Anarchy in one country?

[Uppercut]

How would anarchists defend the revolution if it were achieved only in a single nation (The U.K. or U.S., for example), and the revolution failed to spread to other countries for a prolonged period of time?
I'm curious as to what anarchists would believe to be the best course of action.

[griffjam]

A revolution should defend itself in the same way that it organizes itself -- from the bottom up, in a self-managed way. The means to defend an anarchist society or revolution are based around the organs of self-management that revolution creates.

[Uppercut]

A revolution should defend itself in the same way that it organizes itself -- from the bottom up, in a self-managed way. The means to defend an anarchist society or revolution are based around the organs of self-management that revolution creates.

I don't think "self-management" in the army or national militia would be an effective tactic in the event of invasion or counter-revolution. It would be far too decentralized, scattered, and undisciplined.

[Crusade]

Well, some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

[Uppercut]

Well, some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

That they do. And pickles are delicious.

[Os Cangaceiros]

How would anarchists defend the revolution if it were achieved only in a single nation (The U.K. or U.S., for example), and the revolution failed to spread to other countries for a prolonged period of time?

The revolution wouldn't be defended, because it would already be lost.

[Uppercut]

The revolution wouldn't be defended, because it would already be lost.

Yeah, it's better to just give up on these things.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I don't think "self-management" in the army or national militia would be an effective tactic in the event of invasion or counter-revolution. It would be far too decentralized, scattered, and undisciplined.

Even though the anarchist militias in Spain lost to the fascists, I wouldn't say they were anymore scattered and undisciplined than the fascists were.

If anything, the anarchist militias had higher morale and MORE discipline because of the decentralized power structure and equality among the ranks.

It's much easier to blame people above you than it is to blame yourself for shortcomings.

[Pirate Utopian]

How would anarchists defend the revolution if it were achieved only in a single nation (The U.K. or U.S., for example)
Anarchy in the UK?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, it's better to just give up on these things.

It has nothing to do with "giving up". It has to do with the cold, hard fact that anarchism cannot exist and thrive "in one country". (And the same goes for socialism in general.)

[MarxSchmarx]

The closest analogy I can think of is what's happened in parts of Chiapas with the zapatistas. In the situation you describe, there is probably going to be some kind of protracted truce and considerable porousness until external conditions become more amenable to change.

[AK]

I don't think "self-management" in the army or national militia would be an effective tactic in the event of invasion or counter-revolution. It would be far too decentralized, scattered, and undisciplined.
Ah, so you're losing faith in the working class?

[khad]

Even though the anarchist militias in Spain lost to the fascists, I wouldn't say they were anymore scattered and undisciplined than the fascists were.
And they were pretty much useless for anything beyond the mere tactical level. The only situation I can see decentrailization working is for guerrillas, and all guerrillas do is soak up huge losses in a bid to stall for time.

[F9]

Moved

We are Anarchists, not idiots, we can defend ourselves, and use any way possible, and any measure available we have on our hands.Also the revolution never stops until the global achievement of Anarchism.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

and you will do that how?

[F9]

and you will do that how?


We are Anarchists, not idiots, we can defend ourselves, and use any way possible, and any measure available we have on our hands.Also the revolution never stops until the global achievement of Anarchism.

Now if you or anyone else, expecting an answer which will say, with this number of guns, this kind, this strategy will be used etc, then you dont expect a post to discuss, but you expect a miracle post predicting the future.

[danyboy27]

the spanish anarchist lost beccause they didnt had access to advanced technology, that and they where double crossed by their main ally.

[ComradeOm]

the spanish anarchist lost beccause they didnt had access to advanced technology, that and they where double crossed by their main ally.That is not the conclusion drawn by the FAI:

"We paid dearly for the loyalty to our ideas which we maintained for so long. Would the rebellious forces have been able to go from Sevilla to Badajoz and from Badajoz to the doors of Madrid, if we had not opposed for so long, and so bitterly, the organisation of the army which we needed to fight the enemy? Our militias, without firing practice, without military training, disordered, which held plenums and assemblies before going into battle, which discussed all orders, and often refused to comply with them, could not confront the formidable military apparatus which Germany and Italy provided to the Rebels"

(Quoted in Alexander, 1999, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War)

These were anarchists who knew that complaining about the enemy being competent and well-armed was pointless. What concerned them was the appropriate response to this challenge and the anguished admission that their initial organisational structure proved insufficient to meet this

[ContrarianLemming]

The greatest defence of anarchy in one country is to appeal to the workers of all nations.

