anti-authoritarian and 'really revolutionary', unlike the Bolsheviks.

Re Spain, as you obviously have that problem I was talking about earlier, it is not very surprising that you did not understand my position. The bottom line was that a revolutionary party would've been able to conduct an effective struggle against fascism, and the coming to power of the workers could've certainly stopped the rise of Franco's rebellion, and also turned his colonial soldiers against him, seeing as they supported him mainly because the 'democratic' government refused to let go of the colonies. But then, none of this really matters when all we want to is to protect Anarchists, throw around the word "fuck", and try to sound cool.

Wait, anarchists are against the state and capitalism and so are definatly against reform. What the fuck are you talking about?

Surely the fact that a leadership sold revolutionary workers out in a bourgeois government further suggests the validity of anarchist analysis? Those 'leaders' acted as self-proclaimed 'leaders' in bourgeois governments do, and thus betrayed anarchism and the workers.

Your analysis is as stupid as saying that because Trotsky crushed the workers in kronstadt, its evidence that at its nature, trotskyism is anti-revolutionary and anti-worker.

I'd like you to explain how anarchism is reformist? Did you not even look into how much more revolutionary the workers in the CNT were than the leadership? Or perhaps at how the FAI and Friends of Durruti criticised the CNTs leadership for being too reformist? Jesus, i've never seen soemtihng more idiotic in my life. Anarchism is reformist, what a joke.

[Pogue]

I have no doubt that this is just part of a much more general problem of yours. Anyway, since Anarchists in the Spanish revolution acted no differently than common reformists, it discredited completely their claim to be anti-authoritarian and 'really revolutionary', unlike the Bolsheviks.

Re Spain, as you obviously have that problem I was talking about earlier, it is not very surprising that you did not understand my position. The bottom line was that a revolutionary party would've been able to conduct an effective struggle against fascism, and the coming to power of the workers could've certainly stopped the rise of Franco's rebellion, and also turned his colonial soldiers against him, seeing as they supported him mainly because the 'democratic' government refused to let go of the colonies. But then, none of this really matters when all we want to is to protect Anarchists, throw around the word "fuck", and try to sound cool.

No, we want to just criticise your absolutely insane, baseless and incorrect historical analysis.

You do realise the Trotskyist POUM fought alongside the workers in the revolution, right?

[Pogue]

I think (unsurprisingly) that the best things written on that revolution are Trotsky's writings, which you can find on the Marxists Internet Archive. In a nutshell, the Spanish revolution was in essence very much like the Bolshevik revolution, only there was no revolutionary party like the Bolshevik party present. There was a tiny Trotskyist group of around 8 people, but it failed to make any impact, unfortunately. Consequently, the Kerenskys of the Spanish revolution - the Socialist Party, the stalinized Communist Party, the Anarchists and the centrist POUM - managed to hold back the revolution, which in turn led to the victory of Franco's forces.

Basically, the Spanish revolution ended similarily to what would have happened had the Bolsheviks not had much influence in 1917 Russia and Kornilov's rebellion against the Kerensky government ended in his victory.

I suppose your analysis would thus spread to Germany too. Oh wait but they had a vanguard people and they're revolution was not succesful. Oh well.

[Pogue]

Anyways...

My analysis of the revolution is similar to those held by most rational historians and is based upon logic and the first hand experiences of people such as George Orwell.

The anarchist revolution was a genuine revolution, i.e. it was worker run, it wasn't trying to replace a bourgeois state with another one, etc.

It worked, too. Productivity increased by 10%. And the anarchist organisation led to them being the first to rally to fight against Franco, even quicker than the central government.

The CNTs leadership was firstly less radical than the workers. But this was an anarchist revolution so it doesn't matter, because the workers led it. However yes, the anarchists did enter the bourgeois government. This isn't really relevant though.

Stalin feared the revolution because it was radical, and Stalin didn't like revolutions because they were not easily controlled and if he alligned with them (which he never would have) the western powers would have been unlikely to chum up with him. The Stalinists and reformists attacked the CNT and POUM in Barcalona, sending their leaders off god knows where, torturing people, executing people, chasing them out of Spain. This is quite simply historical fact. But we're all pretty certain Stalin was a reactionary and definatly not a revolutionary so you know.

