Communists betrayal of the anarchists and syndicalists in the civil war

[GallowsBird]

This is not the original post and i am not the original poster. This was a reply to the now-banned member no pasarans whine about how evil marxist-leninists are.

[El Chuncho]

*Yawn* :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

Yeah, seriously, GallowsBird, don't troll with all this anti-anarchist stuff. The correct answer to 'why do the Marxists keep attacking all the anarchists?' isn't 'because the anarchists totally suck, and that's why they don't have any success'. Fucking hell, you've got a lot to learn.

Also, don't go telling people (by which we clearly mean anarchists) they need a vanguard party so that they can be like the 'successful' (:laugh:) Bolsheviks. Another Bolshevik revolution? We need that shit like a fucking hole in the head...

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The reason most Marxist-Leninists are slightly antagonistic towards Marxism because many of us see it as endangering the Revolutionary movement with its lack of realistic goals and near non-existent planning towards the Revolution. The Spanish Civil War shows us the dangers of unfettered Anarchist and Trotskyist attitudes. Many of the Anarchists in Spain would rather make an Anarchist commune than actually fight the enemy that endangered them in many case (look at Catalonia) that coupled with the fact many Anarchists are against the Trade Unions (the life's blood of the worker), hate other leftists more than many rightists and have an irrational fear of any authority.

If various Anarchists in Spain didn't demand autonomy then maybe the Spanish Revolution would have been won. If anything the Anarchists and Trotskyists betrayed the worker and the cause rather than sticking together to face the fascist hordes of Franco. Sorry, but a war zone is not the best place for setting up collectivist communes. The Anarchists, as a whole, should have pulled their weight (as to be fair some Anarchists did) more and supported the Soviet Backed Republic, won the war and then tried to sort out their differences with the central authority. Another reason is that the Anarchists made all the side issues into the main issue when in fact the main goal should be the class-struggle;in this case specifically the struggle against Franco and his fascists.

A successful Revolution needs a vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries, central authority and careful planning as the Bolshevik Revolution shows us.

And it is two easy to trot out the same old line about the "Soviet betrayal" when the Soviet Union did at least supply arms, send advisors, organise international support (including the International Brigades) and pro-Republican propaganda.

I am not quite a pan-leftist so I do think that many movements aren't particularly suited. Sadly I think Anarchism can't work and would only be a detriment to the cause. That is my personal view anyway.
Okay, next time a situation arises, we'll let the Marxist-Leninists win, set up their little Soviet satellite state and await to be purged for demanding real worker's democracy and the ability to run the communities and workplaces on a collective and autonomous basis...

I love that post, as if Stalinists are going to take power and then enter into debate with anarchists and Trots thereafter.

[hatzel]

To seriously address the point...if you're a company that sells shoes, you would be quite happy if all other shoe shops would shut, because then everybody who wants shoes would have to come to you. In the same vein, if you're a socialist party (particularly if your intention was to take and exert political power), you'd be quite happy if there were no other socialist parties, because then everybody who wants socialism would have to come and join your party. As far as I can tell, these Marxists who want to set up a new state see the anarchists as a double threat: one because they would, inevitably, refuse to accept the legitimacy of the newly-created state, would probably even choose to fight against it, and would therefore be considered 'counter-revolutionaries'. The second reason is that outlined above: the mere existence of anarchism challenges Marxist monopoly over the left, over the whole socialist movement. Which would diminish their power, if it isn't universally accepted that their suggestions are the only ones available. Eliminate the competition, I tell you, like a shoe shop driving others out of business...eliminate it by killing its adherents, or by making sure that its attempts fail, so that it can be discredited by saying 'see, it doesn't work! Thus you have to be a Marxist, because only that will work!', but eliminate it at all costs...