[Ismail]

The greatest defence of anarchy in one country is to appeal to the workers of all nations.Pretty much the same view as everyone else.

As Stalin said (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm) in 1938: "The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost."

As Lenin said (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/7thcong/01.htm) in 1918: "If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously."

There's not much else you can do except adopt a defeatist attitude.


Even though the anarchist militias in Spain lost to the fascists, I wouldn't say they were anymore scattered and undisciplined than the fascists were.

If anything, the anarchist militias had higher morale and MORE discipline because of the decentralized power structure and equality among the ranks.Nope. The Fascists were well-organized and had veteran commanders leading them, not to mention plenty of morale due to extensive German and Italian support. The Anarchists, although many were brave fighters, did have morale problems. International Brigades participants have noted the low morale of some segments of the anarchist militias, and as Landis noted in his work on Spain, "Franz Borkenau describes incidents in which the appearance of a single plane on a bombing run was sufficient to cause a general retreat from certain villages occupied by C.N.T. troops."

Anarchists generally fought well, but the militias did have significant morale problems.

[Glenn Beck]

Even though the anarchist militias in Spain lost to the fascists, I wouldn't say they were anymore scattered and undisciplined than the fascists were.

If anything, the anarchist militias had higher morale and MORE discipline because of the decentralized power structure and equality among the ranks.

It's much easier to blame people above you than it is to blame yourself for shortcomings.

"Anarchism: At least as effective as fascism"

[Uppercut]

Ah, so you're losing faith in the working class?

Good one.

I have faith in the working class, but it's naive to believe that autonomous militias can successfully fend off a massive, centralized army. A genuine socialist army could be very democratic, yet somewhat centralized. Soldiers can converse with other soldiers along with their elected officers to decide where that unit should go and what needs to be improved upon. Discipline and democracy need to be combined, but we must be careful not to emphasize one over the other. There must be balance.

[syndicat]

Nope. The Fascists were well-organized and had veteran commanders leading them, not to mention plenty of morale due to extensive German and Italian support. The Anarchists, although many were brave fighters, did have morale problems. International Brigades participants have noted the low morale of some segments of the anarchist militias, and as Landis noted in his work on Spain, "Franz Borkenau describes incidents in which the appearance of a single plane on a bombing run was sufficient to cause a general retreat from certain villages occupied by C.N.T. troops."


Landis was a Communist Party hack. If you believe him, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The American Communist Party lied through its teeth about what was going on in Spain, claiming it was merely a fight to defend "a democratcially elected government," not a proletarian revolution. So why believe liars?

The main problem with the militia was not morale but lack of coordination. This happened because each of the Socialist parties insisted on having its own party-army. This is why in August-Sept 1936 the radical wing of the CNT union federation, which included people involved in building and running the militia -- Garcia Oliver, Durruti, Ricardo Sanz, Mera -- got the union federation to propose dismantling the old Republican state (which the Communists wanted to rebuild) to replace it with a workers defense council controlled by the unions. The old militias would be replaced with a unified people's militia with a unified command and new training academies to ensure relevant technical knowledge for effective military action.

It's also relevant here to take a look at Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain," which many commenters on Spain have said is the best book on the civil war. Beevor points out that the top-down and privileged officer corps set up and controlled by the Communists in 1937 mismanaged the war, gave preferences based on ideology, not competence, and destroyed the Republican army through mass infantry assaults of the World War 1 variety, leading to huge losses of life and losses of equipment.

One of the few victories in the civil war was a defensive action, a battle known as the Defense of the XYZ Line, in which the fascists had 3 times the losses as the defenders. This suggests that a better strategy, given the fascists' superiority in arms and professional officers, would have been a hard defense combined with periodic small scale probing attacks and guerilla activities in terrain where appropriate such as mountain ranges.

Also, Stalin was making money off of cheating the Spaniards in arms deals. Rather than sending the country's gold reserves to Stalin, small bits should have been sent on a case by case basis to buy weapons while money was also invested in building up the arms industry the CNT had established in industrial Catalonia.

The Communist party's sectarianism in management of the army, its repression, and its massively destructive army offensives were highly destructive to morale. So if you want to talk about "low morale" the CP's hierarchical army is the real story.