Anyway the sheer numbers and funds the fascists had mixed with the Stalinist determination that you couldn't just let a workers revolution happen, you had to stop it all costs, led to a divided anti-fascist front with many of the best fighters being diverted to fight anarchists and Trotskyists (or social-fascists as Stalin called them, or just plain fascists in some cases) and many of the anarchist/Trot fighters being murdered, imprisoned, tortured etc. Look at Nin, for example. No one knows where Stalin sent him.

This was Stalinism, authoritarian 'socialism', at its worst. In my opinion this was his (Stalin's) most unforgivable crime too. And that says something.

It was the best example of a workers revolution ever though, and created a worker run society that worked, and it was brutally attacked by the enemies of the workers, bourgeois governments, Stalinists and then obviously fascists.

[ComradeOm]

You do realise the Trotskyist POUM fought alongside the workers in the revolution, right?In the case of the POUM, Andrés Nin had disagreed with Trotsky in 1935. As Yehuda made clear, there were only "around 8 people" in Spain at the time who could be considered true Trots

[Pogue]

In the case of the POUM, Andrés Nin had disagreed with Trotsky in 1935. As Yehuda made clear, there were only "around 8 people" in Spain at the time who could be considered true Trots

They still had alot of people fighting under them who were vital to the revolution and anti-fascist struggle.

[BobKKKindle$]

However yes, the anarchists did enter the bourgeois government. This isn't really relevant though.How is it not relevant? Yehuda pointed out that the anarchists were reformist, and you've just admitted that the leadership of the anarchist movement participated directly in the executive arm of the bourgeois state, by becoming part of the government alongside other so-called socialist and bourgeois organizations, whereas what the anarchists should have done in order to remain consistent with their radical rhetoric and fight for the class interests of the Spanish proletariat, and what the small number of Trotskyists in Spain at that time did do, albeit with little success due to their numerical weakness and the political dominance of the Stalinists, was call for the complete destruction of the bourgeois state, including its military apparatus, and its replacement with a genuine and democratic proletarian state based on Soviet democracy. This confirms Yehuda's argument.


The CNTs leadership was firstly less radical than the workers.Surely a revolutionary leadership is supposed to be rooted in the working class, in which case this assertion would lead us to believe that the CNT was not a genuine revolutionary movement, because you seem to be suggesting that the leadership was separate from the Spanish proletariat, and not democratically accountable. The pseudo-Trotskyist POUM and the revolutionary Bolsheviks in 1917 did not fight "alongside" the workers - they were workers, because the entire point of a revolutionary party is to give coherent and organized expression to the most militant and politically conscious section of the working class, not to have a group of intellectuals with no experience of life as a member of the working class dictating strategies and ideas to the proletariat.


I suppose your analysis would thus spread to Germany too. Oh wait but they had a vanguard people and they're revolution was not succesful. Oh well.Actually, one of the key errors of Rosa Luxemburg, the intellectual leader of the proletarian vanguard in Germany, despite her outstanding theoretical contributions and experience as a militant, was that she operated inside a reformist organization (the SPD) and only broke away from this organization and formed her own party in the form of the Spartacist League in 1918, and as such this new party, despite its revolutionary program, did not have time to develop organic links with the mass working class, and consequently the SPD was able to maintain its leading position and eventually led the German proletariat to defeat at the hands of the right, in accordance with the class interests of the reformist and reactionary leadership, as represented by the likes of Kautsy and Scheidemann. In other words, the experiences of Germany, especially when compared with Russia, affirm the need for the political organization of the vanguard - the revolutionary party.

[Pogue]

How is it not relevant? Yehuda pointed out that the anarchists were reformist, and you've just admitted that the leadership of the anarchist movement participated directly in the executive arm of the bourgeois state, by becoming part of the government alongside other so-called socialist and bourgeois organizations, whereas what the anarchists should have done in order to remain consistent with their radical rhetoric and fight for the class interests of the Spanish proletariat, and what the small number of Trotskyists in Spain at that time did do, albeit with little success due to their numerical weakness and the political dominance of the Stalinists, was call for the complete destruction of the bourgeois state, including its military apparatus, and its replacement with a genuine and democratic proletarian state based on Soviet democracy. This confirms Yehuda's argument.