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

To seriously address the point...if you're a company that sells shoes, you would be quite happy if all other shoe shops would shut, because then everybody who wants shoes would have to come to you. In the same vein, if you're a socialist party (particularly if your intention was to take and exert political power), you'd be quite happy if there were no other socialist parties, because then everybody who wants socialism would have to come and join your party. As far as I can tell, these Marxists who want to set up a new state see the anarchists as a double threat: one because they would, inevitably, refuse to accept the legitimacy of the newly-created state, would probably even choose to fight against it, and would therefore be considered 'counter-revolutionaries'. The second reason is that outlined above: the mere existence of anarchism challenges Marxist monopoly over the left, over the whole socialist movement. Which would diminish their power, if it isn't universally accepted that their suggestions are the only ones available. Eliminate the competition, I tell you, like a shoe shop driving others out of business...eliminate it by killing its adherents, or by making sure that its attempts fail, so that it can be discredited by saying 'see, it doesn't work! Thus you have to be a Marxist, because only that will work!', but eliminate it at all costs...
I've always thought of that mentality as a contradiction to Marxism anyway. Marx always talked about the working class overthrowing capitalism, as a united body, not little sectarian communist parties. It almost seems as if most (class struggle) anarchists are closer to orthodox Marxism in their theory than most Marxists are.

[hatzel]

I've always thought of that mentality as a contradiction to Marxism anyway. Marx always talked about the working class overthrowing capitalism, as a united body, not little sectarian communist parties. It almost seems as if most (class struggle) anarchists are closer to orthodox Marxism in their theory than most Marxists are.

In this I agree. And I'm sure that many of the Marxists on here will also tell us that there was nothing particularly Marxist about the Spanish Civil War-era Soviet Union, so I guess it makes sense that those aligned with it would put sectarianism above anything else...

[The Douche]

This only reflects your lack of understanding. You further prove this with the rest of your post...


Many of the Anarchists in Spain would rather make an Anarchist commune than actually fight the enemy that endangered them in many case

Yes, this is a vulgar and secterian way to illustrate the main contradiction that existed in spain. The anarchists wanted to carry out social revolution, the Communists wanted to fight the war. But this is not to say that the anarchists didn't fight, the reality is that they did amazing things and to dishonor those men and women who fought against fascism, is well, disgusting.


many Anarchists are against the Trade Unions (the life's blood of the worker), hate other leftists more than many rightists

Yes, anarcho-syndicalists (i.e. the CNT-FAI, the primary anarchist organization in Spain) are against unions:rolleyes:.

Do you realise the primary organization of anarchists during the Spanish civil war was in fact a union? And the largest anarchist organizations today support union work.




You're not going to make many friends on here like this. It's fine to be against anarchism, but you need to be honest and informed in your critique of it.

[eric922]

What I want to know, is why are anarchists and trotskyists lumped into the same category? Trotksyism is a branch of Leninism isn't?

[agnixie]

What I want to know, is why are anarchists and trotskyists lumped into the same category? Trotksyism is a branch of Leninism isn't?

It's complicated, and I'm not that well read on Lenin himself, but "Leninism" is largely Stalin's version of socialism, sort of vaguely extrapolated from Lenin.

[RedMarxist]

enough with this sectarian crap. I'm a Marxist-Leninist too you know, yet I don't go around insulting Anarchists, regardless of whether or not I can think it can work or not.

We all have differences, its human nature. If we could do the Spanish Civil War again, I think we could stand a chance if the Leninists, Anarchists, and even the Trotskyists all somehow managed to band together and wipe out Franco and his fascist followers.

A revolution require that everyone work together.

[Zav]

Stalin was no Communist, rather he created Stalinism. It isn't surprising that he would want to destroy the most successful Communist movement in the world, lest the Soviets would overthrow him. Communism is naturally Anarchist. Such a society involves communes. I respect all my comrades, but it is my opinion that the Marxist-Leninists are missing the root of Capitalism, and that no 'Communist' State will ever be successful, due to the nature of power.

