another spanish civil war thread

[Agnapostate]

And as for the Spanish Revolution, don't even start. The Soviets gave the Republic far more support than any other group outside of Spain, and the International Brigades arguably saved Madrid in 1936. To blame the Soviet Union for the fall of the Republic is nothing short of inexplicable.

Come now...we've been over this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-spanish-civil-t113975/index.html?p=1505127). ;)

As I noted, 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.

As I also noted, 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.

[manic expression]

Come now...we've been over this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-spanish-civil-t113975/index.html?p=1505127). ;)

As I noted, 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:

The Soviet Union didn't sabotage the socialist effort, it determined that the survival of the Republic and the defeat of fascism was the most immediate objective of the working class. While the anarchists flip-flopped on their support for the Republic, failed to organize an efficient fighting force, failed to conquer state power for the working class, the communists were presenting the greatest opposition to Franco.

As for your evidence of "Stalinist sabotage", such events were not so unreasonable:

Why should the Soviet Union have provided the POUM and the anarchists, who had no interest in supporting the Soviet worker state, with supplies? The Soviet Union supported the Republic, and that contributed in no small part to the actual effort against Franco. The anarchists couldn't even figure out if they wanted to support the Republic or not, making it very difficult for the Soviet Union to consider sending them weapons when no one seemed to know where they stood on the most important question of the day.

Oh, and all arms are political arms. That's how it works in every conflict, ever. Crying foul because the anarchists didn't get everything they wanted (including weapons they probably would have squandered anyway, as they were infamous for failing to utilize captured Nationalist artillery, etc.) is nothing more than a ridiculous side-show to the great side-show.

[Agnapostate]

The Soviet Union didn't sabotage the socialist effort, it determined that the survival of the Republic and the defeat of fascism was the most immediate objective of the working class. While the anarchists flip-flopped on their support for the Republic, failed to organize an efficient fighting force, failed to conquer state power for the working class, the communists were presenting the greatest opposition to Franco.

I didn't refer to active sabotage of the social revolution by the USSR; I referred to active sabotage by Stalinists in the form of Enrique Lister's 11th Division troops focusing on the violent destruction of anarchist collectivization in Aragon rather than anti-fascist military resistance, despite the fact that Aragon was a divided territory. The more indirect sabotage of the Soviet leadership themselves came through support for this action and deliberate underprovision of military units in the Aragon front.


As for your evidence of "Stalinist sabotage", such events were not so unreasonable:

Why should the Soviet Union have provided the POUM and the anarchists, who had no interest in supporting the Soviet worker state, with supplies? The Soviet Union supported the Republic, and that contributed in no small part to the actual effort against Franco. The anarchists couldn't even figure out if they wanted to support the Republic or not, making it very difficult for the Soviet Union to consider sending them weapons when no one seemed to know where they stood on the most important question of the day.

The anarchist militias were established as Republican allies at that point, to say nothing of the POUM. More relevantly, to claim that there was a lack of knowledge about their allegiances would necessitate deliberate ignorance or dismissal of the fact that libertarian military forces had engaged in significant anti-fascist resistance in Aragon, and rather successful resistance at that. As noted by Spanish Civil War historian Hugh Thomas:


In Aragon, the revolutionary armies of Barcelona, Durruti and his Anarchist column in the lead, and Major Perez Farras in command, were still bursting westwards bringing fire and death to the villages and towns on the way to Saragossa and Huesca. In some of these, such as Caspe, the [fascist] rising had at first been triumphant. But the fervor of the masses from Barcelona immediately brought revolution, varying according to the political complexion of the column, to the places they entered, whether or not they had to fight for them.

Their military skill was a well-acknowledged reality, considering his comment that "Durruti's column was the most formiddable of these forces, having advanced within striking distance of Saragossa." It was then that they were deterred by superior military technology in the way of air strikes, not superior coordination based on better organizational principles. And even aside from the fact that the anarchist collectives were violently sabotaged and the militias were undersupplied, there was also the matter of the eventual involuntary incorporation of those militias into the regular army that was mentioned by Cattell and is more explicitly described by Spanish Civil War historian Burnett Bolloten, certainly no friend of the anarchists:


[T]he Libertarian movement, far from being able to use its participation in the government to increase its say in the military field or even to curb the progress of the Communists, was obliged in the end to circumscribe its efforts to maintaining control of its own militia units and securing arms from the War Ministry. This was no easy task, for the latter had decided that weapons would be withheld from those militia forces which were unwilling to transform themselves into regular units with the prescribed cadres...in the long run, [the Libertarian military units] were forced to yield to the concept of militarization.

So your own account is decidedly lacking in that regard, though I don't hear much of this from Marxists so much as Leninists, and I don't adopt an anti-Marxist position myself.


Oh, and all arms are political arms. That's how it works in every conflict, ever. Crying foul because the anarchists didn't get everything they wanted (including weapons they probably would have squandered anyway, as they were infamous for failing to utilize captured Nationalist artillery, etc.) is nothing more than a ridiculous side-show to the great side-show.