[bcbm]

"Anarchism: At least as effective as fascism"

"behind every anarchist is a failed dictator"

[Agnapostate]

This point came up at the PSL conference I attended yesterday as an anti-anarchist talking point. I'm not sure why there exists a widespread misconception that an anarchist program involves eschewing military organization. The tendency has traditionally been rather vibrant military organization, with Black Army forces destroying White Army troops that were causing significant problems for the Red Army, or the syndicalist militias quickly putting down the fascist uprising in Catalonia, and proving entirely capable of defending the social revolution.

Too many people adhere to a stereotype of anarchism being the utopian ideal that isn't consistent with pragmatic conditions on the ground, despite the history and reputation of anarchist military victories and general prowess. And that's to be expected; there's no reason why the information problems that affect centralized command structures wouldn't apply in the case of military organizations.

[bcbm]

why would people be talking at all about "military organization?"

[Zanthorus]

This point came up at the PSL conference I attended yesterday as an anti-anarchist talking point. I'm not sure why there exists a widespread misconception that an anarchist program involves eschewing military organization. The tendency has traditionally been rather vibrant military organization, with Black Army forces destroying White Army troops that were causing significant problems for the Red Army, or the syndicalist militias quickly putting down the fascist uprising in Catalonia, and proving entirely capable of defending the social revolution.

I would also like to add that even Engels noted the existence of "two principal war-chiefs, with equal powers and equal authority" in the "society which still has no state." (Referring to the Iroquois Confederacy in "Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State").

[manic expression]

Even though the anarchist militias in Spain lost to the fascists, I wouldn't say they were anymore scattered and undisciplined than the fascists were.
This is a late response, but yes, they were far less disciplined than Franco's forces...extremely less disciplined (so was the Army of Spain, too, but not nearly to the same extent). The anarchist militias were probably the least disciplined force in the entire war, they compensated a bit through impressive elan and morale, but their lack of discipline did them in on a lot of occasions IIRC.


This point came up at the PSL conference I attended yesterday as an anti-anarchist talking point. I'm not sure why there exists a widespread misconception that an anarchist program involves eschewing military organization. The tendency has traditionally been rather vibrant military organization, with Black Army forces destroying White Army troops that were causing significant problems for the Red Army, or the syndicalist militias quickly putting down the fascist uprising in Catalonia, and proving entirely capable of defending the social revolution.The conception of anarchists being bad at military organization is pretty damn accurate. The Makhnovists were formed almost along cossack lines, that they caused problems for the Red Army was as much due to how extended the Reds were at the time as anything else...once the Reds put their minds to the task, the annihilation of the Makhnovists was almost inevitable. The Catalonian militias were notoriously disorganized, they routinely squandered men and materiel because of this. They were also not all that capable of defending their social revolution, as the May Days consisted of pretty limited resistance that the anarchists weren't able to overcome.

[khad]

The militia-type organization becomes useless on the operational and strategic levels. Complex formations and specializations, as well as coordination and maneuver become increasingly difficult for militias as the scale of the theater enlarges. Furthermore, the need for intel secrecy will necessarily obviate any pretensions of democracy, since all that means is that everyone could be a potential leak.

It isn't even a matter of discipline or the quality of troops.

It's just a fact of the operational art of war.

[bcbm]

and cue fantasy revolutionary army role play part 391.

[Ismail]

Landis was a Communist Party hack. If you believe him, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The American Communist Party lied through its teeth about what was going on in Spain, claiming it was merely a fight to defend "a democratcially elected government," not a proletarian revolution. So why believe liars?Probably because those interviewed were International Brigade veterans in the 1960's and 70's, and not a Communist Party bulletin? Probably because Landis mentions the words of Franz Borkenau, a man who was not a communist? Because what you just wrote has nothing to do with the morale of Anarchist militias in the 1936-39 period?


Also, Stalin was making money off of cheating the Spaniards in arms deals. Rather than sending the country's gold reserves to Stalin, small bits should have been sent on a case by case basis to buy weapons while money was also invested in building up the arms industry the CNT had established in industrial Catalonia.There is no evidence of this. The "gold" myth has been repeatedly debunked (http://www.gutenberg-e.org/kod01/frames/fkod16.html) before.

In any case this is a thread about "Anarchism in one country," not the Spanish Civil War.


So if you want to talk about "low morale" the CP's hierarchical army is the real story.You have not debated the point that the Anarchist militias had morale problems.

