Would the Spanish Civil War have turned out differently if the anarchists had voted?

[Kukulofori]

The anarchists didn't vote, and the government that won as a result bombed workers and totally flubbed the fascist uprising. But how would things have gone if they'd voted for whoever they were going to vote for?

edit: shit, meant this for history.

[genstrike]

As I understand it, there were divisions within the CNT and many members supported and voted for the Popular Front in the elections and later to try to prevent Franco from winning.

Really, I think it would be the height of absurdity to blame anarchists not participating in the 1936 election for the later actions of the Popular Front government or the fascist victory in the SCW.

[DDR]

The CNT participated int he popular front, durign the war some of its members were ministers, as Joan Garcia Oliver.

[Kukulofori]

Er? So the anarchists did vote?

[PRC-UTE]

Er? So the anarchists did vote?

They put the popular front into power, thus causing a fascist reaction and the civil war.

[x359594]

The anarchists didn't vote, and the government that won as a result bombed workers and totally flubbed the fascist uprising. But how would things have gone if they'd voted for whoever they were going to vote for?...

During the 1933 elections the CNT-FAI (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo-Federación Anarquista Ibérica ) urged abstention. During the 1936 elections they took no official position and left the decision to vote up to the discretion of individual rank and file members; a segment of CNT members voted but the overwhelming majority of FAI members did not vote. The majority of votes came from the UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) and its political affiliate the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español.)

[h0m0revolutionary]

They put the popular front into power, thus causing a fascist reaction and the civil war.

Come off it, you're not as stupid as to say such things :/

[Organic Revolution]

Ha, no. The Spanish Civil War would have turned out far different if the anarchists had gunned down the Stalinists in the trenches.

[Ismail]

I'm pretty sure kijuna is talking about the 1933 elections. I'll just quote Arthur H. Landis' Spain: The Unfinished Revolution again:


Salvador de Madariaga, a Spanish historian of the stripe of Churchill, wrote of the [1931] elections that: “The workers affiliated to the U.G.T. voted for their men. But the Anarcho-Syndicalists voted for the middle-class liberals. There were two reasons for this: the first, the unbridgeable enmity which separates Socialists and Syndicalists, due to their rival bid for the leadership of the working classes; and the second, that as the Anarchists always preached contempt for suffrage, they had no political machinery of their own; so that when it coming to voting—which they did this time to help oust the Monarchy—they preferred to vote for the middle-class Republican [as opposed to] the orthodox and dogmatic tenets of the Socialists.”

[.....]

José Antonio had been introduced to the political methods of the oligarchy during his electioneering, about which he later wrote an unfinished novel in English, entitled The Anarcho-Carranzists. It had to do with the Marques de Soto Hermosa, the oligarchy's political boss in Andalucía. José was fascinated to discover that the Marques paid off many Anarchist leaders in his district to keep their followers from the polls on election day. Consequently he guaranteed a comfortable Right majority over Left-wing candidates.Then on the 1933 election:

An additional cause for the disastrous losses of the Azaña Republicans was a complete Anarchist abstention from the polls. In 1931 they had chose to vote—“to help pull Alfonso down.” In 1933 they demanded that their members not vote at all, and organized an hysterical campaign of No Votad! backed by all their resources and propaganda.

D. Abad de Santillán, a member of the executive of the F.A.I. writes in his work, Por Qué Perdimos la Guerra, that: “A violent anti-electoral campaign was unleashed throughout the country by our organizations (F.A.I. and C.N.T.) whose original intent—at Figols at the end of 1931, and in other parts of Spain in January of 1933—was to stand solidly in the path of the Republic. Naturally this abstention gave the power to the conservatives; the monarchists, the military and the church; all enemies of 'legitimate' Spain, whose principal base was that of an historical continuity of peasants and workers of Iberian race and spirit. The Republicans had not profited by their lessons, not understood that the revolutionary workers of Spain were the only authentic progressive power. And without them, no régime could be established more-or-less-liberal; and no one could govern them in the name of reaction.”

The contradiction here is easily seen that in 1931, despite their so-called “puritan principles,” the Anarchists had thought nothing of supporting the parties of the very men they now decried as their enemies, while simultaneously refusing to accept any responsibility for the results of their act. With this in mind their equally hard-nosed attitude toward the Socialists who had supported the Azaña government, would then seem but an extension of their own opportunism.