[Omsk]

"Leninism" is largely Stalin's version of socialism
You are definitely not well red.I don't want to sound hostile,but Leninism is by no means 'Stalins version of socialism'
Leninism is a political theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by a revolutionary vanguard party. Developed by and named after Russian revolutionary and politician Vladimir Lenin, Leninism comprises political and socialist economic theories, developed from Marxism, and Lenin's interpretations of Marxist theory within the agrarian Russian Empire of the early 20th century


Stalin was no Communist, rather he created Stalinism.

Wrong.Stalin did not create Stalinism,Stalinism was a term introduced by Lazar Kaganovich and Stalin himself at first,hesitated for such a communist branch to exist,but later he went down along with it.Stalinism usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxist–Leninist theory"

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You are definitely not well red.I don't want to sound hostile,but Leninism is by no means 'Stalins version of socialism'
Leninism is a political theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by a revolutionary vanguard party. Developed by and named after Russian revolutionary and politician Vladimir Lenin, Leninism comprises political and socialist economic theories, developed from Marxism, and Lenin's interpretations of Marxist theory within the agrarian Russian Empire of the early 20th century
I think he meant that 'Marxism-Leninism' is 'Stalin's form of socialism'. Or perhaps, Marxism-Leninism was the ideology upheld by the USSR under Stalin, the communists in Spain and continues to be upheld by Stalinists today would be a better way to put it.

To the guy who made the original query, Trotskyism is opposed to Marxism-Leninism, not Leninism alone, which is actually different. Trotskyism itself claims to be the correct continuation of Lenin's theories (or Leninism), where-as so does Marxism-Leninism, although both theories are different, hence why they are in conflict.

[GallowsBird]

Yeah, seriously, GallowsBird, don't troll with all this anti-anarchist stuff.

I was responding to a troll actually!


The correct answer to 'why do the Marxists keep attacking all the anarchists?' isn't 'because the anarchists totally suck, and that's why they don't have any success'. Fucking hell, you've got a lot to learn.

Nah, I have learnt something hence I am a Marxist-Leninist.


Also, don't go telling people (by which we clearly mean anarchists) they need a vanguard party so that they can be like the 'successful' (:laugh:)

Come on you have to admit as much as you dislike it that there is some truth to the need for it... or do you really think that having a dedicated core of Revolutionaries didn't contribute in any way to the Bolshevik victory in the USSR.


Bolsheviks. Another Bolshevik revolution? We need that shit like a fucking hole in the head...

Sorry but the Bolsheviks were the best suited to represent the proleteriat. Which succesful left-wing revolution in the 20th century hasn't been fought and won using Marxist-Leninist principals? Look at most of the Communist parties that are leading countries...

Again, sorry for supporting the ideology that actually won a revolution... *shrugs*

[MortyMingledon]

What I want to know, is why are anarchists and trotskyists lumped into the same category? Trotksyism is a branch of Leninism isn't?

Because in the Civil War they ended up grouping themselves together. The anarchists and the POUM (which wasn't actually Trotskyist, I should add. Nin and Trotsky did nothing but criticize one another) advocated the people's militias independent from the government, while the communists and the socialists (increasingly being influenced by Stalin) supported the creation of "mixed brigades", incorporating the independent militias with the government. In the '37 May Days in Barcelona the differences between those influenced by the USSR and those wanting to remain independent escalated to violence. I guess we group the "Stalinist" Marxist-Leninist PCE and the Socialist Party, and the "Trotskyist" Marxist-Leninist POUM and the anarchists together is because those were the main divisions during the May Days.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I was responding to a troll actually!



Nah, I have learnt something hence I am a Marxist-Leninist.



Come on you have to admit as much as you dislike it that there is some truth to the need for it... or do you really think that having a dedicated core of Revolutionaries didn't contribute in any way to the Bolshevik victory in the USSR.