As a whole, your response has failed to address the most relevant point: There was deliberate Soviet underprovision of libertarian military forces because of the Stalinist leadership's dislike of their ideological principles, which resulted in serious and substantial military deficiencies. So a reasoned analysis of the social revolution would conclude that in reality, the exigencies of the situation (a fascist military revolt against the republican government), led anarchist union representatives to organize an alliance with authoritarian "socialists" backed by the Soviet Union. These phony socialists considered the social revolution a counterproductive engagement, and moved to sabotage and destroy collectivization efforts through violent force, with the political regime in Moscow deliberately depriving anarchist and libertarian Marxist military forces of necessary aid, critically undermining the war effort. The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker offered this insighftul analysis into the reasons for this treachery:


For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of the counter-revolution and for paving the way for Socialism...In Russia, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people…What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted “necessity of a dictatorship” is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and peasants.

So we have not only obvious evidence of underprovision based on political motives, but a clear and logical basis for those motives.

[manic expression]

I didn't refer to active sabotage of the social revolution by the USSR; I referred to active sabotage by Stalinists in the form of Enrique Lister's 11th Division troops focusing on the violent destruction of anarchist collectivization in Aragon rather than anti-fascist military resistance, despite the fact that Aragon was a divided territory. The more indirect sabotage of the Soviet leadership themselves came through support for this action and deliberate underprovision of military units in the Aragon front.

Like I said, the anarchists couldn't figure out whether or not they supported the Republic. Why should the so-called "Stalinists" just sit back and let the anarchists cleave chunks of Spain away from the Republic? Again, your argument boils down to being sour that socialists didn't let the anarchists get away with whatever they wanted.


The anarchist militias were established as Republican allies at that point, to say nothing of the POUM. More relevantly, to claim that there was a lack of knowledge about their allegiances would necessitate deliberate ignorance or dismissal of the fact that libertarian military forces had engaged in significant anti-fascist resistance in Aragon, and rather successful resistance at that. As noted by Spanish Civil War historian Hugh Thomas:

If they were really allies of the Republic, why didn't they submit to the authority of that government? They didn't.

I never said the anarchists weren't anti-fascist. However, I am saying that they weakened the cause of the Republic through various actions, and that the supporters of the Republic were more than reasonable in responding to this.

And anarchist military organization was laughably incompetent. By most accounts, they had impressive morale and elan, but that was squandered by a complete lack of discipline. Their tactics were less than unsophisticated, too.


Their military skill was a well-acknowledged reality, considering his comment that "Durruti's column was the most formiddable of these forces, having advanced within striking distance of Saragossa." It was then that they were deterred by superior military technology in the way of air strikes, not superior coordination based on better organizational principles. And even aside from the fact that the anarchist collectives were violently sabotaged and the militias were undersupplied, there was also the matter of the eventual involuntary incorporation of those militias into the regular army that was mentioned by Cattell and is more explicitly described by Spanish Civil War historian Burnett Bolloten, certainly no friend of the anarchists:

Durruti's column fell apart after the guy got killed by one of his own soldiers. Yeah, real formidable, and that was the best the anarchists had to offer. :rolleyes:

Incorporation of those militias into the regular army would have done them a whole lot of good. United forces are almost always more effective then divided ones, especially on the organizational level (to say nothing of strategic unity/disunity). The fact that you don't understand this tells me you need to read a bit more.

And I've already discussed why it was prudent to not give the anarchists arms when their loyalty to the Republic was questionable at best.


So your own account is decidedly lacking in that regard, though I don't hear much of this from Marxists so much as Leninists, and I don't adopt an anti-Marxist position myself.

Leninists are Marxists. I find it fitting that a "Marxist" who rejects Bolshevism would find themselves in the anarchist camp, as we see it time and again.


As a whole, your response has failed to address the most relevant point: There was deliberate Soviet underprovision of libertarian military forces because of the Stalinist leadership's dislike of their ideological principles,

And you're failing to address the consequences of your own proposition. The "ideological principles" of the anarchists were not just an ideological obstacle, and indeed the "Stalinists" of the period were noted for working with different ideologies in order to counter the fascist menace. The problem was that the anarchists starting undercutting the Republic through their misadventures in decentralized communes. The anarchists were not reliable allies, and their actions in this regard prove that.


which resulted in serious and substantial military deficiencies. So a reasoned analysis of the social revolution would conclude that in reality, the exigencies of the situation (a fascist military revolt against the republican government), led anarchist union representatives to organize an alliance with authoritarian "socialists" backed by the Soviet Union. These phony socialists considered the social revolution a counterproductive engagement, and moved to sabotage and destroy collectivization efforts through violent force, with the political regime in Moscow deliberately depriving anarchist and libertarian Marxist military forces of necessary aid, critically undermining the war effort. The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker offered this insighftul analysis into the reasons for this treachery:

Those deficiencies were only the fault of those who refused to support the Republican cause. Had the Republic's authority been respected, the May Days would never have happened, Lister would never have had to waste valuable time and effort dealing with the anarchists' mid-war experiments. Instead, the anarchists acted like they could do whatever they wanted, regardless of the larger struggle against fascism. That was the problem, and the fact that you're crying foul because the Soviet Union decided to not give them weapons because of this is just absurd. It was more than reasonable to withhold arms from unreliable johnny-come-lately "allies".

Far from the Soviets undercutting the war effort, the Soviets were the only ones keeping the effort afloat. The anarchists and their "socialist" friends were the ones playing stumbling block to the Republic, and thus the Soviets did what they could to minimize this problem by depriving them of the means to be a bigger stumbling block. Quite reasonable, really.

And as I've already said, "libertarian Marxism" is anarchism dressed up in twisted socialist rhetoric. Don't expect communists to lend them their sympathy.