Surely a revolutionary leadership is supposed to be rooted in the working class, in which case this assertion would lead us to believe that the CNT was not a genuine revolutionary movement, because you seem to be suggesting that the leadership was separate from the Spanish proletariat, and not democratically accountable. The pseudo-Trotskyist POUM and the revolutionary Bolsheviks in 1917 did not fight "alongside" the workers - they were workers, because the entire point of a revolutionary party is to give coherent and organized expression to the most militant and politically conscious section of the working class, not to have a group of intellectuals with no experience of life as a member of the working class dictating strategies and ideas to the proletariat.

Actually, one of the key errors of Rosa Luxemburg, the intellectual leader of the proletarian vanguard in Germany, despite her outstanding theoretical contributions and experience as a militant, was that she operated inside a reformist organization (the SPD) and only broke away from this organization and formed her own party in the form of the Spartacist League in 1918, and as such this new party, despite its revolutionary program, did not have time to develop organic links with the mass working class, and consequently the SPD was able to maintain its leading position and eventually led the German proletariat to defeat at the hands of the right, in accordance with the class interests of the reformist and reactionary leadership, as represented by the likes of Kautsy and Scheidemann. In other words, the experiences of Germany, especially when compared with Russia, affirm the need for the political organization of the vanguard - the revolutionary party.

On the leadership thing.

It shows us that leaders are bad, and entering bourgieos government is bad.

These are two things we as anarchists oppose. Those 'leaders' betrayed anarchism.

You can't judge an ideology on what some of its supposed 'leaders' did. Its like saying all Trotskyists will crush workers revolts because Trotsky did in Kronstadt. Clearly in hat situation Trotsky betrayed revolutionary socialism, the same a show the leaders who entered the bourgeois government betrayed anarchism.

Oncemore, leaders and bourgeois governments are not good. Its as airrelevant as the USSR is too modern socialist thought. We don't need ot defend the USSR as socialists because its not what we envisage. Anarchists don't have to defend some elements of the leadership of the CNT entering a bourgeois government because our ideology is against that. Unfortunately the leadership were not as radical as the leadership.

I guess its similar to how the SWP fought fascism in the 70s and 80s. many radical members wanted more direct confrontation whilst the leadership was busy courting the more liberal anti-fascist approach. Thus the members were more radical than the leadership.

Further examples - Labour Party grass roots still has many genuine democratic socialists but the leadership is less radical. Etc.

Either way, the Spanish revolution was a true workers revolution whatever 'ism' you give it, but it so happened the workers organised and struggled within an anarcho-syndicalist union and it worked. The leadership is irrelevant because a) they were not representative of the workers and b) they did not control the workers.

[Pogue]

How is it not relevant? Yehuda pointed out that the anarchists were reformist, and you've just admitted that the leadership of the anarchist movement participated directly in the executive arm of the bourgeois state, by becoming part of the government alongside other so-called socialist and bourgeois organizations, whereas what the anarchists should have done in order to remain consistent with their radical rhetoric and fight for the class interests of the Spanish proletariat, and what the small number of Trotskyists in Spain at that time did do, albeit with little success due to their numerical weakness and the political dominance of the Stalinists, was call for the complete destruction of the bourgeois state, including its military apparatus, and its replacement with a genuine and democratic proletarian state based on Soviet democracy. This confirms Yehuda's argument.

But anarchism as an ideology strongly opposes working with bourgeois governments. Like I said, if one self-proclaimed trotskyists shared a platform with the BNP, would that make Trotskyism fascist? No, thats an absurd line to argue upon. Any logical analysis would conclude simply that those individuals were sell-outs, idiots, etc.

[Pogue]

Also, if you did your homework you'd realise the POUM also worked within the Popular Front government. They later quit, just before the CNT were kicked out and both were persecuted by the Stalinists. But oncemore, I don't really think it matters given the circumstances and does nothing to besmirch either organisations history.

[Wanted Man]

On the leadership thing.

It shows us that leaders are bad, and entering bourgieos government is bad.

These are two things we as anarchists oppose. Those 'leaders' betrayed anarchism.
So how can future anarchist organisation prevent the rise of leaders (formally or informally) who will betray anarchism?

Anyway, all I'm reading in this thread is the usual history of evil leaders, great betrayals, etc. What does that have to do with logic and rational historians? As usual, ComradeOm is the only person who's making any sense at all.