Sorry but the Bolsheviks were the best suited to represent the proleteriat. Which succesful left-wing revolution in the 20th century hasn't been fought and won using Marxist-Leninist principals? Look at most of the Communist parties that are leading countries...

Again, sorry for supporting the ideology that actually won a revolution... *shrugs*
'Marxism-Leninism' didn't win any revolution. It did, however, betray them.

[GallowsBird]

This only reflects your lack of understanding. You further prove this with the rest of your post...



Yes, this is a vulgar and secterian way to illustrate the main contradiction that existed in spain.

And it isn't to purely blame the Soviet backed side of the conflict?


The anarchists wanted to carry out social revolution, the Communists wanted to fight the war. But this is not to say that the anarchists didn't fight, the reality is that they did amazing things and to dishonor those men and women who fought against fascism, is well, disgusting.I mentioned that Anarchists did fight, but many of them did prematurely tried to set up their chosen form of socialism.




Yes, anarcho-syndicalists (i.e. the CNT-FAI, the primary anarchist organization in Spain) are against unions:rolleyes:.

Do you realise the primary organization of anarchists during the Spanish civil war was in fact a union? And the largest anarchist organizations today support union work.Yes, as is clear from my post I don't think all are against unions but far too many are. I have never seen as many Marxists, Trotskyists, Left Communists et cetera against as many socialist tenants as many "self-proclaimed" Anarchists.

And their is truth to the opinon that the Soviets did see the Anarchists as a liability to their cause because they believed that the Anarchist model of socialist revolution was flawed and not well planned. Sorry but call me a "Stalinist" (I don't mind as I do support Stalin though I prefer 'Marxist-Leninist' personally) but I do think that stronger order and better planning give Marxist-Leninism the edge over Anarchism. Also I brought Trostkyism because they seem to be allied with Anarchists often when it comes to "Anarchist vs Marxist-Leninism" debates. As if their dislike of baby-eating Stalin is more important than anything else.





You're not going to make many friends on here like this. It's fine to be against anarchism, but you need to be honest and informed in your critique of it.That is called kicking ass and taking names Money :)[/QUOTE]

???

My primary goal isn't really friendship to be honest. And on this site it isn't OK to be stronlgy critical of Anarchism (though Anarchism is the majority so it is somewhat understandable). It is more acceptable to attack Marxist-Leninism and spread capitalist lies about Stalin than anything else these days it seems.

[Devrim]

The Spanish Civil War shows us the dangers of unfettered Anarchist and Trotskyist attitudes.
...If anything the Anarchists and Trotskyists betrayed the worker and the cause rather than sticking together to face the fascist hordes of Franco.

There were eight Trotskyists in Spain at the time.

Devrim

[GallowsBird]

'Marxism-Leninism' didn't win any revolution. It did, however, betray them.

You say that and I have been criticised for my "uninformed opinion". So how exactly did it betray them then?

If anyone wants to be clever they can claim it was technically "Bolshevik-Marxism" that won the Russian Revolution and that "Marxist-Leninism" was a later refinement/corruption (depending on you preferences) however.

Still waiting for how Marxist-Leninism is a betrayal of the Revolution and how that is more acceptable than saying Anarchism is (or at least many forms of it).

[GallowsBird]

Sorry but I am just sick of all the "Stalinist counter-revolution" all over the place. Now that is an insult to all the International Brigade soldiers, all the Russian advisors and all those that helped supply the Republican troops.

If you think that is acceptable then you should find it acceptable for someone to post the oposing viewpoint.

Here is a good take on things from an International Brigadist who fought in Spain. It was actually written to condemn the film 'Land and Freedom' but it still applies here:

http://www.mltranslations.org/Spain/LandFreedom.htm


Comrade Bill Alexander, who worked as an industrial chemist before volunteering to fight in Spain, where he served as Political Commissar of the Anti-Tank Battery and then as Commander of the British Battalion, addressed a meeting in London on January 29, 1996, organised jointly by the Association of Indian Communist and the Association of Communist workers. His speech was of enormous significance for the present struggle of the working-class in Britain, and we therefore reproduce the main points that he made below.

