The failure of the Spanish Revolution

[pushstop]

Why do you believe that the Spanish Revolution had failed?


There isn't really a point in historical speculation, but-

Do you think that if the CNT-FAI were a Leninist party the could have managed to take power (what some would consider a successful revolution)?

Do you think that the revolution could have been successful if the anarchist - communist conflict did not exist?


What lessons do you think can be learned from the experience of the spanish revolution (especially regarding revolutionary organization)?

Thanks,
pushstop

[Sprocket Hole]

My own personal analysis from my limited look into the Spanish Revolution and Civil War would attribute it's failure to several factors. I assume you are speaking of the CNT-FAI's revolutionary moves. The obvious one would be the fascist uprising, although the anarchist militia's proved to be quite an adversary.

I would attribute some of the failure to the pro-Stalin communist party and the Soviet Union, as it was their policy to halt any move towards revolution until the civil war was over.

I also put the blame on the CNT-FAI itself. It, as a union, had no place in a post-revolutionary society and therefore naturally sought to preserve itself.

And then of course, the united front. The recuperation of the revolutionary forces into the failing state's discourse, under the banner of anti-fascism. The self-proclaimed anarchists participated in government and took part in the disarming of the militia's.

That's my two cents.

Also:

Do you think that if the CNT-FAI were a Leninist party the could have managed to take power (what some would consider a successful revolution)?
Well being anarchists, they were not trying to "achieve power", at least not trying to establish themselves as some "revolutionary state" like a Leninist party.


Do you think that the revolution could have been successful if the anarchist - communist conflict did not exist?
No, I do not. I think it would have been doomed to fail simply because of the organization, as I mentioned above.

[Uppercut]

Do you think that if the CNT-FAI were a Leninist party the could have managed to take power (what some would consider a successful revolution)?

Although I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I would say that there wasn't much they could do to wage war outside of their sphere of influence. I don't know everything about the Sapanish Revolution, but I think it wouldn't have really mattered if they were Leninist or not. They did what they could.


Do you think that the revolution could have been successful if the anarchist - communist conflict did not exist?

Possibly, although my views differ from that of the former Comintern. The anarchists had significant support, as did the communists. But instead of working together, they fought between themselves, mostly likely provoked by the commies (sad to say).



What lessons do you think can be learned from the experience of the spanish revolution (especially regarding revolutionary organization)?

Communists and anarchists have the same goal, for the most part. We can learn that until the enemy is thoroughly defeated, working class parties need to work together, whether through a popular front or simply a temporary alliance. Afterwords, the anarchists can have their little communes if they want. But in terms of spreading revolutionary influence and and overall organization, I'd let that up to the communists.

[x359594]

In addition to the internal weaknesses already mentioned, there were powerful external obstacles to concluding a successful revolution. Among the capitalist democracies, it was in the interest of Britain and France especially to work against the revolution; Britain because of the capital invested there (Orwell notes that UK companies had a substantial investment in the Barcelona Traction Company that had been collectivized by the workers) and France because a revolutionary country on its southern border, where economic conditions were already bad, could have a destabilizing effect on agriculture and labor. Along similar lines see Malevolent Neutrality: United States, Great Britain and the Origins of the Spanish Civil War by Douglas Little

[syndicat]

I've published a lengthy essay on this subject (a draft of a chapter of a book i'm writing), available at:

http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/spain.html (http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/spain.html)

The anarcho-syndicalist movement (CNT union) was the largest revolutionary force, although a large part of the UGT union (linked to socialist and Communist parties) had become deeply radicalized as well.

The worker organizations expropriated over 18,000 companies and 14 million acres of farm land, and created their own organizations to manage it...trying to socialize the economy from below. At the same time they built a 100,000 person revolutionary labor militia. All of this got underway in July 1936. by August and September they had to confront key problems.