Edit: by the way HLVS, what's the source of the signature quote? Even when I rarely agree with your posts, that is always an awesome quote that I fully and utterly agree with.

[BobKKKindle$]

These are two things we as anarchists oppose. Those 'leaders' betrayed anarchism.Given that these individuals were the leaders of an organization that claimed to be anarchist, surely the fact that they were able to take up positions as members of a bourgeois government, alongside bourgeois parties, apparently in opposition to the desires of the membership, without being subsequently removed from their positions and ejected from the anarchist movement, raises questions relating to the internal structures of the CNT as an organization? How could such an organization claim to be internally democratic if its leaders were not subject to the direct and continuous control of those located below them? Given that you see anarchism as a democratic doctrine, how does this impact on the political orientation of the CNT? What you're basically saying is that anarchism can never be proven to be opportunist, because if a member or leader of an anarchist organization acts in an opportunist/reformist way, they instantly lose their identity as an anarchist, because anarchism only exists an abstract ideology, and not a political force in the real world.


Oncemore, leaders and bourgeois governments are not good. Its as airrelevant as the USSR is too modern socialist thought.Claiming that something is "not good" and saying that it is "irrelevant" are two completely different things. The bourgeois state is "not good" in the sense that Trotskyists want to get rid of it through proletarian revolution and replace it with a state based on industrial democracy and the mass participation of the working class, but it would be stupid to suggest that this means that it is not relevant, and that socialists should pay no attention to elections or changes in the composition of the state, because the decisions that are undertaken by capitalist governments have a big impact on the conditions and opportunities of working people, and the state is capable of enforcing the dominant relations of production through violence during a revolutionary period. In the same way, the eventual destinations of the USSR was in complete opposition to everything that Lenin and Trotsky stood for, and is therefore bad, but in fact the experiences and consequences of the Russian Revolution are still incredibly relevant for socialists because they pose valuable lessons that will inform how we seek to change the world and transform society in the future.


Its like saying all Trotskyists will crush workers revolts because Trotsky did in Kronstadt. Actually, the decision to crush the Kronstadt revolt is not remotely comparable to the opportunist behavior of the CNT in Spain. Your assertion that Trotsky's decision constituted a crushing of a working-class uprising and an act of betrayal does not reflect a uniform consensus, and is factually misinformed.


Also, if you did your homework you'd realise the POUM also worked within the Popular Front governmentSo? Anyone with a decent knowledge of the Spanish Civil War knows that Andres Nin fell out with Trotsky, and his organization did not reflect Trotskyist theory or practice.

[Yehuda Stern]

HLVS, even making four separate posts and flailing about hysterically about their "insane" positions is not going to disguise the fact that your arguments are not taken from history but from abstract logic - Anarchists can't be reformists, because they're against reforms. But then this just shows us how true the old cliche that ultra-leftism and opportunism are two sides of the same coin, and one changes into the other very easily, really is. That you say that the fact that the POUM and the Anarchists entered the bourgeois government "does nothing to besmirch either organisations history" is another proof. I'd also like to point out that whatever the POUM did obviously does nothing to besmirch Trotskyists, because the POUM wasn't Trotskyist - not in the sense that today different groups calling themselves Trotskyist argue with each other over which one is really Trotskyist, but in the sense that Trotsky already broke with Nin long before the revolution.

[Pogue]

So how can future anarchist organisation prevent the rise of leaders (formally or informally) who will betray anarchism?

Anyway, all I'm reading in this thread is the usual history of evil leaders, great betrayals, etc. What does that have to do with logic and rational historians? As usual, ComradeOm is the only person who's making any sense at all.

Edit: by the way HLVS, what's the source of the signature quote? Even when I rarely agree with your posts, that is always an awesome quote that I fully and utterly agree with.

On the betrayal question, I'd say that its a result of the leadership not being rotated/held accountable enough, mixed in with the fact that this revolution happened to take palce at a time when the CNT as an organisation was under attack from Franco's fascists and also the rising threat of Stalinism.

Because of this situation, the ability for any group to function as per normal is going to be limited, but that doesn't excuse my next point.

The reason why I don't think that those 2 members choosing to join the government discredits the CNT or Anarchism is because of the fact that there was no democratic decision on allowing them to join. The rank and file were never allowed a vote on that issue. Thats the main controversy. It wasn't an anarchist decision, a worker based decision, it was decided upon by a few members at the top without consulting the more radical, brave and revolutionary workers.