Bill started by explaining why he considered it important to study the Spanish Civil War, even today, more thin half a century after it ended. He correctly pointed out that this War has important lessons to teach with regard to the struggle against racism and fascism. These lessons are particularly important today when, in a situation of world economic crisis of capitalism, bourgeois thoughts are turning increasingly towards fascism as being perhaps the only way of containing the working class as it is subjected to ever-greater hardship and deprivation He considered it no coincidence that at this time the books of George Orwell are being produced by the bourgeoisie in several new editions, and it was therefore important that progressive, anti-fascist and anti-racist people act decisively to put the record straight.
The bourgeois ideological offensive taking place at the present time explains the £2.5 million supplied to Ken Loach from some very dubious quarters to enable him to make the film Land and Freedom, which so glorifies certain Anarchist factions which acted in a counter-revolutionary fashion during the Spanish Civil War, and which so denigrates the real heroes of that war - the Communists from Spain and other countries who fought for the Republic - and the international working-class movement, especially the Soviet Union, and still more especially, that most deadly enemy of the bourgeoisie, Comrade Stalin. Comrade Bill pointed out that the surviving members of the British battalion of the International Brigade had offered their services to Ken Loach, but he did not want to know. At the same time, it is planned that Channel 4 next autumn will produce a programme sympathetic to the British fascist leader Oswald Mosely, depicting him as a person whose heart was in the right place but who made some 'mistakes'. This too shows the direction of the present bourgeois ideological offensive against the working class.
By way of background to the Spanish Civil War, Comrade Bill explained that the conditions for that war had arisen from World War I. This had been a conflict between two major groups of imperialists over control of colonies. It ended in the defeat of one imperialist group over another and in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in Russia, and the formation of the world's first working-class state - the Soviet Union. This was a very dangerous factor for the international bourgeoisie.
This is one reason why, after the end of the war, the German imperialists hastened to build industry and to strengthen their armed forces to the hilt.
But something stood in the way of the Ruhr barons of industry in their desire to develop German industry to its full potential. What stood in the way was the German working class. The German working-class movement was very strong at that time. The German imperialists saw that they had no choice, if they were to fulfil their expansionist ambitions, but to smash it Thus it was that they turned to fascism. In Italy Mussolini did the same thing. In order to develop as an imperialist power, as an effective rival to British and French imperialism, he destroyed the working-class and other progressive organisations in Italy.
The aims of the fascists were, then, to prepare for war with a view to redividing the world, and, in order to achieve that, to smash all working-class resistance. At the start of the Spanish Civil War, fascism had already triumphed in Germany, Italy and Austria. It was now to advance on Spain.
According to the Daily Mail at that time, fascism was inevitable in Spain and other backward countries where people's living standards were low. Spain had been ruled by the army representing big landowners, including the Catholic Church. The Spanish army was a parasitic organism. It had one officer for every three men. Its barracks were situated in city centres, because its main concern was to keep the working class under control. The other task of the army was to maintain Spain's hold over her colonies. In these circumstances the Spanish people were hungry and thirsty for democracy and an improvement in their living conditions. For this reason they formed the Popular Front government. It is important to remember who were in this government. The majority of Republicans were 'liberals'. They were not socialists. There were only a handful of communists in it. Anarchists too had a dominant influence. The Popular Front Government based on this coalition was elected in 1936 and began to carry out democratic changes. Political prisoners were released from jail. Advances were introduced in educational provision. It became easier for landless peasants to acquire land. These changes were too much for the ruling groups mentioned above to tolerate. In 1936 Franco emerged as the leader of a group dedicated to overthrowing the Popular Front government. Franco thought that it would be as easy for him to introduce fascism as it had been for Hitler and Mussolini. But the Spanish people had learnt from what had happened in Germany and Italy They knew fascism was their main enemy and that they had to fight against it. Of course, it very much helped their understanding that the Communist International, led by Georgi Dimitrov, was able to analyse the international class forces and promote the line of uniting all anti-fascist forces.
Hitler planned to use the opportunity to advance the interests of German imperialism at the expense of British, French and American imperialism, while at the same time increasing his stranglehold on the working-class movement. Spain was a heaven-sent opportunity for Hitler to advance his war preparations.
The response of the British ruling class was typical of 'Perfidious Albion' (as Britain is known). It was up to every possible trick. They did not want to get involved in the war, so they proclaimed it to be a civil war in which outsiders ought not to get involved. They supported 'non intervention', deliberately, closing their eyes to the intervention that was taking place in front of their noses on the part of Germany and Italy on Franco's side before, during and after the war The slogan of 'non-intervention was simply an excuse to avoid assisting the democratically-elected Republican government and preventing it from buying the guns it needed to defend itself from fascism and its interventionist backers. So what happened?
In North Africa was stationed the Army of Africa. This army had considerable experience of war. The generals were in Spain, so that between them and the army lay the straits of Gibraltar. The Spanish Navy was on the. side of the Republic. Franco needed to get his troops across the water. Within 3 days the German Nazi Air Force provided all the air transport needed to ferry the Army of Africa into Republican Spain. The result was a 3-year long war, which would never have taken place if the 'non-interventionists' had prevented the fascists' intervention and had given the Republican government the right to buy the arms it needed.
Franco began to advance from Seville towards Madrid, the capital. What were the tasks of the Popular Front government? It had no army, because the Spanish army had gone over to Franco. It had men of enormous courage and conviction, but no military training. So the Republican government had to train up an army while at the same time Franco, helped by the Nazis, was already advancing from the South towards Madrid.
To counter this advance what was needed was (a) organisation, and (b) weapons. Franco incidentally secured his rear, as he advanced up towards Madrid, by the ruthless murder of everybody who opposed him. He murdered all the landless peas-ants who had taken over land in the South. In this way he was able to take over half of Spain in 3 months, leaving behind him a trail of death and destruction.
If Madrid had fallen the war would have been over and yet another country would have been in the fascist camp. This would have reinforced the idea that nothing could be done to prevent the advance of fascism. But Franco's troops were stopped by the heroic people of Spain, untrained and poorly armed though they were. The people of Madrid knew what fate awaited them if Madrid had fallen, and this strengthened their determination to stop fascism. Their victory over the fascists was a turning point of the war. Because of this victory, in October 1936, the Republican government was able to fight on until March 1939.
Those two and a half years gave the democratic people of the world the opportunity to learn lessons as to the true nature of fascism, to understand what it meant, and to prepare for the fight against fascism that began in 1939.

