Log in

View Full Version : CNT-FAI Anarcho-Syndicalism in Spain



pastradamus
29th March 2009, 14:29
After writing a small piece on the Workers Party of Marxist Unification I decided that it would be most unfair to leave out the Anarchist FAI and the syndicalist CNT or FAI-CNT (as when they merged).

Being a Marxist myself, I was also interested in the Anarchist movement during the Spanish civil war, after reading into it I became absolutely fascinated with the FAI-CNT group in both the way the worked militarily and Socially. In the fighting it could be argued that the CNT-FAI were the best pound-for-pound fighters of the Republican side of the conflict. A lightly trained militia - the Anarchists learned their trade fighting in the trenches with poor armaments and supplies - nevertheless they learned how to fight efficiently, rapidly and most importantly they learned trench warfare like apprentices rather than in camps or in barracks. This is true for the vast bulk of Anarchists though some were experts in warfare and thought their comrades as they progressed - Eventually leading to proper training and equipment.

The Anarchist movement in Spain had much support before the formation of the CNT-FAI alliance or even the CNT/FAI themselves as individual entities. To understand how and why they came into being we must go back as far as the 1840's,1880's and 1890's.

The early Anarchist movement in Spain grew from the working class latifundia's of Andalusia and Catalonia and in the Built-up industrial cities of Barcelona and Valencia. The Anarchist and Syndicalist reconciliation was definably most complete and successful in Spain. For a long period the Anarchist movement in that country remained the most numerous and the most powerful in the world. Arguably the first known Spanish Anarchist, Ramón de la Sagra, a disciple of Proudhon, founded the world’s first anarchist journal, El Porvenir, in La Coruña in 1845, which was quickly suppressed by the Government. This was a birthing process for Anarchist Spain.

Throughout the Next 30 or so years, Anarchist movements grew rapidly in the North-Eastern Section of Spain with some 60,000 members come 1870.
In 1874 the anarchist movement in Spain was forced underground, a phenomenon that recurred often in subsequent decades. Nevertheless, it flourished, and anarchism became the favoured type of radicalism among two very different groups, the factory workers of Barcelona and other Catalan towns and the impoverished peasants who toiled on the estates of absentee land owners in Andalusia under the harsh "latifundia" system.

The Next period in the development of Anarchism in Spain was to be a notable one. I refer of the period between 1880 - 1910. During this period the Anarchist Movement retained its strength in working-class organizations because the courageous and even ruthless anarchist militants were often the only leaders who would stand up to the army and to the employers, who hired squads of gunmen or 'Pistolero's' to engage in Guerrilla Warfare with the anarchists in the streets of Barcelona. The workers of Barcelona were finally inspired by the success of the French CGT to set up a syndicalist organization, Workers’ Solidarity (Solidaridad Obrera), in 1907. Solidaridad Obrera quickly spread throughout Catalonia, and, in 1909, when the Spanish army tried to conscript Catalan reservists to fight against the Riffs in Morocco, it called a general strike. This was followed by a very dark event for the people of Catalonia called “La Semana Tragica,” or the Tragic Week.

The Tragic week was an event which resulted in a direct attack on the working class protesters of Spain.It was an event that left hundreds dead and 50 churches and monasteries destroyed and that ended in brutal repression. The torture of anarchists in the fortress of Montjuich(outside Barcelona) and the execution of the internationally celebrated advocate of free education Francisco Ferrer led to worldwide protests[/URL] and the resignation of the conservative government in Madrid. The resignation itself just goes to show the actual influence of the Spanish Anarchists at that time. Following these Events there was a meeting in Seville which resulted in the formation of the CNT or Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labor).

The CNT was a union dominated by leftists' such as Marxists, Socialists, Syndicalist but most importantly by Anarchists with militant leanings. In 1927 a new organization called the FAI (Federación Anarquista Iberica). This was basically a group of Anarchist militants who affiliated themselves with the CNT union. The CNT was enormously successful and attracted huge numbers because many were disillusioned with other unions and many admired its democratic structure. It is important to point out that the Anarchist principles of the Union were very obvious in its anti-bureaucratic nature which members admired because they were no longer just a number in a group - they were an individual, dealt independently by the Union. The Union was so big that by 1930 it had 1 million members and more than doubled its membership during the Civil war period. The wholly democratic structure of the Union ensured that nobody ever dominated the Union and a leader could only serve one term.