Trotskyists always say "the anarchsits were against taking power" but that's not correct. Their movement aimed to create libertarian communism, and their vision of this involved worker congresses, a militia, "free municipalities"...these were all structures of power, to run the society.

Rather, the problem was that they hadn't worked out a concrete set of steps or strategy to get from "here to there", apart from the seizure of the means of production. However, there was a revolutionary tendency in the anarcho-syndicalist movement who did come up with a concrete strategy. The other anarchists called them "anarcho-Bolsheviks."

The "anarcho-Bolsheviks" proposed that the two unions, UGT and CNT, jointly seize power and create a workers government. They persuaded the CNT national federation to okay this in Sept 1936. They did this to address two problems of the revolution: 1. the fact that the separate party and union militias were poorly coordinated, partly out of political jealousy. So the "anarcho-Bolsheviks" proposed to replace them with a unified militia with a unified command. This was their alternative to the proposal of the Communists to create a conventional hierarchical army run by a rebuilt Republican state.

2. the drive for state power of the Communists was the second problem they faced. the Communists were eventually successful at this, worming their way into contol of the army and its political commissars. They then proceeded to mismanage the work effort, and their preference for their own party members led to a lot of resentment and demoralization in the people's army. Also, the Communists, for reasons of political image, got the army to engage in huge infrantry assaults, based on outdated French army manuals of World War 1 vintage, in order to make propaganda of "great victories." But these battles only chewed up the Republican army, leading to huge loss of life, demoralization, and loss of equipment.

the "anarcho-Bolsheviks" proposal for a union governing power would have gotten around the problem of lack of coordination and would have kept the Communist Party at bay. The anarchists proposed to use a large part of the gold reserves to build up a native arms industry in Catalonia. as it is the wokers had created hundreds of arms factories there, to make armored vehicles, shells, etc, but they needed equipment and supplies, and these were denied to them. The Socialist-Communist government alliance led to 70% of the gold being shipped to Russia, which destroyed the value of the currency on the world market. The gold promised for the anarchist arms industry in Catalonia never materialized.

The amount of weapons, especially air craft, that Germany and Italy provided to the fascist generals was probably greater than that received by any reactionary force in a revolutionary civil war of this sort. However, if they had not lost so many people and equipment in useless infantry assaults, but kept to a hard defense, they might have been able to keep the war going til the onset of World War 2, in which case the balance of power would have changed in their favor, with the USA likely providing material support, as it did for the USSR.

As I say, the main mistake the anarcho-syndicalists made was not in pursuing more rigorously the path proposed by the "anarcho-Bolsheviks". After the Socialist and Communist parties veto'd their proposal for a union governing power in Sept 1936, Durruti wanted the CNT to take power in the regions where it could. They did so in Aragon but where they failed to do so, was in Catalonia, which was a much more important place...the heart of the revolution, with 70% of the country's manufacturing capacity.

With half the seats on the governing council they could have veto'd sending the gold out of the country, they could have obtained gold to build up the arms industry in Catalonia, they could have obtained arms for their proposed guerrilla army in the mountains of Andalucia.

These things would not have guarateed victory, the weapons advantages of the fascist side were formidable but control over the governance of the country, and over the use of resources by the revolutionary working class movement, would have given them a better shot.

The "anarcho-Bolsheviks" weren't really Bolsheviks...that is what their factional opponents in the anarchist movement called them. Their proposed National Defense Council...a workers government...would not consist of political party leaders, but would be controlled by the unions, and elected from a workers congress, made up of delegates from worker assemblies. The political parties would have influence, through their members in the unions. In fact all the Left tendencies would have been represented on this proposed Council, in proportion to their support within the unions. But it was to be a government by the mass organizations, not thru a conventional hierarchical state. The National Defense Council was to have no control over the economy.

Thus the "anarcho-Bolsheviks" did NOT propose to centralize control of the economy in the hands of a state. They proposed that the process of socialization from below by the workers would continue and be supported.