In 1933, their policy of No Votad! quite obviously was the hammer that shattered the Party of Azaña's Left Republicans: the difference in the strength of Azaña's Party in 1931 as opposed to 1933, being, possibly, the Anarchist vote!Edit: Shouldn't this be in the History forum?

[Yehuda Stern]

Come off it, you're not as stupid as to say such things :/

He's not completely off. If the Anarchists took an independent class line, the bourgeois government would be much more easily overthrown by the working class and a workers' state would be in a much better position to deal with Franco. Sadly, they didn't, and never do.

[Agnapostate]

No, he's still pretty off, especially considering that Manuel Azana was widely perceived to have had a hand in not only suppression of anarchist militancy (referring to their prior attempts at social revolution), but also unjust persecution of non-militant anarchists.

[n0thing]

Stalin's fault.

[Blackscare]

workers' state would be in a much better position to deal with Franco. Sadly, they didn't, and never do.


It certainly wouldn't have, the only aid coming in was through Stalin. And of course, since the Soviet-beholden CP was distributing the guns, their political rivals never got adequate munitions/arms. The Comintern didn't want a revolutionary Spanish state as an ally at the time, and this can't be ignored.


The Anarchists, despite their clear popularity, were never really in a position to take any sort of control (whatever that would have entailed), set up a non-bourgeois government, or maintain a resistance to Franco on their own, due to strictly material circumstances.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

He's not completely off. If the Anarchists took an independent class line, the bourgeois government would be much more easily overthrown by the working class and a workers' state would be in a much better position to deal with Franco. Sadly, they didn't, and never do.
And never do? Care to justify that blatant lie with any kind of evidence whatsoever?

[Yehuda Stern]

No, he's still pretty off, especially considering that Manuel Azana was widely perceived to have had a hand in not only suppression of anarchist militancy (referring to their prior attempts at social revolution), but also unjust persecution of non-militant anarchists.I really don't get your point here - does the fact that the Anarchists were persecuted change anything? Hitler persecuted the Social-Democrats, that doesn't make them any less reformist.


It certainly wouldn't have, the only aid coming in was through Stalin. And of course, since the Soviet-beholden CP was distributing the guns, their political rivals never got adequate munitions/arms. The Comintern didn't want a revolutionary Spanish state as an ally at the time, and this can't be ignored.This is in general a very good argument against revolution - I suppose we should all wait until imperialism decides to support the socialist revolution before attempting one?


And never do? Care to justify that blatant lie with any kind of evidence whatsoever? We can just go case by case and see how each time the Anarchists betrayed the working class when possible or otherwise acted against its interests. We'll obviously have Spain, the Russian revolutions, Kronstadt, WWII, I imagine I could also say a couple of words about the role of anarchism in Israel. That however seems a bit long for here.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I really don't get your point here - does the fact that the Anarchists were persecuted change anything? Hitler persecuted the Social-Democrats, that doesn't make them any less reformist.

This is in general a very good argument against revolution - I suppose we should all wait until imperialism decides to support the socialist revolution before attempting one?

We can just go case by case and see how each time the Anarchists betrayed the working class when possible or otherwise acted against its interests. We'll obviously have Spain, the Russian revolutions, Kronstadt...
Yes, Kronstadt, where the anarchists suppressed the workers' uprising calling for Soviet democracy. Seriously, when the left-communists try to peddle this line it's annoying, and they actually have a history of supporting working-class independence; when trots try pushing it it's just funny. Cos obviously, every Leninist group ever hasn't sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie.

[Blackscare]

This is in general a very good argument against revolution - I suppose we should all wait until imperialism decides to support the socialist revolution before attempting one?


Sorry they didn't have Gandalf on call to conjure up some weapons at the time. How do you expect the CNT-FAI would have carried on without arms? Revolutionary Kung-Fu? A war was on, either side was being backed by powerful allies, you can't just dive in in a situation like that and hope to win a protracted, WW1 trench-warfare style war!


I'm serious though, if you can name me a way they could have carried on the war I'd like to hear it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Erm, they joined the bourgeois government as a coalition partner.

Even filled up some Minister posts.

[Madvillainy]

Yes, Kronstadt, where the anarchists suppressed the workers' uprising calling for Soviet democracy. Seriously, when the left-communists try to peddle this line it's annoying

I'm not sure I understand this(?). Left Communists are very consistent in their defense of the kronstadt rebellion. Also what did kronstadt have to do with anarchism, their role in the rebellion wasn't even slightly significant.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm not sure I understand this(?). Left Communists are very consistent in their defense of the kronstadt rebellion. Also what did kronstadt have to do with anarchism, their role in the rebellion wasn't even slightly significant.
I mean the line that anarchists never push an independent working-class position. I was saying that it's annoying when the left-communists (who do defend decent working-class positions) try and claim that anarchists don't do that, let alone when trots (who always side with a faction of the bourgeois) do. I don't think there's anything there to disagree with?