The CNT has and still has methods by which to prevent beurecracy and organisational dictatorship, seen in all anarchist organisations, such as a rotating and recallable leadership. But given the particular desperate circumstances they were in, I suppose things were over-looked, people were pre-occupied fighting facists and building a revolution etc than to deal with this. Too many it may have seemed irelevant because they were in the midsts of revolution and anti-fascist struggle. Basically, the CNTs democracy was ignored by a few and there was little chance to rectify this.

On the question of my signature, its from a book called 'Are You Experienced?' about a young student who goes to India with a friend. Its a book that describes and criticises the whole process of 'travelling', how pretentious it can be, how its all about 'experiencing poverty' and 'finding yourself' whatever the fuck that means.

That quote is part of a longer bulk of speech by a journalist who the main character speaks to on a train patform. The journo is off to cover the strikes by the 'Untouchables' and is very cynical of spoilt rich student kids in India who do not really have a clue. I cut parts of the text to fit it into my sig. Its a very good read, I couldn't put it down for the best part of a day, and that page or two was veyr interesting to me.

Hope that helps mate. If you like I could send you a photocopy of the relevant pages via email or PM if you don't wanna pay for the book. I read it in a library myself.

[Pogue]

HLVS, even making four separate posts and flailing about hysterically about their "insane" positions is not going to disguise the fact that your arguments are not taken from history but from abstract logic - Anarchists can't be reformists, because they're against reforms. But then this just shows us how true the old cliche that ultra-leftism and opportunism are two sides of the same coin, and one changes into the other very easily, really is. That you say that the fact that the POUM and the Anarchists entered the bourgeois government "does nothing to besmirch either organisations history" is another proof. I'd also like to point out that whatever the POUM did obviously does nothing to besmirch Trotskyists, because the POUM wasn't Trotskyist - not in the sense that today different groups calling themselves Trotskyist argue with each other over which one is really Trotskyist, but in the sense that Trotsky already broke with Nin long before the revolution.

But you yourself referred to them as Trotskyists earlier? Unless you were referring to the Orthodox Leninist grouping in Spain at the time affiliated to the POUM?

If a few individuals at the top of a institution in a time of desperation enter into a bourgeois government, just as pretty much every other group did, in order to form a united front against a very real fascist threat, I can understand it and I don't think it reflects amazingly badly on them as individuals.

However it does contradict anarchism.

It doesn't however besmirch anarchism or the CNT as a whole. As I mentioned above, these individuals acted as individuals and did not consult the membership of the CNT. There was widespread opposition to these so called 'representative's' actions from within the CNT.

In any organisation its possible for anyone to betray their principles and not follow democracy. That doesn't take away from the acheivments of the group or its ideology. If this was any other situation than during a social revolution and a war they would have been dealt with immedaitely.

[Pogue]

Given that these individuals were the leaders of an organization that claimed to be anarchist, surely the fact that they were able to take up positions as members of a bourgeois government, alongside bourgeois parties, apparently in opposition to the desires of the membership, without being subsequently removed from their positions and ejected from the anarchist movement, raises questions relating to the internal structures of the CNT as an organization? How could such an organization claim to be internally democratic if its leaders were not subject to the direct and continuous control of those located below them? Given that you see anarchism as a democratic doctrine, how does this impact on the political orientation of the CNT? What you're basically saying is that anarchism can never be proven to be opportunist, because if a member or leader of an anarchist organization acts in an opportunist/reformist way, they instantly lose their identity as an anarchist, because anarchism only exists an abstract ideology, and not a political force in the real world.

Claiming that something is "not good" and saying that it is "irrelevant" are two completely different things. The bourgeois state is "not good" in the sense that Trotskyists want to get rid of it through proletarian revolution and replace it with a state based on industrial democracy and the mass participation of the working class, but it would be stupid to suggest that this means that it is not relevant, and that socialists should pay no attention to elections or changes in the composition of the state, because the decisions that are undertaken by capitalist governments have a big impact on the conditions and opportunities of working people, and the state is capable of enforcing the dominant relations of production through violence during a revolutionary period. In the same way, the eventual destinations of the USSR was in complete opposition to everything that Lenin and Trotsky stood for, and is therefore bad, but in fact the experiences and consequences of the Russian Revolution are still incredibly relevant for socialists because they pose valuable lessons that will inform how we seek to change the world and transform society in the future.