So we have not only obvious evidence of underprovision based on political motives, but a clear and logical basis for those motives.

Right, a clear and logical motive of defending the interests of the Spanish working classes. That's what the anarchists were obstructing.

[bcbm]

the anarchists' mid-war experiments

the collectivizations began almost immediately, after it was the anarchists and other militias who disobeyed the government (and you go on about loyalty:rolleyes:) and took up arms to resist the coup.

[manic expression]

the collectivizations began almost immediately, after it was the anarchists and other militias who disobeyed the government (and you go on about loyalty:rolleyes:) and took up arms to resist the coup.

The civil war began almost immediately. That's my point. That was the time to defeat Franco, not the time to start decentralizing everything under the Catalan sun.

[bcbm]

The civil war began almost immediately. That's my point.

Maybe you missed mine. You're criticizing the revolutionary workers for not being loyal to the Republic. This is the same Republic that was quite ready to capitulate to the fascists without a shot. These are the same revolutionary workers that disobeyed that Republic in order to take up arms. Certainly you can understand being skeptical of the government that almost sold you to the wolves (which of course, they did again anyway).


That was the time to defeat Franco, not the time to start decentralizing everything under the Catalan sun.

The only way to defeat fascism in Spain was to collectivize (not "decentralize"), that is, to carry out the revolution they began. The workers who initially resisted and held power in half the country should be criticized for not going far enough. Because they failed to seize power, the conflict was doomed to be a civil war between two sections of the ruling class and, as noted by Orwell and others, in the end was merely a conflict between two fascisms, one being but slightly better than the other.

[Random Precision]

Those deficiencies were only the fault of those who refused to support the Republican cause. Had the Republic's authority been respected, the May Days would never have happened,

Oh my yes. If only those stupid workers could shut up when a bourgeois government tries to seize their property without proper cause. And actually, the CNT leadership was involved directly in ordering its militants away from the barricades and making a settlement with the Generalitat and PSUC forces.


Lister would never have had to waste valuable time and effort dealing with the anarchists' mid-war experiments. Instead, the anarchists acted like they could do whatever they wanted, regardless of the larger struggle against fascism.

It was actually the workers in individual industries in Catalonia (railways, metalworking, carpentry) who went ahead with varying plans of collectivization that often completely left the anarchist leadership in the dust. Later they would collaborate with the government when it went ahead and broke up the collectives.

The dispute you have is not with "the anarchists", but the Catalan working class.

[manic expression]

Oh my yes. If only those stupid workers could shut up when a bourgeois government tries to seize their property without proper cause. And actually, the CNT leadership was involved directly in ordering its militants away from the barricades and making a settlement with the Generalitat and PSUC forces.

It was a popular front government, which is quite a different thing. At any rate, the point stands that decentralization of control during a civil war is just a bad idea. The struggle against fascism did not need such actions at that time.


It was actually the workers in individual industries in Catalonia (railways, metalworking, carpentry) who went ahead with varying plans of collectivization that often completely left the anarchist leadership in the dust. Later they would collaborate with the government when it went ahead and broke up the collectives.

The dispute you have is not with "the anarchists", but the Catalan working class.

I do have a dispute with the anarchists on many counts. However, my concern here is not really an ideological one but a practical one. How was the Spanish working class to fight Franco? I'm not against collectivization at all, it's just the context of the civil war and the strategic consequences of decentralization (and the confusion inherent in such structural changes) that bring me to the same conclusion reached by the communist movement of Spain. That's really what I'm getting at here.

[manic expression]

Maybe you missed mine. You're criticizing the revolutionary workers for not being loyal to the Republic. This is the same Republic that was quite ready to capitulate to the fascists without a shot. These are the same revolutionary workers that disobeyed that Republic in order to take up arms. Certainly you can understand being skeptical of the government that almost sold you to the wolves (which of course, they did again anyway).

In the end, though, who formed the greatest opposition to the Army of Africa? The forces of the Republic, that's who. I can understand being skeptical, but I can't understand being counterproductive to wartime unity.


The only way to defeat fascism in Spain was to collectivize (not "decentralize"), that is, to carry out the revolution they began. The workers who initially resisted and held power in half the country should be criticized for not going far enough. Because they failed to seize power, the conflict was doomed to be a civil war between two sections of the ruling class and, as noted by Orwell and others, in the end was merely a conflict between two fascisms, one being but slightly better than the other.

Wrong. The popular front strategy, while arguably imperfect, offered a way to defeat fascism with non-working-class allies.

If you think that the Republic was just another "fascism", then there's really no point in continuing the discussion. Such declarations are simply misled, and beyond that unhelpful.

[bcbm]

In the end, though, who formed the greatest opposition to the Army of Africa? The forces of the Republic, that's who.

The Republic only formed any opposition because the working class decided to let them keep their heads.


I can understand being skeptical, but I can't understand being counterproductive to wartime unity.

What, you mean like disarming, imprisoning and killing the most militant sections of the resistance to fascism and destroying their armed struggle and all of the popular social measures they've enacted?


Wrong. The popular front strategy, while arguably imperfect, offered a way to defeat fascism with non-working-class allies.

The working class has no allies in the fight against fascism; at least, not any allies worth keeping. Workers have no interest in taking sides in battles between bourgeois factions but rather in destroying them.