[Agnapostate]

David Cattell's Communism and the Spanish Civil War is a commendable source when it comes to exposing the nature of the Stalinist sabotage of the socialist effort:


In response to Russian aid to Catalonia and the Aragon front there is more evidence of political control. Catalonia was dominated largely by the Anarchists and, unlike Largo Caballero and the Socialists, the Anarchists were not willing to follow the Communist lead and forget the revolution until the war had been won, even though they had agreed to participate in the government and to organize a centralized command. They resisted particularly efforts to turn their private army into a regular army. Consequently, the Communists decided to use the force of their equipment to bring them around. Walter Krivitksy reports that at the very beginning:


...I received strict instructions from Moscow not to permit the boat to deliver the cargo in Barcelona. Under no circumstances were those planes to pass through Catalonia, which had its own government, very much like that of a sovereign state. This Catalonian government was dominated by revolutionists of anti-Stalinist persuasion. They were not trusted by Moscow, although they were then desperately holding one of the most vital sectors of the Loyalist front against fierce attacks from Franco's army.

[...]

Soviet aid was used to discriminate against the revolutionaries in Catalonia in several ways. There is good circumstantial evidence that the Soviet Union set these conditions for aiding Catalonia: that the dissident Communist POUM should not be allowed to participate any longer in the Catalonia Generalitat, and that the Catalonian government must submit to the over-all program set down by the central government. Aid to Catalonia began in December, and immediately the POUM representatives were dropped from the Council, the Catalonian militias submitted to the long process of being organized into a regular army, and the central government began gradually to assume authority over industry in Catalonia...Evidence in respect to the Communist refusal of material for the Aragon front is much more clear. When the Madrid front had ben secured by Soviet material aid against the first assaults, nothing was done to help the important Aragon front which was manned primarily by the militias of the POUM and the CNT. Failure to support this front is impossible to explain. It clearly shows the political motive for the distribution of supplies. Katia Landau states the case:


No sacrifice, they say, must be held back for the saving of Madrid. It is not only in Madrid, but also in the Aragon front that arms are needed. At the Aragon front there are the militias of the C.N.T.-F.A.I. and the P.O.U.M. who wait. With the modern Russian arms, they would go on in the conquest of Saragossa, which would thus contribute in the most effective and definite way to forestall the encirclement of Madrid [and hinder Franco's offensive against Bilbao.] And the arms, at this time, are not a far-off dream; they are there in the port of Cartagena. But at the Aragon front the Anarchist militia and that of the P.O.U.M wait in vain; and slowly they realize the cruel truth; the Russian arms are political arms, directed against the revolutionary elements of the C.N.T., of the F.A.I. and the P.O.U.M.

[...]

There is no doubt from the evidence that strategically this refusal of aid for an Aragon offensive was a mistake of serious consequences...it can be stated from the evidence reviewed above that the Communists made extensive political use of their aid in order to undermine their political opponents, the POUM and the Anarchists.

I must emphasize that I don't attempt to illustrate this merely for the sake of anarchist partisanship; I've always acknowledged that the libertarian Marxists among the POUM were worthy allies of the anarchists, and that even the UGT did admittedly play a notable role in the collectivization efforts, though they were still of course CNT-directed. It's simply that modern Leninists (pro-Stalin or not) often cite the "failure" of the social revolution as an example of the deficiencies of anarchism while not acknowledging the obvious reality that it was the treasonous actions of their closest ideological fellows involved in the civil war that undermined efforts.

[BabylonHoruv]

Sorry they didn't have Gandalf on call to conjure up some weapons at the time. How do you expect the CNT-FAI would have carried on without arms? Revolutionary Kung-Fu? A war was on, either side was being backed by powerful allies, you can't just dive in in a situation like that and hope to win a protracted, WW1 trench-warfare style war!


I'm serious though, if you can name me a way they could have carried on the war I'd like to hear it.


What they did. Steal weapons, and get them from mexico. They just needed to realize more quickly (and act on the fact more forcefully) that the stalinists were as much the enemy as the fascists.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, Kronstadt, where the anarchists suppressed the workers' uprising calling for Soviet democracy.Tried to. That didn't work too well for them though, did it.


when trots try pushing it it's just funny. Cos obviously, every Leninist group ever hasn't sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie.Is this supposed to be a sting? I bet it's supposed to be a sting.