Now that we understand where they came from and how they got popular support we can now explore the CNT-FAI during the war years. Despite eventually fighting on the same side as the republicans the CNT-FAI's anti-political philosophy led them to reject the Republic as much as the monarchy it had replaced, and between 1931 and the military rebellion led by (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551335/social-movement)Francisco Franco in 1936 there were several unsuccessful anarchist risings. In 1936 the anarchists, who over the decades had become expert urban guerrillas, were mainly responsible for the defeat of the rebel generals in both Barcelona and Valencia, as well as in country areas of Catalonia and Aragon; and for many early months of the Civil war they were in virtual control of eastern Spain, where they regarded the crisis as an opportunity to carry through the social revolution of which they had long dreamed.
They organized rapidly; conducting strikes and forming libertarian communes. The reports of critical observers suggest that at least some of these communes were efficiently run and more productive agriculturally than the villages had been there previously.

During the war, the union collaborated with other republican groups opposed to the Nationalists. Some CNT members formed part of Azana's government along with republicans, Communists, Marxists and others.

During this time George Orwell Made varying descriptions on the Anarchists such as this:



The Anarchist viewpoint is less easily defined. In any case the loose term ‘Anarchists’ is used to cover a multitude of people of very varying opinions. The huge block of unions making up the C.N.T. (Confederación Nacional de Trabajadores), with round about two million members in all, had for its political organ the F.A.I. (Federación Anarquista Ibérica), an actual Anarchist organization. But even the members of the F.A.I., though always tinged, as perhaps most Spaniards are, with the Anarchist philosophy, were not necessarily Anarchists in the purest sense. Especially since the beginning of the war they had moved more in the direction of ordinary Socialism, because circumstances had forced them to take part in centralized administration and even to break all their principles by entering the Government. Nevertheless they differed fundamentally from the Communists in so much that, like the P.O.U.M., they aimed at workers’ control and not a parliamentary democracy. They accepted the P.O.U.M. slogan: ‘The war and the revolution are inseparable’, though they were less dogmatic about it. Roughly speaking, the C.N.T.–F.A.I. stood for: (1) Direct control over industry by the workers engaged in each industry, e.g. transport, the textile factories, etc.; (2) Government by local committees and resistance to all forms of centralized authoritarianism; (3) Uncompromising hostility to the bourgeoisie and the Church. The last point, though the least precise, was the most important. The Anarchists were the opposite of the majority of so-called revolutionaries in so much that though their principles were rather vague their hatred of privilege and injustice was perfectly genuine. Philosophically, Communism and Anarchism are poles apart. Practically—i.e. in the form of society aimed at—the difference is mainly one of emphasis, but it is quite irreconcilable. The Communist’s emphasis is always on centralism and efficiency, the Anarchist’s on liberty and equality. Anarchism is deeply rooted in Spain and is likely to outlive Communism when the Russian influence is withdrawn. During the first two months of the war it was the Anarchists more than anyone else who had saved the situation, and much later than this the Anarchist militia, in spite of their indiscipline, were notoriously the best fighters among the purely Spanish forces. From about February 1937 onwards the Anarchists and the P.O.U.M. could to some extent be lumped together. If the Anarchists, the P.O.U.M., and the Left wing of the Socialists had had the sense to combine at the start and press a realistic policy, the history of the war might have been different. But in the early period, when the revolutionary parties seemed to have the game in their hands, this was impossible. Between the Anarchists and the Socialists there were ancient jealousies, the P.O.U.M., as Marxists, were sceptical of Anarchism, while from the pure Anarchist standpoint the ‘Trotskyism’ of the P.O.U.M. was not much preferable to the ‘Stalinism’ of the Communists. Nevertheless the Communist tactics tended to drive the two parties together. When the P.O.U.M. joined in the disastrous fighting in Barcelona in May, it was mainly from an instinct to stand by the C.N.T., and later, when the P.O.U.M. was suppressed, the Anarchists were the only people who dared to raise a voice in its defence.
So, roughly speaking, the alignment of forces was this. On the one side the C.N.T.–F.A.I., the P.O.U.M., and a section of the Socialists, standing for workers’ control: on the other side the Right-wing Socialists, Liberals, and Communists, standing for centralized government and a militarized army.