Actually, the decision to crush the Kronstadt revolt is not remotely comparable to the opportunist behavior of the CNT in Spain. Your assertion that Trotsky's decision constituted a crushing of a working-class uprising and an act of betrayal does not reflect a uniform consensus, and is factually misinformed.

So? Anyone with a decent knowledge of the Spanish Civil War knows that Andres Nin fell out with Trotsky, and his organization did not reflect Trotskyist theory or practice.

Opportunist behaviour of the CNT? You mean oppotunist behaviour of two members of the CNT, much to the dismay of the rest of the organisation.

Kronstadt was an uprising of revolutionary workers with revolutionary demands protesting against the brutality and undemocratic nature of the USSR in its early forms. Trotsky destroyed this. Thats reactionary. But that doesn't mean all Trotskyists are anti-revolutionary or anti-worker.

And yes, if an anarchist contradicts anarchism, they are no longer an anarchist. Just like how if I joined, say, the Socialist Party, paid my dues and got a card but then went on BNP rallies and owned a business that employed people, I wouldn't be a socialist. Pretty simple, really.

[Wanted Man]

On the betrayal question, I'd say that its a result of the leadership not being rotated/held accountable enough, mixed in with the fact that this revolution happened to take palce at a time when the CNT as an organisation was under attack from Franco's fascists and also the rising threat of Stalinism.

Because of this situation, the ability for any group to function as per normal is going to be limited, but that doesn't excuse my next point.

The reason why I don't think that those 2 members choosing to join the government discredits the CNT or Anarchism is because of the fact that there was no democratic decision on allowing them to join. The rank and file were never allowed a vote on that issue. Thats the main controversy. It wasn't an anarchist decision, a worker based decision, it was decided upon by a few members at the top without consulting the more radical, brave and revolutionary workers.

The CNT has and still has methods by which to prevent beurecracy and organisational dictatorship, seen in all anarchist organisations, such as a rotating and recallable leadership. But given the particular desperate circumstances they were in, I suppose things were over-looked, people were pre-occupied fighting facists and building a revolution etc than to deal with this. Too many it may have seemed irelevant because they were in the midsts of revolution and anti-fascist struggle. Basically, the CNTs democracy was ignored by a few and there was little chance to rectify this.
Hmm, indeed. I suppose they did everyone a disfavour in the end. I believe it was the same group who, in the last days of the war, helped the liberal/reformist coup in Madrid so that the city could finally be handed over to the fash. Or am I mistaken here? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipriano_Mera)


On the question of my signature, its from a book called 'Are You Experienced?' about a young student who goes to India with a friend. Its a book that describes and criticises the whole process of 'travelling', how pretentious it can be, how its all about 'experiencing poverty' and 'finding yourself' whatever the fuck that means.

That quote is part of a longer bulk of speech by a journalist who the main character speaks to on a train patform. The journo is off to cover the strikes by the 'Untouchables' and is very cynical of spoilt rich student kids in India who do not really have a clue. I cut parts of the text to fit it into my sig. Its a very good read, I couldn't put it down for the best part of a day, and that page or two was veyr interesting to me.

Hope that helps mate. If you like I could send you a photocopy of the relevant pages via email or PM if you don't wanna pay for the book. I read it in a library myself.Thanks. :) If I ever have time, I'll look into the book myself. It's not very high on my priority list, I just noticed the quote.

[BobKKKindle$]