If you think that the Republic was just another "fascism", then there's really no point in continuing the discussion. Such declarations are simply misled, and beyond that unhelpful.

Fascism is the suppression of working class insurrection by the bourgeoisie. This was the case in Italy and Germany and it is the case in Spain as well. The Republic destroyed the social revolution, destroyed the armed worker's groups and murdered thousands of revolutionaries and working class militants. Whatever you want to call it, it was open class warfare by the bourgeoisie directed against a rebellious working class.

[Random Precision]

It was a popular front government, which is quite a different thing.

Popular Front governments are bourgeois democratic governments with the participation of reformist socialists and Stalinists. They do not represent a change in the class nature of the state nor offer any challenge to private property. Of course, that you side with any government, whether popular front or not, against the working class, says quite a lot about your politics.


At any rate, the point stands that decentralization of control during a civil war is just a bad idea.

Well, let's take Catalonia as an example. After the rising of fascist officers nearly all Barcelona's industrialists fled to fascist-controlled areas, or alternatively stayed in the hope that they would be saved by General Goded's army, in which case they were captured and had to be executed. This put the working class in a position where it could either take over the running of industry itself, or let it alone, which would have essentially handicapped the fight against the fascists. No one else was offering to run the factories for them, and during the time the workers were in control (about a year) they managed to accomplish some quite incredible things, including the construction of an optics industry from scratch, all while a war was going on.


The struggle against fascism did not need such actions at that time.

And this of course demonstrates that you believe the fight between two factions of the bourgeoisie takes precedence over a very real social revolution. It sure clears things up, I guess...


I do have a dispute with the anarchists on many counts. However, my concern here is not really an ideological one but a practical one. How was the Spanish working class to fight Franco? I'm not against collectivization at all, it's just the context of the civil war and the strategic consequences of decentralization (and the confusion inherent in such structural changes) that bring me to the same conclusion reached by the communist movement of Spain. That's really what I'm getting at here.

Of course, the Communists in Spain didn't exactly "not have any problems with collectivization" were it not for the struggle against fascism; they were actively hostile to all aspects of the brewing social revolution and declared that what was needed in Spain was the completion of the bourgeois-democratic tasks rather than socialism. Furthermore, it wasn't like they asked nicely for the collectives to disband; Communist and Socialist officials in government passed laws that dissolved the collectives if they could not prove their "legality" (hardly possible for most since their owners had fled) by a certain date. This was not a friendly discussion, it was a class conflict which I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of.

[manic expression]

Popular Front governments are bourgeois democratic governments with the participation of reformist socialists and Stalinists. They do not represent a change in the class nature of the state nor offer any challenge to private property. Of course, that you side with any government, whether popular front or not, against the working class, says quite a lot about your politics.

It says more if you are willing to ignore history and the context of the time. The popular front offered the greatest opposition to Franco, something you haven't disputed precisely because that's the fact of the matter. The Republic, too, was the greatest obstacle to Franco taking over the country off the bat. So what we have the position that gives the working class the best chance of defeating fascism. That, really, is in the interests of the Spanish workers.


Well, let's take Catalonia as an example. After the rising of fascist officers nearly all Barcelona's industrialists fled to fascist-controlled areas, or alternatively stayed in the hope that they would be saved by General Goded's army, in which case they were captured and had to be executed. This put the working class in a position where it could either take over the running of industry itself, or let it alone, which would have essentially handicapped the fight against the fascists. No one else was offering to run the factories for them, and during the time the workers were in control (about a year) they managed to accomplish some quite incredible things, including the construction of an optics industry from scratch, all while a war was going on.And when Republican forces were able to establish a presence in the area (such as Enrique Lister's forces), what do you propose? Separate organs of control during a civil war or centralized control to oppose Franco?


And this of course demonstrates that you believe the fight between two factions of the bourgeoisie takes precedence over a very real social revolution. It sure clears things up, I guess...No, it demonstrates that I believe the fight against a fascist coup takes precedence, period. Had the Republic survived, the communists (and the working class, of course) would have been in a very good position to carry out a social revolution. The defeat of fascism was the most pressing issue facing the working class of Spain at the time.


Of course, the Communists in Spain didn't exactly "not have any problems with collectivization" were it not for the struggle against fascism; they were actively hostile to all aspects of the brewing social revolution and declared that what was needed in Spain was the completion of the bourgeois-democratic tasks rather than socialism. Furthermore, it wasn't like they asked nicely for the collectives to disband; Communist and Socialist officials in government passed laws that dissolved the collectives if they could not prove their "legality" (hardly possible for most since their owners had fled) by a certain date. This was not a friendly discussion, it was a class conflict which I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of.So they're supposed to have a friendly discussion in the middle of one of the most bitter civil wars of the 20th Century? Does anyone here take into account wartime concerns at all? My word, you're expecting the supporters of the Republic (which you equate to supporters of capitalism, which is dishonest at best) to let things get decentralized precisely when this was deleterious to the interests of the workers.

Again, I'm not arguing against collectivization, I'm arguing against that collectivization in that region in that country in that moment in history.

[bcbm]

The Republic, too, was the greatest obstacle to Franco taking over the country off the bat.Right off the bat the Republic did nothing.


Does anyone here take into account wartime concerns at all? You believe the same militants who seized arms, organized themselves into militias, defeated the coup in half the country and began a military campaign weren't thinking of wartime concerns?