The International Brigade
Who were the InternationalBrigade? All over the world, men and women felt that they could not stand aside while a democratically-elected government was simply forced out of power at gunpoint. People went to the aid of Spain from all over the world, from 40 to 50 countries. They decided to fight in Spain on the side of the Spanish people.
They were driven by a realisation that if fascism was not stopped in Spain, war and fascism could come to their own countries as well The volunteers were also concerned about their own families and their own futures, their peace and their liberty.
A few words about the people who came from Britain. We were called the Battalion Ingles (the English battalion) even though this included people from the Commonwealth, to say nothing of other parts of Britain. In the fight to defend Madrid, the British battalion played an important part. Later, between 12-14 February 1937, at Jarama, it had the job, alongside others, of stopping-of stopping the tremendous force armed by the Germans and Italians. A four-day battle took place. 16l of us were killed and nearly everyone was injured. But the enemy did not pass. They did not pass. We always mark that day because it was the first battle in which we fought. We stopped Franco's attempt to swing round and cut off Madrid from the rest of Republican Spain. I would like to mention in passing the Italian battalion of the International Brigade, the Garibaldi Battalion: - they knocked hell out of Mussolini's troops!
The heroism of the people- of Spain was beyond compare. So short of equipment were they, that the fighters from Madrid used to go to the Front in tram-cars. Their ability to hold out for so long against such overwhelming odds provides an important lesson of the power of the people when united to fight for a just cause.