And yes, if an anarchist contradicts anarchism, they are no longer an anarchist. Just like how if I joined, say, the Socialist Party, paid my dues and got a card but then went on BNP rallies and owned a business that employed people, I wouldn't be a socialist. Pretty simple, really. Except, this is not how political orientation works. When the revisionist sections of the Second International, exemplified by the German SPD, supported their respective national bourgeoisies in 1914 by voting in favour of military expenditure and calling on workers to die and fight against their class comrades in order to further the interests of imperialism, the revisionist parties did not suddenly and dramatically change from being good socialists into servants of the bourgeoisie. The outbreak of the war was simply an event that allowed the opportunist and chauvinist tendencies of these sections to manifest themselves in political praxis. In other words, they had been revisionist for a long time before the outbreak of the war, but the different conditions meant that the reactionary character of these leaders were not as clear and so it was not apparent to external observers such as Lenin that they were intent on betraying the working class and abandoning all opportunities for the destruction of capitalism. It is only when faced with tests such as the question of how to respond to a war involving your own country that socialists really show whether they are committed internationalists. In the context of the Spanish Civil War, this means that, despite being leaders of an anarchist movement, the individuals who became part of the government were opportunists and reformists. This is an indictment of anarchism, because the fact that these individuals were able to become leaders in the first place and then drag the whole of the CNT into the government with them when they exhibited their opportunism openly suggests that the CNT and anarchist organizations in general have serious problems with their internal organization and decision-making procedures, as an organization based on democratic centralism would have held its leaders to account and taken decisions through a process of collective and coherent discussion at every level of the party.

[revolution inaction]

Given that these individuals were the leaders of an organization that claimed to be anarchist, surely the fact that they were able to take up positions as members of a bourgeois government, alongside bourgeois parties, apparently in opposition to the desires of the membership, without being subsequently removed from their positions and ejected from the anarchist movement, raises questions relating to the internal structures of the CNT as an organization? How could such an organization claim to be internally democratic if its leaders were not subject to the direct and continuous control of those located below them? Given that you see anarchism as a democratic doctrine, how does this impact on the political orientation of the CNT?
the CNT does not require that members be anarchist, some members wanted the CNT to be apolitical. In the case of the CNT leaders joining the government the anarchist members lost the argument to the less/non political members.

[Pogue]

Except, this is not how political orientation works. When the revisionist sections of the Second International, exemplified by the German SPD, supported their respective national bourgeoisies in 1914 by voting in favour of military expenditure and calling on workers to die and fight against their class comrades in order to further the interests of imperialism, the revisionist parties did not suddenly and dramatically change from being good socialists into servants of the bourgeoisie. The outbreak of the war was simply an event that allowed the opportunist and chauvinist tendencies of these sections to manifest themselves in political praxis. In other words, they had been revisionist for a long time before the outbreak of the war, but the different conditions meant that the reactionary character of these leaders were not as clear and so it was not apparent to external observers such as Lenin that they were intent on betraying the working class and abandoning all opportunities for the destruction of capitalism. It is only when faced with tests such as the question of how to respond to a war involving your own country that socialists really show whether they are committed internationalists. In the context of the Spanish Civil War, this means that, despite being leaders of an anarchist movement, the individuals who became part of the government were opportunists and reformists. This is an indictment of anarchism, because the fact that these individuals were able to become leaders in the first place and then drag the whole of the CNT into the government with them when they exhibited their opportunism openly suggests that the CNT and anarchist organizations in general have serious problems with their internal organization and decision-making procedures, as an organization based on democratic centralism would have held its leaders to account and taken decisions through a process of collective and coherent discussion at every level of the party.

But as I said these people did not consult the rank and file. They betrayed CNT democracy. If they had raised the issue of participation in the government to the rank and file, the rank and file, being incredibly revolutionary, would have opposed it.

I think saying this is an indication of the failure of Anarchism is a major step and a wrong one. Especially when compared to Democratic Centralism, the system in place of the parties in Russia, Cuba and China, all of which grew to be dominated by one, unnacountable man and a ruling elite. Democratic centralism is one mehtod used in one country at one time, developed by one man, and its hardly presided over open, democratic and socialist parties now has it? How can a centralised body respond to changing circumstances effecting the whole movement, anyway?

As seen in Russia, democratic centralism can be abused. How? Those at the top can simply ignore it. The same way the leaders of the CNT chose to ignore democratic rules and join the government. The same way Tony Blair ignored democratic rules and went to war in Iraq. Democratic centralism can just as easily and indeed has just as easily been abused throughout history. Its naive in the extreme to suggets it would have avoided any of the problems the CNT faced.

I find this whole argument absurd generally though, when it comes from people who support a system and a method of revolutionary struggle that is of so little itnerest to workers these days and has failed so miserably in the past. Its really dogmatic and quite odd, and also funny that you'd criticise an historical implementation of my ideals and say its supposed 'failure' is the fialure of my ideology when the number of failed vanguard party led/Leninist reovlutions is into double digits now. Never mind.