My word, you're expecting the supporters of the Republic (which you equate to supporters of capitalism, which is dishonest at best)Which class did the Republic defend? Which class did it disarm, imprison and murder?


to let things get decentralized precisely when this was deleterious to the interests of the workers.The collectives in Spain were organized into large federations that helped coordinate their production in order to aid the war effort. The militias as well. Why do you keep referring to decentralization?

[Random Precision]

It says more if you are willing to ignore history and the context of the time. The popular front offered the greatest opposition to Franco, something you haven't disputed precisely because that's the fact of the matter. The Republic, too, was the greatest obstacle to Franco taking over the country off the bat. So what we have the position that gives the working class the best chance of defeating fascism. That, really, is in the interests of the Spanish workers.

As bcbm points out, the Republican leadership did fuck all when the uprising began. Negrín, Azaña etc. were all most concerned with how they could come to an agreement with Franco and the other officers involved in the coup. They hemmed and hawed all through the time when Franco was preparing to airlift the Army of Africa into Spain- it is very possible that had they offered Moroccan leaders independence, they would have stopped Franco from ever reaching the continent, but the Popular Front being enamored of the few remaining colonial possessions, this was never going to happen. In fact, it was only the working class (mostly of the CNT) demanding arms to stop the fascists that finally forced them to get off their asses. This is what you're defending


And when Republican forces were able to establish a presence in the area (such as Enrique Lister's forces), what do you propose? Separate organs of control during a civil war or centralized control to oppose Franco?

Had I been around then, I would have proposed workers' action to sweep away the fragments of the liberal bourgeoisie and to transform the civil war into a revolutionary war. You know, Marxism.


No, it demonstrates that I believe the fight against a fascist coup takes precedence, period. Had the Republic survived, the communists (and the working class, of course) would have been in a very good position to carry out a social revolution.

But, the PCE, as I mentioned, was not interested in social revolution, the fascist coup notwithstanding. They were very much committed to the thorough opportunism, electoralism and class-collaboration that went with Popular Fronts everywhere. Did we see Communists of other countries that were not under fascist threat fighting for social revolution? Maybe you should find out for yourself.


So they're supposed to have a friendly discussion in the middle of one of the most bitter civil wars of the 20th Century?

I dunno. Your chaps certainly weren't about discussion, though. They were about counterrevolution.


Does anyone here take into account wartime concerns at all? My word, you're expecting the supporters of the Republic (which you equate to supporters of capitalism, which is dishonest at best)

If you support a capitalist state over the interests of the working class under any circumstances, you are supporting capitalism. Full stop.


to let things get decentralized precisely when this was deleterious to the interests of the workers.

Who says collectivization had to be decentralized? Some industries in Catalonia (the commercial railway and public transport, for instance) were fully socialized under the control of their respective unions. I think we might have seen this process extend into all industry had the revolutionary process continued. But of course, you are not interested in this- workers' control for you means decentralization and anarchy.

In fact, it was no more decentralized than capitalist industrial production in Catalonia before or after, but this is a different story.


Again, I'm not arguing against collectivization, I'm arguing against that collectivization in that region in that country in that moment in history.

Yes. That region in that country in that moment in history was experiencing a revolutionary situation- and your response to this is, "not now". I think it's pretty obvious what you're arguing against.

[manic expression]

As bcbm points out, the Republican leadership did fuck all when the uprising began. Negrín, Azaña etc. were all most concerned with how they could come to an agreement with Franco and the other officers involved in the coup. They hemmed and hawed all through the time when Franco was preparing to airlift the Army of Africa into Spain- it is very possible that had they offered Moroccan leaders independence, they would have stopped Franco from ever reaching the continent, but the Popular Front being enamored of the few remaining colonial possessions, this was never going to happen. In fact, it was only the working class (mostly of the CNT) demanding arms to stop the fascists that finally forced them to get off their asses. This is what you're defending

By November 1936, what was the situation in Spain? Who formed the greatest opposition to Franco? Your insistence on discounting the Republic's actions leading up to the war isn't letting you see that the Republic responded to the calls of the workers with time because of a few things. First, working-class representation in the Republic wasn't 100%, as per the popular front strategy; the PCE, after all, wasn't the sole party in power and other factions held sway as well. Second, the Republic was opposed to Franco's attempts to destroy it, of course, but everyone knew the odds were stacked against them if it ended up being pro-Republic forces vs the Army of Africa. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have attempted a solution that didn't entail one of the most bitter civil wars of the last century.

Further, while it's not necessarily a bad thing to play at counterfactuals (what if the Republic did this or that), it's simply tangential to question both the Republic's genuine anti-fascist stance, and it doesn't change what the reality was then.


Had I been around then, I would have proposed workers' action to sweep away the fragments of the liberal bourgeoisie and to transform the civil war into a revolutionary war. You know, Marxism.

Yeah, fighting Franco's not enough, let's fight the liberal bourgeoisie and push them into the ranks of the right, too! Let's weaken ourselves and strengthen the enemy!


But, the PCE, as I mentioned, was not interested in social revolution, the fascist coup notwithstanding. They were very much committed to the thorough opportunism, electoralism and class-collaboration that went with Popular Fronts everywhere. Did we see Communists of other countries that were not under fascist threat fighting for social revolution? Maybe you should find out for yourself.

The PCE was doing what it thought was best for the Spanish workers at the time. Taking into account everything, I'm not sure they were completely wrong in what they did.