[syndicat]

The conception of anarchists being bad at military organization is pretty damn accurate. The Makhnovists were formed almost along cossack lines, that they caused problems for the Red Army was as much due to how extended the Reds were at the time as anything else...once the Reds put their minds to the task, the annihilation of the Makhnovists was almost inevitable. The Catalonian militias were notoriously disorganized, they routinely squandered men and materiel because of this. They were also not all that capable of defending their social revolution, as the May Days consisted of pretty limited resistance that the anarchists weren't able to overcome.

this is what Stalinists always say. but it's not accurate. I'll notice also here that no actual evidence or sources are offered...other than the CP hack, Landis, whose views are at odds with military historians like Beevor.

the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine destroyed a 25,000 man White army force on the outskirts of Kiev in fall 1919. They then rode (they were a horsedrawn force) as fast as they could 600 miles across Ukraine to attack the White army moving on Moscow, attacking them from behind and cutting their supply lines. This was at a time when the Red army was retreating before the White cossack army and Lenin had distributed fake IDs and other things to the Bolshevik leaders as he expected the government to be overthrown. So it was the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine that saved the Communists' asses.

[manic expression]

this is what Stalinists always say. but it's not accurate. I'll notice also here that no actual evidence or sources are offered...other than the CP hack, Landis, whose views are at odds with military historians like Beevor.
Of course it's accurate, it's the accepted fact of what happened. The anarchists had very low discipline. I wish I had my book on the Civil War handy (non-leftist author), it's in there.

If the anarchists were so highly organized, what happened to the Durruti Column when Durruti fell?


the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine destroyed a 25,000 man White army force on the outskirts of Kiev in fall 1919. They then rode (they were a horsedrawn force) as fast as they could 600 miles across Ukraine to attack the White army moving on Moscow, attacking them from behind and cutting their supply lines. This was at a time when the Red army was retreating before the White cossack army and Lenin had distributed fake IDs and other things to the Bolshevik leaders as he expected the government to be overthrown. So it was the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine that saved the Communists' asses.
:rolleyes: Yeah, and then they bombed Pearl Harbor. In the fall of 1919, the Reds had just beaten back Wrangel's offensive from the south. The Don Army and Denikin's army were then both defeated by the Reds, and the Reds captured Kiev in December. The Makhnovists harassed Denikin's forces and disrupted their supply lines, yes, but that's what the Makhnovists were built for. It was only because Denikin was facing the Reds that the Makhnovists could do this at all.

[CChocobo]

Sectarianism rules! :thumbup1:

On a serious note, i don't think anarchists would fail to defend the revolution. If anarchist militia's had good training, tactics, weapons/equipment everything would be fine. I think the main issue with the militias in Spain is the vast majority of people were untrained, didn't have tactics thought up, etc. You can't have a officer explaining "this is what we're going to do" to people who have no idea what's going on.

[ComradeOm]

It's also relevant here to take a look at Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain," which many commenters on Spain have said is the best book on the civil war. Beevor points out that the top-down and privileged officer corps set up and controlled by the Communists in 1937 mismanaged the war, gave preferences based on ideology, not competence, and destroyed the Republican army through mass infantry assaults of the World War 1 variety, leading to huge losses of life and losses of equipmentHe also notes that the militias fled before the Nationalists throughout 1936 and proved completely incapable of opposing the Army of Africa. What turned an attempted coup into a civil war was this string of military disasters that was only halted when the Nationalists reached Madrid. The militias proved completely incapable of providing that "hard defence" that you ask for


One of the few victories in the civil war was a defensive action, a battle known as the Defense of the XYZ Line, in which the fascists had 3 times the losses as the defenders. This suggests that a better strategy, given the fascists' superiority in arms and professional officers, would have been a hard defense combined with periodic small scale probing attacks and guerilla activities in terrain where appropriate such as mountain rangesYou lambast the Popular Army for adapting WWI tactics (a completely unfair criticism) yet argue that the key to success was static trench warfare?

[earth fuck]

is an army compatible with anarchism at all? isnt anarchism about decentralisation and non-hierarchy? isnt army about hierarchy and centralisation? so, can there be an anarchist army? im not sure.

for one country and anarchist place, can it be defended easily? will the entire world turn against it? i think it would be hard for small places. but with a modern weaponary, and trained fighters, possible. so long as it is not constant war. if there is, how can any decentralised society survive?