I'm serious though, if you can name me a way they could have carried on the war I'd like to hear it. And I'm telling you that that argument works just as well against any revolution at any time anywhere. Which in effect makes you an apologist for the counterrevolutionaries.

[Devrim]

I mean the line that anarchists never push an independent working-class position. I was saying that it's annoying when the left-communists (who do defend decent working-class positions) try and claim that anarchists don't do that, let alone when trots (who always side with a faction of the bourgeois) do. I don't think there's anything there to disagree with?

I don't think that we claim that 'anarchists never push an independent working class position'. We think that there are revoulutionary anarchist politics and that anarchists can take class positions.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise anarchist who do desert working class politics and side with the bourgoeise. After all we wouldn't let people off the hook because they called themselves Marxists.

In 1914, for example, the German SPD betrayed. The left condemned the betrayal and struggled to build new working class organisations. Many anarchists also betrayed including Kropotkin. Should they not be condemned also.

In Spain in 1936, the CNT betrayed. They joined the government and when the workers in Barcelona rose again in May 37, they ordered the workers to lay down their arms and stop their strike effectively disarming them in the face of Stalinist massacres.

This is not to say that every anarchist betrayed. Even those who didn't though were confused and unable to understand the situation clearly. The point is that it was not just mistakes. Just as the social democrats did in 1914, the CNT crossed a class line. It went over to the side of the bourgoise. To arrive at a consistent revolutionary theory anarchists today must recognise this.

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Is this supposed to be a sting? I bet it's supposed to be a sting.

If "pointing out that you're talking nonsense" counts as a sting, then yes, this is a sting.

I don't think that we claim that 'anarchists never push an independent working class position'. We think that there are revoulutionary anarchist politics and that anarchists can take class positions.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise anarchist who do desert working class politics and side with the bourgoeise. After all we wouldn't let people off the hook because they called themselves Marxists.

Oh, I'd agree with that (the history of the CNT is part of why I'm not a syndicalist). The point I was making is that (as long as they don't actually slander us), I'm fine with marxists criticising us from a genuinely revolutionary perspective; but for supporters of state capitalism to criticise us for not being revolutionary enough is absurd.

[Pogue]

I don't think that we claim that 'anarchists never push an independent working class position'. We think that there are revoulutionary anarchist politics and that anarchists can take class positions.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise anarchist who do desert working class politics and side with the bourgoeise. After all we wouldn't let people off the hook because they called themselves Marxists.

In 1914, for example, the German SPD betrayed. The left condemned the betrayal and struggled to build new working class organisations. Many anarchists also betrayed including Kropotkin. Should they not be condemned also.

In Spain in 1936, the CNT betrayed. They joined the government and when the workers in Barcelona rose again in May 37, they ordered the workers to lay down their arms and stop their strike effectively disarming them in the face of Stalinist massacres.

This is not to say that every anarchist betrayed. Even those who didn't though were confused and unable to understand the situation clearly. The point is that it was not just mistakes. Just as the social democrats did in 1914, the CNT crossed a class line. It went over to the side of the bourgoise. To arrive at a consistent revolutionary theory anarchists today must recognise this.

Devrim

But I can recognise this. I don't see what impact it has on the libertarian communist theory. I don't think we are in a situation where everyone must be a left communist or they are doomed to betray the working class.

When you say we anarchists have to learn, do you essentially mean 'You have to become left communists?'. Because I think i have learned from the mistakes of the CNT. I certainly think I understand them. The CNT has informed my political analysis through its actions in many ways. The revolutionary union degenerating through a beurecracy is something I am on guard agaisnt. The working class havint to make potentially damming decisions is something I guard against. However I don't think there is a revolutionary theory that is both practical and perfect at the same time. I think Left Communism trys to become perfect in its analysis and in the end reduces itself to saying very little, i.e: when the working class is in a revolutionary period we'll hope it listens to us and doesn't make any seirous mistakes. As opposed to say the CNT-FAI that attempted to organise in the here and now and for various reasons (more complex than just deciding to sell out the class because it felt like it) ended up doing something contrary to the interests of the class.

[Devrim]

But I can recognise this. I don't see what impact it has on the libertarian communist theory. I don't think we are in a situation where everyone must be a left communist or they are doomed to betray the working class.