Which countries weren't under the fascist threat? Germany (OK, that one's obvious)? France (which ended up with Petain and a considerable number of pro-fascist French supporters after the Blitzkrieg)? The UK (Mosley and his outfit were causing riots in London)? I'll give you the US (and maybe France), but the popular front strategy against fascism was an immediate concern for many parties around the world. Remember, too, this was the time in which the CPC was taking the Long March to regroup for the revolution they would eventually win after a decade. Are you saying the Chinese communists weren't interested in social revolution?


I dunno. Your chaps certainly weren't about discussion, though. They were about counterrevolution.

No, they were about doing all they could to fight fascism. Disunity in war never leads to success.


If you support a capitalist state over the interests of the working class under any circumstances, you are supporting capitalism. Full stop.

I think defeating Franco was fully in line with the interests of the working class. I'm surprised that you disagree, although I would like to hear your thoughts on that.


Who says collectivization had to be decentralized? Some industries in Catalonia (the commercial railway and public transport, for instance) were fully socialized under the control of their respective unions. I think we might have seen this process extend into all industry had the revolutionary process continued. But of course, you are not interested in this- workers' control for you means decentralization and anarchy.

Wartime governments need control over all the resources they can get their hands on. Having one control center in Madrid and another in Barcelona is just a bad idea strategically.

Of course the process of collectivization would have extended into all industry, if not for Franco and his army. It's hard to collectivize with a fascist army entrenched, and this is why the PCE was trying to get said fascist army out of Spain before moving onto social revolution.


Yes. That region in that country in that moment in history was experiencing a revolutionary situation- and your response to this is, "not now". I think it's pretty obvious what you're arguing against.

I think all of Spain was in a revolutionary situation, but the time called for defeating fascism in order to preserve that very situation. The Republic had many working-class elements that were in key positions to carry out revolutionary changes; you think the workers of Spain should have fought two wars at once, but this would have been suicidal. Suicide for the sake of ideological purity is nothing short of insane.

By the way, when Connolly and the revolutionaries of Ireland launched an anti-imperialist uprising in an alliance with bourgeois elements, what did Lenin have to say about that? Did he decry the lack of ideological purity in the Irish revolutionaries, or did he defend Connolly's decision?

[Random Precision]

By November 1936, what was the situation in Spain? Who formed the greatest opposition to Franco? Your insistence on discounting the Republic's actions leading up to the war isn't letting you see that the Republic responded to the calls of the workers with time because of a few things. First, working-class representation in the Republic wasn't 100%, as per the popular front strategy; the PCE, after all, wasn't the sole party in power and other factions held sway as well. Second, the Republic was opposed to Franco's attempts to destroy it, of course, but everyone knew the odds were stacked against them if it ended up being pro-Republic forces vs the Army of Africa. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have attempted a solution that didn't entail one of the most bitter civil wars of the last century.

Reasonable, certainly. In the interests of the working class however, who could have been taking direct action against the fascists?


Further, while it's not necessarily a bad thing to play at counterfactuals (what if the Republic did this or that), it's simply tangential to question both the Republic's genuine anti-fascist stance, and it doesn't change what the reality was then.

Sure they were anti-fascists. I do not disagree with this. What I question is, whether the working class should have made anti-fascism the priority.


Further, while it's not necessarily a bad thing to play at counterfactuals (what if the Republic did this or that), it's simply tangential to question both the Republic's genuine anti-fascist stance, and it doesn't change what the reality was then.

You were the first one here to play at counterfactuals- you asked what would have happened had the Republic survived. Well, it did not. Whatever the virtues of the Popular Front and allying with the ruling class, it did not work.


Yeah, fighting Franco's not enough, let's fight the liberal bourgeoisie and push them into the ranks of the right, too! Let's weaken ourselves and strengthen the enemy!

The liberal bourgeoisie was almost completely powerless at the beginning. All the factions of the bourgeois class with money and influence had gone over to Franco. Sweeping away the liberal bourgeoisie would have been an easy job at the beginning; perhaps though it was a futile to try once the Soviet Union got involved and managed to give them a resuscitation.


The PCE was doing what it thought was best for the Spanish workers at the time. Taking into account everything, I'm not sure they were completely wrong in what they did.

No, they were trying to do their best for the Soviet Union. But, types like you have always confused the interests of the workers with the interests of the USSR.


No, they were about doing all they could to fight fascism. Disunity in war never leads to success.

I think defeating Franco was fully in line with the interests of the working class. I'm surprised that you disagree, although I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

I don't disagree actually. I think that the best defense to Franco could have been offered by a social revolution, which would have swept away the fragments of bourgeois rule and allowed the working class to fight reaction through its own organs and its own army- something like the Russian Civil War. How long do you think the workers would have lasted had they continued to support Kerensky and the Provisional Government for fear of Kornilovian reaction? This is similar to what I'm talking about.


Wartime governments need control over all the resources they can get their hands on. Having one control center in Madrid and another in Barcelona is just a bad idea strategically.

Of course, the CNT and other revolutionary groups had large membership in Madrid as well as Valencia, which even began collectivization but it was called off early due to it being the seat of government. Had the dictatorship of the proletariat been set up in Barcelona, it would not have been long before it spread to Madrid I think.