Loach's film
To return to Ken Loach's film, it is clear from all I have said that by far the most important front at the time the events in his film supposedly take place was the Madrid front. Why did he not make a film about that? Why did he not portray the exceptional heroismof the people ofMadrid as German shells fell all around them? That would have been a film worth making.
Instead he went to a remote village in Aragon, miles away from the decisive front. The events in that part of Spain revolved round Barcelona. In Barcelona, at the time that the fascist generals rose against the republic, the people stormed the barracks and took over the city. Having thus secured their position, they should then have gone out from Barcelona to give support to those fighting the advancing Franco troops. But this they did not do because of the anarchistic and POUM leadership. They did not fight at all. Loach decided to make his film at what was, in effect, a dormant front. During the events which occurred in Barcelona and which were depicted in the film, Franco was marching North to try to take Madrid, and the Nazis were preparing World War II. They were bombing Guernica so that they could assess the effect of mass bombing on a civilian population. You would never have known that from seeing this film.
Yet it is important to see the events depicted in the film within that context. In Barcelona, while the grim struggle was going on elsewhere, they had decided to stop fighting and to initiate collectivisation. They did not want to organise a disciplined army. Theydid not understand the need for one. Frankly, the scene where the arguments are taking place about collectivisation is quite pathetic when you remember the fate of the collectivised peasants of the South of Spain who had been wiped out by Franco in the early days of his advance. It is obvious that the order of the day was to stop Franco, and unless and until that had been done all talk of collectivisation was futile.

Where did Ken Loach get his ideas from?
Not from the 2,400 or so people who went to Spain from Britain to fight in the international brigades. It was illegal at that time to go to Spain to fight, because of the Non-Intervention treaty. What one had to do was to go to Paris on a non-passport trip, and then make one's way to Spain from there. Because of this illegality, it was impossible to know exactly how many British people went to fight in Spain, but the approximate number is 2400. 526 of these were killed. Who were these people? In the early days they were mainly writers andartists who realised that fascism was a threat to culture, because they knew that Hitler had been burning books. These people also had the know-how to get out of Britain and get to Spain. It was only later on that miners, dockers, and generally the cream of British industrial workers went out. They were joined by people who were fighting against British imperialism -27 from Cyprus, of whom nearly half were killed in Spain, and 120 from the Republic of Ireland. Nurses and doctors went because fascism had to be defeated first before the Spanish people could make up their minds as to what kind of government they wanted. A socialist revolution was not at that moment on their agenda. Ken Loach has, therefore, confused the issue, and his film has no relation to reality. This is why the true picture must be shown.