Of course there were people who were left communists who betrayed. Bukharin would be one example. Left communism has never betrayed as a current because it defines itself as such. Whilst our organisations may have made mistakes and done things badly, they are defined by having taken a class line, opposition to imperialist war at the crucial moments in history. That, however, is no gaurantee against betrayal in the future.


When you say we anarchists have to learn, do you essentially mean 'You have to become left communists?'.

No, I don't think I said learn. I think it was recognise. Of course anarchists don't have to become left communists, though I hope many will.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

If "pointing out that you're talking nonsense" counts as a sting, then yes, this is a sting.

I'll take that as a "I have no real way of countering what you said."

[Devrim]

Because I think i have learned from the mistakes of the CNT. I certainly think I understand them. The CNT has informed my political analysis through its actions in many ways. The revolutionary union degenerating through a beurecracy is something I am on guard agaisnt. The working class havint to make potentially damming decisions is something I guard against. However I don't think there is a revolutionary theory that is both practical and perfect at the same time. I think Left Communism trys to become perfect in its analysis and in the end reduces itself to saying very little, i.e: when the working class is in a revolutionary period we'll hope it listens to us and doesn't make any seirous mistakes. As opposed to say the CNT-FAI that attempted to organise in the here and now and for various reasons (more complex than just deciding to sell out the class because it felt like it) ended up doing something contrary to the interests of the class.

I got dragged away from this to watch a romatic film last night. I don't think that most anarchists have learned from the mistakes of the CNT. I think that it is important to understand and analysis historical events, and to me the anarchist assertion that the 'revolution' in Spain was the 'deepest social revolution' is blatantly untrue, and ignores this. I don't think that there was a revolution in Spain even. The working class never took power. It is an important question to grapple with.

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'll take that as a "I have no real way of countering what you said."
No u.
Seriously, what you said was "Is this supposed to be a sting? I bet it's supposed to be a sting." How exactly is one supposed to counter that?

You made a nonsensical assertion, so the burden of proof is on you to provide some kind of evidence for it. I'm still waiting.

[Agnapostate]

It's important to note that the negative Stalinist influence was not merely limited to military sabotage, as many anarchists and libertarians are already aware. Gerald Brenan notes this reality in his acclaimed work on the topic of the civil war's background, The Spanish Labyrinth.


The later history of the large industrial collectives in Barcelona was not as happy as their beginning. The Central Government, and especially the Communist and Socialist members of it, desired to bring them under the direct control of the State: they therefore failed to provide them with the credit required for buying raw materials: as soon as the supply of raw cotton was exhausted the mills stropped working. Other industries that had been turned over to making munitions fared somewhat better, but even they were harassed by the new bureaucratic organs of the Ministry of Supply and had a perpetual struggle to maintain their independent existence. In spite of the support given them by the Catalan Generalidad, the end of the war saw them well on their way to being absorbed by the State. In other words, the fact that the Anarchists had not been strong enough in the first days of the war to abolish the State altogether inevitably meant the at least partial failure of their exierment of free collectivization.

Again, we can distinguish between Largo Caballero's UGT and the Stalinist PSUC, which had powerful influence though numerically insubstantial. While I don't doubt that the republican socialists were a hindrance in many instances just as they were a help in others, the PSUC was consistently an active impediment to collectivization efforts.

[Devrim]

It's important to note that the negative Stalinist influence was not merely limited to military sabotage, as many anarchists and libertarians are already aware. Gerald Brenan notes this reality in his acclaimed work on the topic of the civil war's background, The Spanish Labyrinth.

Again, we can distinguish between Largo Caballero's UGT and the Stalinist PSUC, which had powerful influence though numerically insubstantial. While I don't doubt that the republican socialists were a hindrance in many instances just as they were a help in others, the PSUC was consistently an active impediment to collectivization efforts.

I don't quite understand all of the anarchist complaints about the Stalinists. So the counter revolutionaries were counter revolutionary.

Of course their role needs to be explained, but it shouldn't really have been surprising.

Devrim

[Old Man Diogenes]

We can just go case by case and see how each time the Anarchists betrayed the working class when possible or otherwise acted against its interests. We'll obviously have Spain, the Russian revolutions, Kronstadt, WWII, I imagine I could also say a couple of words about the role of anarchism in Israel. That however seems a bit long for here.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis? The Anarchists called for Soviet democracy at Kronstadt, how was that betrayal, if anything the Bolsheviks crushing the Kronstadt rebellion was a betrayal. And in the early stages of the revolution when Soviet democracy was in full swing, who came along and ruined that, you guessed it, the Bolsheviks. How did the Anarchists betray the working class in Spain, the CNT may have betrayed the class, but that doesn't mean every Anarchist is guilty of the betrayal, if anything the Moscow-controlled government betrayed the working class. Were you joking when you said this or something? If you were it wasn't very funny.