[syndicat]

He also notes that the militias fled before the Nationalists throughout 1936 and proved completely incapable of opposing the Army of Africa. What turned an attempted coup into a civil war was this string of military disasters that was only halted when the Nationalists reached Madrid. The militias proved completely incapable of providing that "hard defence" that you ask for


You misrepresent what he said. he was actually quite sympathetic to the militias. he did not say they "fled" "throughout 1936." that is a fabrication on your part. It was the militias who drove the army out of Catalonia and eastern Aragon. There they were bogged down due to the unwillingness of the Popular Front government to provide weapons and/or gold to beef up the Catalan war industries, created by the workers.

In regard to the Army of Africa, they faced completely untrained worker defense groups who didn't know how to fight. They would bunch together, making them sitting ducks for artillery. they didn't know about guerrilla methods of harassing the army in its advance along roads.

One of the main points of leading anarchist militia people like Mera, Durruti and Garcia Oliver was improved training through the creation of militia training schools.


You lambast the Popular Army for adapting WWI tactics (a completely unfair criticism) yet argue that the key to success was static trench warfare?

Don't be an ass. What I criticized was the mass infantry assaults, done by the Communist party controlled officer corps for propaganda reasons. Your criticism is a cricitism of Beevor since he criticized the CP controlled army for uncritical use of infantry mass assault tactics taken from World War 1 era French manuals, but he also advocated a hardened defense. World War 1 "trench warfare" also included assaults when soldiers came out of the trenches in mass assaults...leading to vast death.

[syndicat]

is an army compatible with anarchism at all? isnt anarchism about decentralisation and non-hierarchy? isnt army about hierarchy and centralisation? so, can there be an anarchist army? im not sure.


No, hierarchy in the sense of concentration of decision making power into the hands of a few is not the same as coordination. The problem with "decentralization" is that it can mean lack of coordination. This is why it's a uselessly ambiguous word.

[ComradeOm]

You misrepresent what he said. he was actually quite sympathetic to the militias. he did not say they "fled" "throughout 1936." that is a fabrication on your partI don't have the book in front of me, and Google Books is unfortunately not obliging this time, but Beevor was, rightly, critical of those militias who completely failed in their objective to halting the advance of the Army of Africa. I recall descriptions of units fleeing at the first sign of regulares. This was not a simply a shortage of arms or training but a complete incoherence amongst the defenders. While I am sympathetic to their plight, their performance in this regard can only be described as abject


they didn't know about guerrilla methods of harassing the army in its advance along roadsWould it have made a difference if they had? While I can fault the militias for their performance they were perfectly correct in their objective - halting the Nationalist advance. "Guerrilla methods of harassing the army" would not have achieved this


One of the main points of leading anarchist militia people like Mera, Durruti and Garcia Oliver was improved training through the creation of militia training schoolsWhereas the Popular Army actually did prove capable of overseeing improvements in training standards. It is no coincidence that the improvements that Orwell noted occurred after the incorporation of the militias into the Popular Army


Don't be an ass. What I criticized was the mass infantry assaults, done by the Communist party controlled officer corps for propaganda reasonsThe mass campaigns and battles organised by the Popular Army (on a scale that the militias could never hope to match) were little more than a propaganda exercise conducted by a Communist officer corps? This is nonsense but revealing nonsense

In this nice little dichotomy (good anarchists, bad Communists) there is no room for nuances or considered judgements. The idea that the Communists were actually interested in winning the war and sought to do so during engagements such as Guadalajara and Ebro, waged according to military orthodoxy of the day, is completely alien to this logic. You will make every possible excuse for the failures of the militias but the Popular Army is to be only damned


World War 1 "trench warfare" also included assaults when soldiers came out of the trenches in mass assaults...leading to vast death.And just what manuals should they have been reading then? Perhaps we should have sent Che or Zhukov back in time to help them out? You fault the Republicans for fighting a war according to the prevalent military doctrine of their day. This is, as I said above, completely unfair

[syndicat]

In this nice little dichotomy (good anarchists, bad Communists) there is no room for nuances or considered judgements. The idea that the Communists were actually interested in winning the war and sought to do so during engagements such as Guadalajara and Ebro, waged according to military orthodoxy of the day, is completely alien to this logic.

the action at Ebro was a massive failure that destroyed the Republican army. Guadalajara was different because the new soviet biplanes were superior to the fiat biplanes and helped to route the Italian army.