I don't think its got anything to do with the internal Anarchist system. It didn't then and it didn't know. Its about the exceptional circumstances and a select few at the top ignoring democracy. Such a thing can happen in any organisation and doesn't discredit the organisation or its ideology.

I also reject the notion oncemore that the leaders of the CNT somehow 'dragged' the CNT down in some downward spiral to corruption or something or whatever it is your implying. Fact remains the CNT members were revolutionaries, anti-fascists and created a society based puon 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'. The acitons of a two 'leaders', which did in fact contradict anarchist principles in what was certainly a very precarious time are hardly relevant in light of the greater struggle. Oncemore, the rank and file opposed such actions. These actions, although wrong, were understandable given the fact the CNT was fighting for its survival whilst also engaging in a social revolution. Although I don't agree with joining the bourgeois government, I'd forgive anyone in light of such extreme circumstances.

Basically my line is - any system can be abused, and in situations such as a revolution mixed with an war, its hard to rectify these abuses. The undemocratic abuses of a few do not represent a failure of a whole group representing millions, nor an ideology which has functioned throughout history. Democratic centralism has had more failures. Perhaps you should re-assess why it is that when you let one elite body at the top of a party self-scrutinise, authoritarian dictatorships follow. Although I'd say the answer is pretty obvious.

[Nils T.]

Surely a revolutionary leadership is supposed to be rooted in the working class, in which case this assertion would lead us to believe that the CNT was not a genuine revolutionary movement, because you seem to be suggesting that the leadership was separate from the Spanish proletariat, and not democratically accountable. The pseudo-Trotskyist POUM and the revolutionary Bolsheviks in 1917 did not fight "alongside" the workers - they were workers, because the entire point of a revolutionary party is to give coherent and organized expression to the most militant and politically conscious section of the working class, not to have a group of intellectuals with no experience of life as a member of the working class dictating strategies and ideas to the proletariat.
Rakunin quoted that in an history thread

To a certain liberal who had affirmed at the beginning of May that the more the government moves to the left, the more the country moves to the right-meaning by “country,” of course, “the possessing classes”- Lenin replied: “the ‘country’ of workers and poorer and poorest peasants, I assure you, citizen, is a thousand times farther to the left than the Chernovs and Tseretellis, and a hundred times farther than we. Live a little and you will see.” Lenin estimated that the workers and peasants were “a hundred times” farther to the left than the Bolsheviks. This may seem a little unfounded: the workers and soldiers were still supporting the Compromisers, and the majority of them were on their guard against the Bolsheviks. But Lenin was delving deeper. The social interests of the masses, their hatred and their hope, were still only seeking a mode of expression. The policy of the Compromisers had been for then a first stage. The masses were immeasurably to the left of the Chernovs and Tseretellis, but were themselves still unconscious of their radicalism. Lenin was right in asserting that the masses were to the left of the Bolsheviks, for the party in its immense majority had not yet realised the mightiness of the revolutionary passions that were simmering in the depths of the awakening people. The indignation of the masses was nourished by the dragging-out of the war, the economic ruin and the malicious inactivity of the government.
Using Lenin to defend anarchists from leninist delirium... Feels good, man.

[BobKKKindle$]

Using Lenin to defend anarchists from leninist delirium... Feels good, man. Except, you're not defending anarchists by quoting from Lenin, or any other Marxist. Lenin was completely right when he wrote those statements, the Bolshevik party did not manage to keep up with the changing political consciousness of the working class, primarily because they lacked organic links with the working class. The Bolshevik party developed and evolved, by strengthening its roots, and eventually did become the organized vanguard of the working class, and that was why they succeeded in gaining the support of almost the whole of the Russian proletariat in all of the major urban Soviets.

[Nils T.]

Except, you're not defending anarchists by quoting from Lenin, or any other Marxist.Now that's ideology.

The Bolshevik party developed and evolved, by strengthening its roots, and eventually did become the organized vanguard of the working class, and that was why they succeeded in gaining the support of almost the whole of the Russian proletariat in all of the major urban Soviets.
the revolutionary Bolsheviks in 1917 did not fight "alongside" the workers - they were workersNow that's contradicting. All the more since they took rapidly back the power of the soviets and used the red army to crush the oppositions.