Was anarchist Spain successful?

[Drosophila]

I often hear anarchist thinkers claim that Spain's anarchist era was successful.

Can anyone confirm this for me? Is this really true?

[Jose Gracchus]

Millions of people participated in a bottom-up collectivization effort, workplace and factories were organized into collectivist democratic enterprises, as well as agricultural lands. Production was even raised in both cases. All without top-down imposition of state authority on the part of participants or a repression of opposing tendencies (though the Stalinists, whose party was increasingly based on non-workers crushed their rivals).

[Ocean Seal]

I often hear anarchist thinkers claim that Spain's anarchist era was successful.

Can anyone confirm this for me? Is this really true?
In many respects yes it was. Anarchism is Spain lasted for a good amount of time, and the collective efforts were organized very well. And of course Durruti's (who is a very well liked figure by many anarchists though I personally don't really see it) column did achieve military successes.
On the other hand many anarchists organized the military very poorly, and in addition the land was forcibly collectivized which goes against anarchism in theory. I'm somewhat reserved as to how successful it was, but it certainly pushed leftism forward and tried what at the time most thought was best for workers.
This thread should get some interesting responses though.

[Gorilla]

It was, for a short while, the very model of what a socialist state should look like.

[Drosophila]

It was, for a short while, the very model of what a socialist state should look like.

What made it stop short?

[Proukunin]

Fascists.

[Drosophila]

Thanks for this info, gents. I'm planning on taking AP European History next year, and like to know some things prior.

[Enragé]

No. If it was it would still have existed. Hah, im tempted to think that if it had been succesful, capitalism would be something for the history books by now. Shit wouldve probably went down in france as well. Though this might have prompted a nice alliance between UK, french reactionaries and hitler, maybe even with stalin condoning or backing them up, to crush it all. Whatever, all what-ifs.

The CNT decided not to smash the state in 1936 (with a vote of like 51% to 49%) because they thought it wouldnt be very anarchist, since it would amount to 'taking power'. This put them on a course which led them to become part of the bourgeois government.

Anyway, lots of inspirational things did happen though.


Oh and the main thing that crushed revolutionary spain wasnt the fascists, but the Communist Party. Extremely small in 36, they quickly gained alot of influence cuz the Soviet Union was sending a shitload of weapons to Spain, ofcourse to the communist party. This gave the communists control over the supply of arms. With this, they forced the anarchist (and sort of trostkyist) militias which were fighting with antiques, to join the regular army which was purged of the democratic elements so inspiring in the militias. Also women were sent back to where they belonged ofcourse, no longer seen fit to carry weapons they were used as nurses and cooks.
Once they had done this, the commies sent the military to disband alot of rural communes. Also in '37 some shit went down in barcelona, which basicly meant the end of the revolution.
The fascists finished off the whole republic in '39, so 2 years after revolution was basicly killed off (though alot of the inspiring things people mentioned continued, in one way or another).

Read Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia'.
also www.libcom.org has alot on the spanish revolution.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Thanks for this info, gents. I'm planning on taking AP European History next year, and like to know some things prior.
When I took AP Euro in 12th grade, we didn't touch on Spain. We basically went up right after WW1, and from there we knew what happened in the world.
However, in 9th grade, by the same teacher, in the U.S. History class, we learned about the Spanish Civil War (was seen crucial to the days before WW2)

But your school may be different. My teacher was pretty awesome in from day one teaching A.P. Euro in a class-conscious (see: pyramid) way. I never really appreciated that until I became more radical. We started in the dark ages, around the year 900, and from the get-go he always had the class-pyramid present. As time went on, he helped introduce the bourgeoisie, and this really helped a lot of students understand the event that was the Russian Revolution, as well as when we touched briefly on Marx and socialism.

Best high school teacher I had. Kind of mean personally, but he taught damn well.

[Rusty Shackleford]

AP history classes are some of the best, even in the US. they are actually less propagandistic because they have some credibility.


as for whether or not it was successful. i will say: unknown

it was too short of a period.
too chaotic politically
and there was a war going on.

the split between the communists and anarchists didnt help much.

[Ermo Kruus]

It lasted for several years and it was highly successful in many areas.

[Sosa]

I'll need to brush up on my history as this was not taught in school

[x359594]

I'll need to brush up on my history as this was not taught in school

These books are concerned with the successes and failures of the short lived anarchist experiment in Spain: Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Level, The Anarchist Collectives: Worker's Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, Sam Dolgoff editor, With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy, and Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards.

Draw your own conclusions.

[manic expression]

It depends on how you define "successful". I'm not as well-informed on the specifics of the history as some others here, but in terms of expropriating the capitalist class, I'd say they were successful. However, in terms of expanding and defending those gains, I'd say they were far less so. As others have said, it was a very short, intense and complex period, so you're probably best off reading a few histories on the subject (IMO, even if they're still useful, historians sympathetic to the anarchists can be guilty of overlooking their faults) and going from there.

[Amphictyonis]

Can't have socialism in one country. It was a valiant attempt though and gives us a glimpse into what a worker run society would look like (more so than post Lenin USSR). Global revolution is necessary for advanced communism to manifest and last in any region. If advanced communism does somehow spring up in one nation large capitalists will see it as a sort of cancer and they will try their hardest to sever that cancer from the body that is global capitalism.

[Jose Gracchus]

One should also bear in mind the (usual) collusion of the international imperialists with a local bourgeoisie in trouble - ever fearful of the "threat of a good example." The West imposed an arms embargo on Spain but that was a joke which openly doomed the Republic and the Left considering both the Germans and Italians were not only supplying Franco, but actually had committed troops and equipment to the ground war, and air support. We also slapped a trade embargo...but the UK and US exempted their own oil companies, allowing them to ship valuable and strategic oil supplies to Franco's troops (something echoed more recently in our 'sanctions' with exceptions, of course, with the military dictatorship which overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991).

As Hitchens once put it, back when he had principles, before he started cheerleading the 101st Airborne so he could get on cable news and up his book sales, it was not "appeasement" that brought fascism to 1939 in Europe. It was collaboration. Honest history would openly reflect this, rather than pretending the West and liberal democratic bourgeois everywhere cared a whit about fascism until it had grown out of control.