In this nice little dichotomy (good anarchists, bad Communists) there is no room for nuances or considered judgements. The idea that the Communists were actually interested in winning the war and sought to do so during engagements such as Guadalajara and Ebro, waged according to military orthodoxy of the day, is completely alien to this logic. You will make every possible excuse for the failures of the militias but the Popular Army is to be only damned


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I already pointed out ways in which the militias were weak and needed to be changed. I also pointed to proposals from the anarcho-syndicalists to do this...merge all militias into a unified people's militia for a unified command, new training schools, use of gold reserves to build up the capacity of the Catalan arms industry, infiltration of guerrillas into the mountains behind fascist lines.

These proposals were all thwarted due to Communist opposition. It is actually you are proposing the dichotomy and lack nuances, in the interests of defending Stalinist practice.

[ComradeOm]

the action at Ebro was a massive failure that destroyed the Republican army. Guadalajara was different because the new soviet biplanes were superior to the fiat biplanes and helped to route the Italian armyMy first point being that the Popular Army was capable of staging such mass offensives. Such efforts, whether successes or not, were completely beyond the capabilities of the militias

Secondly, these were engagements fought according to the military orthodoxy of the day. The Popular Front can of course be faulted for losing battles or not performing as well as it should have but to belittle it for not inventing some brand new military doctrine is absurd


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I already pointed out ways in which the militias were weak and needed to be changed. I also pointed to proposals from the anarcho-syndicalists to do this...merge all militias into a unified people's militia for a unified command, new training schools, use of gold reserves to build up the capacity of the Catalan arms industry, infiltration of guerrillas into the mountains behind fascist lines.And you then go on to charge that the only thing preventing these measures was communist opposition. Frankly that says everything

The Republicans faced a military disaster in late 1936 brought about by the failure of the militias to check the Nationalist advance. Their solution was the organisation of a proper army, in accordance with conventional military thinking of the day, to present a credible opposition to their opponents. Yet insist that this was not a reasoned argument, which can be evaluated as such, but rather Communist plots and "Stalinist practice"

It should not be forgotten that these lessons, so harshly administered by the Nationalists during the early months of the war, were accepted by many anarchists, as per the FAI statement that I previously referenced. It is also worth remembering that not all militias were anarchist or that the Popular Army was not introduced in the face of militia hostility. By and large the defenders of the Republic, whether anarchist or not, accepted and greeted the creation of the Popular Army. They had little time for hypotheticals

[syndicat]

The Republicans faced a military disaster in late 1936 brought about by the failure of the militias to check the Nationalist advance. Their solution was the organisation of a proper army, in accordance with conventional military thinking of the day, to present a credible opposition to their opponents. Yet insist that this was not a reasoned argument, which can be evaluated as such, but rather Communist plots and "Stalinist practice"

It should not be forgotten that these lessons, so harshly administered by the Nationalists during the early months of the war, were accepted by many anarchists, as per the FAI statement that I previously referenced. It is also worth remembering that not all militias were anarchist or that the Popular Army was not introduced in the face of militia hostility. By and large the defenders of the Republic, whether anarchist or not, accepted and greeted the creation of the Popular Army. They had little time for hypotheticals

Well, more self-serving Stalinist pap. You mention the FAI. Yes, as I pointed out, a segment of the FAI -- the radical wing of the CNT -- were critical of the existing militia system. This was its lack of coordination. Now, why was that? It was because each leftist party had insisted on having its own army. ERC, PSUC, POUM, etc. The libertarian Left, on the other hand, preferred the mass organizations, the unions, to run the militia, because this was the way to working class power.

As to the problems of untrained groups of armed workers falling back before the Army of Africa, yes, that happened. But it was the workers militia who initially stopped the advance on the gates of Madrid. Moreover, it was the workers militia who liberated Catalonia, Valencia and eastern Aragon.

What was needed, as the segment of the FAI we have mentioned, insisted on, was training academies and a unified command. But the Communist Party wanted this to be under their control. Their strategy was to use control over the army and police as their route to power. Read the documents from the Soviet archives translated in "Spain Betrayed." Read the interviews in "Blood of Spain." You'll read about manipulation and things like "problems" for officers in the Republican army who wouldn't take a party card, etc.

What the revolutionary working class wanted was control of the economy and to end up without any new scheme of class domination. What the Communists aimed at was a nationalized economy run by a bureaucratic class. The fight over how a new people's army would be organized in Aug-Sept 1936 was precisely over the question of class power.

by talking about "defenders of the republic" you ignore 1. the fact that workers weren't fighting to defend the "Republic", and 2. the fact it was actually a revolutionary class war.