Of course the process of collectivization would have extended into all industry, if not for Franco and his army. It's hard to collectivize with a fascist army entrenched,

On the contrary, the workers of Catalonia did the job very easily.


and this is why the PCE was trying to get said fascist army out of Spain before moving onto social revolution.

Do you have trouble reading? I'll repeat it one last time: The PCE was not interested in social revolution at any point, it openly declared that the task on the table was completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.


I think all of Spain was in a revolutionary situation, but the time called for defeating fascism in order to preserve that very situation.

Of course, this involved crushing attempts at class struggle, disbanding the workers' gains in industry, banning their revolutionary organizations and lining up behind the bourgeoisie. Orwell's Homage actually has a pretty good chapter on when he returns to Barcelona after being on the front, where he's talking about how the revolutionary spirit of the city was completely destroyed.


The Republic had many working-class elements that were in key positions to carry out revolutionary changes;

And what revolutionary changes did they carry out from the top of a bourgeois state?


By the way, when Connolly and the revolutionaries of Ireland launched an anti-imperialist uprising in an alliance with bourgeois elements, what did Lenin have to say about that? Did he decry the lack of ideological purity in the Irish revolutionaries, or did he defend Connolly's decision?

The situation is different in several ways. First of all the Republic itself was an imperialist state, with colonial possessions in Morocco. The revolutionary surge throughout the country demonstrates that the fight against fascism does not "overlay" the class struggle in the same way as a fight against imperialism. Secondly it had shot down militant workers only the day before yesterday. Nor was this a temporary bloc with bourgeois elements as was the Easter Rising; this was a permanent alliance which would cripple the working class and its interests. The situation is such that revolutionaries could not offer political support to the Republic.

[manic expression]

Reasonable, certainly. In the interests of the working class however, who could have been taking direct action against the fascists?

Well, every war involves direct action against the enemy, so I think the working class did take direct action against Franco as it happened. However, I question the wisdom of rejecting non-working-class allies at that decisive moment.


Sure they were anti-fascists. I do not disagree with this. What I question is, whether the working class should have made anti-fascism the priority.

That's debatable, of course. Do I know for sure? I can't say I do, but what I do know is that trying to fight two wars at once doesn't sound too good.


You were the first one here to play at counterfactuals- you asked what would have happened had the Republic survived. Well, it did not. Whatever the virtues of the Popular Front and allying with the ruling class, it did not work.

Right, which is why I said counterfactuals aren't always bad.

The defeat of the Republic does not necessarily debunk the popular front strategy, it was simply a civil war that the reaction won. Sometimes the best efforts of well-minded revolutionaries isn't enough, and we have many examples of this, unfortunately. At the same time, we should not forget the success of the popular front in frustrating Japanese ambitions in China.


The liberal bourgeoisie was almost completely powerless at the beginning. All the factions of the bourgeois class with money and influence had gone over to Franco. Sweeping away the liberal bourgeoisie would have been an easy job at the beginning; perhaps though it was a futile to try once the Soviet Union got involved and managed to give them a resuscitation.

Sweeping away the liberal bourgeoisie would have had some consequences, though. It may have alienated potential support from non-fascist bourgeois powers (there was still hope that the UK or France or the US could have sent some aid to the Republic), for one.

And the Soviet Union sent much-needed arms and other forms of military support. Whatever Soviet involvement resuscitated, it also resuscitated the forces of progress.


No, they were trying to do their best for the Soviet Union. But, types like you have always confused the interests of the workers with the interests of the USSR.

Communists can do their best for both worker states and the workers, at once. Regardless, your assignment of motivation is based on what, exactly?


I don't disagree actually. I think that the best defense to Franco could have been offered by a social revolution, which would have swept away the fragments of bourgeois rule and allowed the working class to fight reaction through its own organs and its own army- something like the Russian Civil War. How long do you think the workers would have lasted had they continued to support Kerensky and the Provisional Government for fear of Kornilovian reaction? This is similar to what I'm talking about.

That's a perfect example. The Kornilov Affair saw the Bolsheviks form bodies to defend Petrograd, and indirectly the Provisional Government. Kerensky requested that they help defend Petrograd, and those working-class bodies would later prove central in the overthrow of the capitalists.

The Russian Civil War itself is a conflict that demonstrates the importance of unity in wartime. The Whites surrounded the Reds, but they were divided organizationally, strategically and in some cases ideologically. The Reds took advantage of internal lines of communication and supply, and were thus able to defeat their divided enemies in turn. The Bolsheviks also instituted stringent control over all production (and just about everything else), which became known as "war communism".

What this shows is that whatever the group confronting Franco, it had to be unified on all levels.

As far as defeating divided (but numerically superior) enemies in detail, Napoleon did essentially the same thing to the Austrians in Italy about 3 times. Disunity in war is fatal in just about every case, history proves this time and again.


Of course, the CNT and other revolutionary groups had large membership in Madrid as well as Valencia, which even began collectivization but it was called off early due to it being the seat of government. Had the dictatorship of the proletariat been set up in Barcelona, it would not have been long before it spread to Madrid I think.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps it would have survived the coup, perhaps not.


On the contrary, the workers of Catalonia did the job very easily.

IIRC, the Army of Africa wasn't able to entrench itself in Catalonia until the closing phase of the war.


Do you have trouble reading? I'll repeat it one last time: The PCE was not interested in social revolution at any point, it openly declared that the task on the table was completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

That's basically what I said.