[PRC-UTE]

Come off it, you're not as stupid as to say such things :/

I don't understand you. I didn't even say it as a criticism really. Only noting that they did vote for the popular front. Not because they argued this was the way forward for revolution but because they wanted the popular front to get their many prisoners out of prison. See their speeches and artcles at the time, or if you want a source see the official biographer of the CNT, Jose Peirats 'Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution'. The English language edition was printed in your country.

[Искра]

I would just like to add that POUM also was in the government (both Catalonian and of Republican Spain), so I don't see why Trotskyists here are moralizing? Yeah, that was a fuck up... like we here support that? Move on...

[fredbergen]

Jurko: The Trotskyists broke with the POUM because it supported the popular front.

It is understandable that you would be confused, since all the fake-Trotskyist opportunists these days want to rehabilitate the POUM. They want to posthumously reunite with their centrist brothers in the timeless fraternity of class collaborationist betrayal.

[Искра]

Jurko: The Trotskyists broke with the POUM because it supported the popular front.

It is understandable that you would be confused, since all the fake-Trotskyist opportunists these days want to rehabilitate the POUM. They want to posthumously reunite with their centrist brothers in the timeless fraternity of class collaborationist betrayal.
Hm?? What? You are claiming that POUM isn't Trotskyist? Can you prove that? Also, can you give me than the name of "real" Trotskyist organisation?

[Yehuda Stern]

You are claiming that POUM isn't Trotskyist? Can you prove that?

It can easily be proven. Trotsky openly broke with Nin a little before the POUM was founded, exactly because of Nin's insistence on creating the POUM with BOC instead of making entry work in the social-democratic youth. First paragraph here, for example. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/spain01.htm)


Also, can you give me than the name of "real" Trotskyist organisation?

The Seccion Bolshevik-Leninista, led by Grandizo Munis.

[Pogue]

It can easily be proven. Trotsky openly broke with Nin a little before the POUM was founded, exactly because of Nin's insistence on creating the POUM with BOC instead of making entry work in the social-democratic youth. First paragraph here, for example. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/spain01.htm)



The Seccion Bolshevik-Leninista, led by Grandizo Munis.

Do you think maybe theres a reason why the 'real' Trotskyists had no influence at all with the working class?

[fredbergen]

So what are you saying, Pogue? That it would have been better to join Nin (or the other popular frontists) in betraying the workers in exchange for some temporary "influence"? That is the attitude of a bureaucrat, not a revolutionary. It is a tragedy that revolutionary Marxism (Trotskyism) was not able to ideologically defeat its opponents in Spain so that the workers could defeat Franco and take power. Both Nin and Trotsky were assassinated (as "Trotskyites") by Stalin. Trotskyism survived because it expressed the concentrated revolutionary lessons of the working class's victories and defeats, including the revolution in Spain that the POUM and the anarchists, with all their "influence," helped to strangle. But who looks to Nin for revolutionary politics any more, except for dilettantes, coffee-shop philosophers and anything-but-Marxism eclectics?

[Yehuda Stern]

I agree with Fred; besides, how does that have anything to do with what we were discussing? The question was whether or not the POUM was Trotskyist. Clearly, it wasn't.

By the way, yes, there is a reason why the Trotskyists had so little influence among the workers, and it goes far beyond simple tragedy: Andreas Nin wanted to lead the Left Opposition in Spain down a dangerous path which only a few members of the organization resisted. Nin's betrayal on the one hand and Stalinist repression on the other prevented the Spanish Trotskyists from growing in influence.

Were the Trotskyists wrong to split? Nin ended up a class collaborationist and was later murdered by the Stalinists. Should we have joined in?

[UlyssesTheRed]

The anarchists didn't vote, and the government that won as a result bombed workers and totally flubbed the fascist uprising. But how would things have gone if they'd voted for whoever they were going to vote for?

edit: shit, meant this for history.

The war would have turned out differently had the anarchists not abstained from taking state power. Not all of them did, btw (Friends of Durruti) but not enough did. The weakness of anarchism and why it is not a serious contender to replace capitalism is laid bare in the history of the Spanish Revolution.