[ComradeOm]

It was because each leftist party had insisted on having its own army. ERC, PSUC, POUM, etc. The libertarian Left, on the other hand, preferred the mass organizations, the unions, to run the militia, because this was the way to working class powerIncluding the UGT?


As to the problems of untrained groups of armed workers falling back before the Army of Africa, yes, that happened. But it was the workers militia who initially stopped the advance on the gates of MadridAnd if all of Spain had been covered in urban landscape - quite suited to the militias - then this form of organisation might have proven quite successful


Moreover, it was the workers militia who liberated Catalonia, Valencia and eastern AragonAgainst what opposition?


What was needed, as the segment of the FAI we have mentioned, insisted on, was training academies and a unified commandAnd that was exactly the impetuous behind the formation of the Popular Army. But then training was never the only issue. The sort of exaggerated and farcical "democracy" that proved so damaging in the early stages of the war was also condemned by that reference FAI statement. And if you install a chain of command, provide centralised training and logistics, and turn raw recruits into full time soldiers... what exactly is the difference between a militia and professional army?


But the Communist Party wanted this to be under their control. Their strategy was to use control over the army and police as their route to power. Read the documents from the Soviet archives translated in "Spain Betrayed." Read the interviews in "Blood of Spain." You'll read about manipulation and things like "problems" for officers in the Republican army who wouldn't take a party card, etc. It never occurred to you that by so hesitatingly and belatedly embracing the Popular Army, to the degree that they ever did, the anarchist organisations effectively ceded control and influence over this institution to the PCE?


What the revolutionary working class wanted was control of the economy and to end up without any new scheme of class dominationAnd the "revolutionary working class" could be found exclusively in the militias? They universally opposed the formation of the Popular Army? They were all anarchist?

Edit:

by talking about "defenders of the republic" you ignore 1. the fact that workers weren't fighting to defend the "Republic", and 2. the fact it was actually a revolutionary class war. Well yes, that is the overriding problem with the anarchist narrative. Accept that the workers were fighting to defend the Republic, which they most assuredly were, and then everything looks very different. Instead anarchists tend to associate the "revolutionary working class" exclusively with the anarchist militias. The idea that the Popular Army was supported and populated by the working class, including a large number of former militiamen, simply does not fit into this analysis

[syndicat]

Including the UGT?


Not in the northeast. There was no UGT militia there. The PSUC wanted its own party army.


The sort of exaggerated and farcical "democracy" that proved so damaging in the early stages of the war was also condemned by that reference FAI statement. And if you install a chain of command, provide centralised training and logistics, and turn raw recruits into full time soldiers... what exactly is the difference between a militia and professional army?


Of course you oppose self-management which requires direct democracy to run things. You're a shill for the bureaucratic class.

But the FAI did accede to criticisms of this. They agreed to give up the assemblies and election of officers, BUT they insisted that officers by selected and controlled by management committees for the military units. And half the delegates on these management committees would be elected by militia members, to avoid abuse by officers, and the other half would be elected by the unions. These committees would be under their proposed Defense Councils, run by the UGT and CNT unions. This was to ensure control of the armed forces by the organized working class. Without this, the armed forces would inevitably end up being controlled by some alien class...as actually happened as the bureaucratic class regime came increasingly into view during the course of the civil war, as the PCE pushed for a statist nationalized economy.


It never occurred to you that by so hesitatingly and belatedly embracing the Popular Army, to the degree that they ever did, the anarchist organisations effectively ceded control and influence over this institution to the PCE?


You're wrong about this. The PSOE were equally pushed aside. Moreover, the CNT did join the Popular Front government precisely in order to have a say over the armed forces. But they were able to defend little. The revolution started being undone from November 1936 on. And you ignore the point that the issue for the anarchosyndicalists was working class control, not by an anarchist political group.


Instead anarchists tend to associate the "revolutionary working class" exclusively with the anarchist militias. The idea that the Popular Army was supported and populated by the working class, including a large number of former militiamen, simply does not fit into this analysis

And demoralization became extremely widespread within the ranks of the "Popular Army" due to PCE sectarianism, authoritarianism, repression and mismanagement.

And, no, anarchists don't "associate the revolutionary working class exclusively with the anarchist militias." Why the fuck did the CNT propose a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT? Why did they propose joint UGT-CNT defense councils?

And, by the same token, why did the the PCE intensely oppose a joint UGT-CNT workers government?