Of course, this involved crushing attempts at class struggle, disbanding the workers' gains in industry, banning their revolutionary organizations and lining up behind the bourgeoisie. Orwell's Homage actually has a pretty good chapter on when he returns to Barcelona after being on the front, where he's talking about how the revolutionary spirit of the city was completely destroyed.

Fighting fascism is class struggle. Who told you otherwise?

And as I've said, the actions of the Republic may have been regrettable, but they weren't uncalled for and had a great deal of merit, as I've outlined.


And what revolutionary changes did they carry out from the top of a bourgeois state?

The point is that they were in an advantageous position to do so, once the fascist threat was defeated.


The situation is different in several ways. First of all the Republic itself was an imperialist state, with colonial possessions in Morocco. The revolutionary surge throughout the country demonstrates that the fight against fascism does not "overlay" the class struggle in the same way as a fight against imperialism. Secondly it had shot down militant workers only the day before yesterday. Nor was this a temporary bloc with bourgeois elements as was the Easter Rising; this was a permanent alliance which would cripple the working class and its interests. The situation is such that revolutionaries could not offer political support to the Republic.

How do you know the alliance was permanent? They (the PCE) didn't make any eternal vows, they recognized that the popular front was a strategy of the day.

As for Spanish imperialism, that's true, but what does that have to do with working with bourgeois elements? The Irish bourgeoisie would conquer resources in much the same way the moment they could.

[Random Precision]

This argument is running in circles. I'll just answer a few key remarks and then I don't intend to come back to it. You can have the last word if you want.


I question the wisdom of rejecting non-working-class allies at that decisive moment.

This is, of course, dependent on what you think the task was at the decisive moment. I believe that the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War represented a revolutionary situation in which the workers had to either gamble on a social revolution, whether that would defeat the fascists or not or to go down to defeat by either the fascist section of the ruling class, or the liberal section, which showed itself nearly as good as the fascists at stamping out the incipient social revolution, jailing and executing revolutionaries, banning the workers' organizations, etc. You on the other hand believe that it was necessary for the workers to give up their own interests, however "temporarily" and line up to defend private property in its supposedly more humane face. These points of view cannot be reconciled.


what I do know is that trying to fight two wars at once doesn't sound too good

This also demonstrates where our views diverge. You believe that the struggle was primarily against a more vicious form of exploitation (fascism), and that adding a revolutionary struggle to this fight was a distraction. I however believe that there was always fundamentally one struggle, the revolutionary struggle, and that superimposing the "anti-fascist" struggle over it was merely a trick to get the workers to abandon their own interests. Unfortunately their leadership which should have had its eye on their interests fell for that trick.


Sweeping away the liberal bourgeoisie would have had some consequences, though. It may have alienated potential support from non-fascist bourgeois powers (there was still hope that the UK or France or the US could have sent some aid to the Republic), for one.

On the other hand it might have provided a much-needed spark for revolution in those countries as well. I doubt France especially could have helped being affected. We will never know unfortunately.


Communists can do their best for both worker states and the workers, at once.

If the interests of the two diverge, then it's the job of communists to ask why, and to figure out which one should be placed first.


Regardless, your assignment of motivation is based on what, exactly?

My own research into the conflict. You can read about the aims of the Soviet Union in Spain, and how they became embedded in the PCE, in accounts such as Burnett Bolloten's "The Grand Camouflage" and Yale UP's "Spain Betrayed", which is based on many primary documents from the Comintern and Soviet bureaucracy.


The Russian Civil War itself is a conflict that demonstrates the importance of unity in wartime

But the question is, unity for what? What is the positive goal of unity? Is it for Soviet power, as it was in Russia? Or is it for the property of the liberal bourgeoisie and continued capitalism?


That's basically what I said

You said that the PCE wanted to "move on" to a social revolution after the war. If what I have read about this is correct, they aimed to complete "bourgeois tasks" both during and after the war. But regardless, the point is that whether temporarily or permanently, they aimed to defend capitalist property at the crucial moment when the working class stood ready to abolish it. This makes them counterrevolutionaries.


Fighting fascism is class struggle

It depends on what alternative to fascism is being put forward. The liberal republic, or socialism.


The point is that they were in an advantageous position to do so, once the fascist threat was defeated.

This is something we will also never know, but in all history we have never seen a bourgeois government take steps against the fundamental nature of private property. I doubt the Republic would have done any differently.


How do you know the alliance was permanent? They (the PCE) didn't make any eternal vows, they recognized that the popular front was a strategy of the day.

The key factor here is what class interests the PCE represented. Everything I have read leads me to conclude that as the war went on, it came to represent the interests of the liberal middle classes. Franz Borkenau's The Spanish Cockpit goes into this in detail. It was also increasingly entangled in the framework of the bourgeois state, and sought through concrete actions to defend private property during the war. I doubt that the situation after the war would have been much different.


As for Spanish imperialism, that's true, but what does that have to do with working with bourgeois elements? The Irish bourgeoisie would conquer resources in much the same way the moment they could.

It has to do with what you are fighting for, and what the situation is. The interest of certain elements of the Irish bourgeoisie in 1916 coincided temporarily with that of the working class- both sought emancipation from British imperialism for their own reasons. In Spain however the interests of the working class was very much in its own revolution, whereas the interest of the liberal bourgeoisie was a defense of private property, including colonial exploitation of Morocco.