DuruttiDuring the war the CNT-FAI established various defense comities around Catalonia. They organized the border checking institution at the French-Spanish Border and worked out methods of controlling factories in Barcelona and Reus in a very democratic manner and there was even the birth of a large scale Anarcho-Feminist movement in Barcelona as a consequence. When It came to the onslaught of Franco's troops the Fascists came up against a well dug-in and ready Anarchist and POUM defensive set-up. The PCE (communist party) were at this time still organizing back at Base in Barcelona and training was ongoing. The Anrachists (and POUM alike) had great success in the early period of the war (1936) especially when the Anarchists held back and defeated the Carlist attacks one by one. The most effective anarchist unit in Catalonia was the Durutti column , led by already legendary militant Buenaventura. It was the only anarchist unit which managed to gain respect from otherwise fiercely hostile political opponents. In a section of her memoirs which otherwise lambasts the anarchists, Dolores Ibarruri states: "The [Spanish Civil] war developed with minimal participation from the anarchists in its fundamental operations. One exception was Durruti". The column began with 3,000 troops but at its peak, was made up of about 8,000 men. They had a difficult time getting arms from a suspicious Republican Government, so Durruti and his men compensated by seizing unused arms from government Stockpiles (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/558032/Spanish-Civil-War). Durruti's death on November 20, 1936, weakened the Column in spirit and tactical ability; they were eventually incorporated, by decree, into the regular army. It has been claimed that over a quarter of the population of Barcelona attended Durruti's funeral.

When it came to the Anarchist downfall than this could be to the fact that expert though they were in spontaneous street fighting, they did not have the discipline necessary to carry on sustained warfare; the columns they sent to various fronts were unsuccessful in comparison with the communist-led International Brigades. In December 1936 four leading anarchists took posts in the cabinet of Caballero[URL="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/330604/Francisco-Largo-Caballero"], radically compromising their anti-government principles. They were unable to halt the trend toward left-wing totalitarianism encouraged by their enemies the communists, who were numerically far fewer but politically more influential, owing to the Soviet Union’s support of the Republican war effort. In May 1937 bitter fighting broke out in Barcelona between communists and anarchists. The May Days in Barcelona signified the End for Anarchism in the black bosom of Barcelona - its then only remaining stronghold.

With the Militant Anarchists Taken Care of the PCE eliminated the CNT union with ease by seizing it and taking it under government control.

It must be pointed out that after being defeated in the Civil War and after over One hundred thousand of the CNT's members were murdered by Franco after the war the CNT as well as the FAI shows its true strength by surviving today. Though the CNT have many Anarchist members even today the FAI keeps its members identities secret for Security reasons.

x359594
30th March 2009, 20:06
...When it came to the Anarchist downfall than this could be to the fact that expert though they were in spontaneous street fighting, they did not have the discipline necessary to carry on sustained warfare; the columns they sent to various fronts were unsuccessful in comparison with the communist-led International Brigades...

Orwell addresses this issue in chapter three of Homage to Catalonia:

"...in the circumstances the militias could not have been much better than they were. A modern mechanized army does not spring up out of the ground, and if the Government had waited until it had trained troops at its disposal, Franco would never have been resisted. Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private 'Comrade' but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never 'work', but as a matter of fact it does 'work' in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. 'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness--on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of 'revolutionary' discipline that the militias stayed in the field-at all. For until about June 1937 there was nothing to keep them there, except class loyalty. Individual deserters could be shot--were shot, occasionally--but if a thousand men had decided to walk out of the line together there was no force to stop them. A conscript army in the same circumstances--with its battle-police removed--would have melted away. Yet the militias held the line, though God knows they won very few victories, and even individual desertions were not common. In four or five months in the P.O.U.M. militia I only heard of four men deserting, and two of those were fairly certainly spies who had enlisted to obtain information. At the beginning the apparent chaos, the general lack of training, the fact that you often had to argue for five minutes before you could get an order obeyed, appalled and infuriated me. I had British Army ideas, and certainly the Spanish militias were very unlike the British Army. But considering the circumstances they were better troops than one had any right to expect...."

Another matter relevant to this issue is the diversion of arms from the POUM and CNT militias once the USSR began supplying material. The weapons were disbursed by the PCE and PSUC, and they channeled Soviet arms to the Republican Army and International Brigades. The militias were coerced into incorporating themselves into the Popular Army if they wanted to keep on fighting.

pastradamus
30th March 2009, 21:37
That very well pointed out there by both yourself and Orwell. Well said was the way you pointed out that the likes of PCE and PSUC were controlling the distribution of the Soviet arms. However we see that later on when the POUM and the CNT-FAI and the UGT were betrayed by the PSUC and the PCE during the Barcelona may days they immediatly stopped supplying the armaments to the militias in question. This was an obvious move on the Stalinists side but they also stopped supplying the militias in all other areas and in Catalonia before the Barcelona days. This points out the obvious long-term and eliminatory planning on the behalf of the PCE.

Matina
30th March 2009, 22:07
Didn't read the whole text but what I read was good.
Did you mention the part where they collaborated with the Provisional Government ? (The 'progressive bourgeoisie').
Only the friends of Durutti were real revolutionaries. It is in revolutions that we see who is a revolutionary and who's not , not in the rhetoric. In my opinion, the centrist P.O.U.M., the CNT/FAI and the Stalinists were all reformist, as it was shown by the test of the revolution. All of them for different reasons of course.

