RadioRaheem84
18th December 2009, 18:44
Some people like Chomsky site the Spanish Revolution and Anarchist Spain as an example of an anti-capitalist social movement that worked. He even cites Burnett Bolloten as the premier journalist on the topic in his book on Anarchism. Yet, Bolloten has some harsh words for the collectives:
Although CNT-FAI publications cited numerous cases of peasant proprietors and tenant farmers who had adhered voluntarily to the collective system, there can be no doubt that an incomparably larger number doggedly opposed it or accepted it only under extreme duress...The fact is...that many small owners and tenant farmers were forced to join the collective farms before they had an opportunity to make up their minds freely.
Farmers were:
...prevented from employing hired labor and disposing freely as their crops, as has already been seen, but they were often denied all benefits enjoyed by members.....was often compelled to continue [such] payment to the village committeeAll these factors combined to exert a pressure almost as powerful as the butt of the rifle, and eventually forced the small owners and tenant farmers in many villages to relinquish their land and other possessions to the collective farms."
"The committee is the paterfamilias. It owns everything; it directs everything. Every special desire has to be submitted to it for consideration; it alone has the final say."
"If someone has a girl outside the village, can he get money to pay her a visit? The peasants assure me that he can."
"I tried in vain to get a drink, either of coffee or wine or lemonade. The village bar had been closed as nefarious commerce."
"With the abolition of money, the collective held the upper hand since anyone wishing to travel had to get 'republican' money from the committee."
Bolloten further notes that "Puritanism was a characteristic of the libertarian movement. . . excessive drinking, smoking and other practices that were perceived as middle-class attributes were nearly always censured." [pages 68–69]
So according to Bolloten the collectives and the federations became little coercive mini-states. Is this true?
Although CNT-FAI publications cited numerous cases of peasant proprietors and tenant farmers who had adhered voluntarily to the collective system, there can be no doubt that an incomparably larger number doggedly opposed it or accepted it only under extreme duress...The fact is...that many small owners and tenant farmers were forced to join the collective farms before they had an opportunity to make up their minds freely.
Farmers were:
...prevented from employing hired labor and disposing freely as their crops, as has already been seen, but they were often denied all benefits enjoyed by members.....was often compelled to continue [such] payment to the village committeeAll these factors combined to exert a pressure almost as powerful as the butt of the rifle, and eventually forced the small owners and tenant farmers in many villages to relinquish their land and other possessions to the collective farms."
"The committee is the paterfamilias. It owns everything; it directs everything. Every special desire has to be submitted to it for consideration; it alone has the final say."
"If someone has a girl outside the village, can he get money to pay her a visit? The peasants assure me that he can."
"I tried in vain to get a drink, either of coffee or wine or lemonade. The village bar had been closed as nefarious commerce."
"With the abolition of money, the collective held the upper hand since anyone wishing to travel had to get 'republican' money from the committee."
Bolloten further notes that "Puritanism was a characteristic of the libertarian movement. . . excessive drinking, smoking and other practices that were perceived as middle-class attributes were nearly always censured." [pages 68–69]
So according to Bolloten the collectives and the federations became little coercive mini-states. Is this true?