Pogue
30th March 2009, 22:14
Didn't read the whole text but what I read was good.
Did you mention the part where they collaborated with the Provisional Government ? (The 'progressive bourgeoisie').
Only the friends of Durutti were real revolutionaries. It is in revolutions that we see who is a revolutionary and who's not , not in the rhetoric. In my opinion, the centrist P.O.U.M., the CNT/FAI and the Stalinists were all reformist, as it was shown by the test of the revolution. All of them for different reasons of course.

The CNT did not consult the workers on the issue of the participation in the bourgeois government. They were all widely opposed to it. Of course, the rank and file were revolutionary, seen in how they actually carried out a revolution.

Matina
30th March 2009, 22:30
The CNT did not consult the workers on the issue of the participation in the bourgeois government. They were all widely opposed to it. Of course, the rank and file were revolutionary, seen in how they actually carried out a revolution.Of course you are right. When someone refers to an organization, they refer to the leadership most of the time, as the leadership makes decisions (just so we can be clear). The workers in the Communist Party, the POUM and the CNT/FAI were all revolutionary, they were just betrayed by their reformist organizations. As Trotsky put it: " Between 1936-1939, the Spanish proletariat could have made 10 revolutions if it wasn't for the betrayals of the leadership" .

Also the phrase "carried out a revolution" is a bad choice of words. They did not carry out a revolution, the revolution was not completed (ie capitalism and the bourgeois state were not destroyed). The revolution failed and this is because of the leadership and the ideological/organizational weaknesses of anarchism.

Face it, in an anarchist organization, leadership stills exist. The problem is that it is most of the time formed behind the scenes, by people who are more active, therefore eliminating the democratic process (not in all cases I repeat). This is what happened in the FAI who effectively controlled the CNT. This shows the weakness of the anarchist forms of organization, as there is no democratic centralism, which ensures that the party/organization is both democratic and united.

Louis Pio
31st March 2009, 23:44
Also the phrase "carried out a revolution" is a bad choice of words. They did not carry out a revolution, the revolution was not completed (ie capitalism and the bourgeois state were not destroyed). The revolution failed and this is because of the leadership and the ideological/organizational weaknesses of anarchism.


Very good point. At one point the CNT even had defacto power in Catalonia if I remember correctly, but rejected it under some lame excuse of not wanting to excercise dictatorship, quite a betrayal.

Pogue
1st April 2009, 00:15
Very good point. At one point the CNT even had defacto power in Catalonia if I remember correctly, but rejected it under some lame excuse of not wanting to excercise dictatorship, quite a betrayal.

Dictatorship is of course a betrayal of anarchism. They didn't want to seem like a state or government. Understandable.

Pogue
1st April 2009, 00:20
Of course you are right. When someone refers to an organization, they refer to the leadership most of the time, as the leadership makes decisions (just so we can be clear). The workers in the Communist Party, the POUM and the CNT/FAI were all revolutionary, they were just betrayed by their reformist organizations. As Trotsky put it: " Between 1936-1939, the Spanish proletariat could have made 10 revolutions if it wasn't for the betrayals of the leadership" .

Also the phrase "carried out a revolution" is a bad choice of words. They did not carry out a revolution, the revolution was not completed (ie capitalism and the bourgeois state were not destroyed). The revolution failed and this is because of the leadership and the ideological/organizational weaknesses of anarchism.

Face it, in an anarchist organization, leadership stills exist. The problem is that it is most of the time formed behind the scenes, by people who are more active, therefore eliminating the democratic process (not in all cases I repeat). This is what happened in the FAI who effectively controlled the CNT. This shows the weakness of the anarchist forms of organization, as there is no democratic centralism, which ensures that the party/organization is both democratic and united.

The democratic centralism that served the COmmunist Parties of Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam etc so well? That centralism? Don't make me laugh. Anarchist organisations are much more democratic than the communist parties, who at the time, rather than simply participating in a government against the will of their members, were killing anarchists and revolutionaries and spreading lies about anarchists and other revolutionaries.

There is democratic centrlaism for you, a pathetic, fetishised sham that has not stopped any of the major communist parties becoming undemocratic beurecratic messes and dictatorships. In a time of war, when your organisaiton and even the world faces fascism, some leaders will make errors which due to the circumstances, can't be easily called to account. Democratic centralism has consistently failed. In this case, the special circumstances led to the rotational leadership of the CNT going against the rank and files wishes. Yes, we have some form of leadership, yes it is rotatable, elected and recallable. Yes, in times of war, it can collapse. Shit happens when Stalinists and fascists are attacking you on all sides.

Democratic centralism is a pathetic mess that doesn't work and doesn't even logically make sense. Leave the beurecratic elite to exercise democracy themselves when already in power? Yeh, because peopel can be trusted to do that :rolleyes:

Fuck democratic centralism, seriously. Its one of the main reasons I became an anarchist.

Pogue
1st April 2009, 00:21
Of course you are right. When someone refers to an organization, they refer to the leadership most of the time, as the leadership makes decisions (just so we can be clear). The workers in the Communist Party, the POUM and the CNT/FAI were all revolutionary, they were just betrayed by their reformist organizations. As Trotsky put it: " Between 1936-1939, the Spanish proletariat could have made 10 revolutions if it wasn't for the betrayals of the leadership" .

Also the phrase "carried out a revolution" is a bad choice of words. They did not carry out a revolution, the revolution was not completed (ie capitalism and the bourgeois state were not destroyed). The revolution failed and this is because of the leadership and the ideological/organizational weaknesses of anarchism.

Face it, in an anarchist organization, leadership stills exist. The problem is that it is most of the time formed behind the scenes, by people who are more active, therefore eliminating the democratic process (not in all cases I repeat). This is what happened in the FAI who effectively controlled the CNT. This shows the weakness of the anarchist forms of organization, as there is no democratic centralism, which ensures that the party/organization is both democratic and united.

Evidence that the FAI controlled the CNT please? There is none.

Louis Pio
1st April 2009, 00:29
Dictatorship is of course a betrayal of anarchism. They didn't want to seem like a state or government. Understandable.

Well all it brought them was dictatorship of the bourgiosie, first in republican guise and later in the form of Franco.
What relevance or justification does a political tendency have, when their actions result in that? None whatsoever of course.
Of course you need to supress the bourgiosie if you wan't to transform society. A conclusion many working class anarcist also reached, Durruti and his followers being the best example.

pastradamus
1st April 2009, 04:53
As Trotsky put it: " Between 1936-1939, the Spanish proletariat could have made 10 revolutions if it wasn't for the betrayals of the leadership" .


I myself am quite a fan of Trotsky. However I disagree with the whole "betrayals of leadership" when he referred to Andreu Nin one of the POUM leaders. Nin united the ICE and the BOC against Trotsky's wishes and against the wishes of the ILO (international Left opposition). Despite being a great friend of Trotskys before this happened the pair fell out and stopped correspondence. My first point of disagreement with Trotsky on this issue is: a) I believe Nin made the right decision in uniting the two groups as it created a group which would be a vanguard against Franco's Falange.
and b) I believe Trotsky was being extremely arrogant and inconsiderate because he was talking about a dead man tortured to death by the NKVD in Madrid (c1937). A dead man does not have the luxury of hindsight.

But outside the Nin case I believe Trotsky's analysis to be accurate especially when referring to the way the Anarchist bloc fell apart militarily when Durutti died. Also the Stalinist PCE leadership was in a lot of cases wholly incapable of making proper tactical decisions.

Also I would like to say that I totally dismiss the Ideas that the CNT-FAI and the POUM were not revolutionary organizations. In the past there was nothing like the way the CNT-FAI or the POUM (a trotskyist like army) on an Ideals basis operated nor was anything like these two organized on such a grand basis neither. To say neither were revolutionary defecates on the Idea of what most revolutionary left-wing groups today believe in. It doesn't matter about trivial matters in leadership, what matters is that they both created an aura of leftism and pride in Spain - creating workers councils and peoples communes as well as collectivisation in many, many area's. Moreover the FAI did Not control the CNT. We see from history that most of the CNT leadership were members of the union who rose through the ranks and attained their position. The FAI on the other hand were a militant group working within the Union but by not means had complete control over it. Many members of the CNT were opposed to Anarchism and we see some actually joining the Republics side and the Popular front. While it is true to say the FAI had the military necessaries and would have been an attractive choice to the CNT members, the FAI never overran the CNT and never used military force to control the CNT. It operated as a group, within a group recruiting members to fight Franco.

It is true that the FAI rejected a "dictatorship" like control of Catalonia but why did they need to control it anyway? They already controlled the French Border Crossing, The various telephone exchanges, the postal system, many hotels, means of mass transport etc etc etc - Basically everything important in the region. Thats why the PCE moved to eliminate the Anarchists'. If they eliminated them then they controlled the vital means of communication, transport and financial means of the region which proved extremely useful in controlling it militarily.