Why did the Spanish people lose?
The main reason was those who enforced the policy of 'non-intervention'. Our slogan Save Spain & Save Peace was correct. Ifhelp had been given to the Spanish Republic by the government of this country, if the movement had been strong enough to defeat the fascists, then World War II would not have happened.
Another of Loach's slanders is as to the role of the Soviet Union The Soviet Union wanted peace. For a short time, therefore, they went along with non-intervention until they saw the reality of this 'non-intervention' whereupon they decided they had a responsibility towards the democratic, peace-loving people of Spain. They sent help in the form of arms and food, and they gave every possible help to the Spanish people.
What was the role of the Soviet people who went to Spain? Ken Loach says they were murderers acting under Stalin's instructions. Well, I got given a Soviet anti-tank gun. A Soviet instructor showed us what to do with it. We were given Soviet rifles and he instructed us how to use them.While the German planes which were involved in supporting Franco were piloted by German pilots, Soviet instructors taught Spanish lads as airmen. Others were taught to drive tanks.
In addition the Soviet Union suffered great losses in under to help Spain. Its ships were bombed by Italian planes and sunk by German submarines. Some people think that the Soviet Union should have done more, not realising how much the Soviet Union actually did. Much of what it sent never arrived at its destination because of the activities not only of the German and Italian fascists, but also because of the activities of the 'non-interventionists', such as France, who prevented supplies destined for Spain from crossing French territory. In my opinion the Soviet Union did all that was humanly possible to do in the conditions prevailing at that time.
Why has Loach been given so much money to make such a film? Why is Orwell being taught in the schools as if he were a great author? It can only be that the ruling circles in imperialist countries want to lower people's vigilance against fascism.
If you are going to fight fascism you have to realise that it is fascism you fight at that time. You do not fight several other battles simultaneously if that can be avoided.
The second lesson of the Spanish Civil War is that you do have to fight, even if there is a possibility of losing. You may lose, but if you do not fight at the very first signs of fascism you will definitely lose.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You say that and I have been criticised for my "uninformed opinion". So how exactly did it betray them then?

If anyone wants to be clever they can claim it was technically "Bolshevik-Leninism" that won the Russian Revolution and that "Marxist-Leninism" was a later refinement/corruption (depending on you preferences) however.

Still waiting for how Marxist-Leninism is a betrayal of the Revolution and how that is more acceptable than saying Anarchism is (or at least many forms of it).
'Marxism-Leninism' as upheld by Stalin's regime was represented by a complete lack of worker democracy, which is what interested me in socialism in the first place. It was actually the betrayal of socialist principles; it was not your 'dictatorship of the proletariat' at all, workers did not actually control their means of production, which is the principle behind socialism. You could argue that this was the fate of the Bolshevik revolution the moment that power was centralized, many do, and I'm included.

If you accept a centralized form of planned economy as socialism, disregarding any form of working class democracy, then they were very successful, but to anyone who is concerned with the actual liberation of the working class, in that the working class have the means of production in their hands, then it was an absolute failure.

I can't go into much detail as I don't have the time, but I'm sure that anarchists and left coms will be able to present you with a detailed critique of Marxism-Leninism in relation to what socialism actually means.

Anarchists want to start building socialism from the bottom up, without the interference of those leaders who call themselves the leaders of the working class. It is the job of the working class themselves, history has proved that your methods have decayed into tyranny.

[Gorilla]

Because in the Civil War they ended up grouping themselves together. The anarchists and the POUM (which wasn't actually Trotskyist, I should add. Nin and Trotsky did nothing but criticize one another) advocated the people's militias independent from the government, while the communists and the socialists (increasingly being influenced by Stalin) supported the creation of "mixed brigades", incorporating the independent militias with the government. In the '37 May Days in Barcelona the differences between those influenced by the USSR and those wanting to remain independent escalated to violence. I guess we group the "Stalinist" Marxist-Leninist PCE and the Socialist Party, and the "Trotskyist" Marxist-Leninist POUM and the anarchists together is because those were the main divisions during the May Days.

Need more like this post. This one has facts and begins to make arguments based on those facts.


'Marxism-Leninism' as upheld by Stalin's regime was represented by a complete lack of worker democracy, which is what interested me in socialism in the first place...Anarchists want to start building socialism from the bottom up, without the interference of those leaders who call themselves the leaders of the working class. It is the job of the working class themselves, history has proved that your methods have decayed into tyranny.

Need less like this one. This one is all slogans and does nothing to advance the debate.

[GallowsBird]

'Marxism-Leninism' as upheld by Stalin's regime was represented by a complete lack of worker democracy, which is what interested me in socialism in the first place.

Empty Anti-Marxist rhetoric. I shall use your tactic of counter-arguing here and say "'Marxism-Leninism' as championed by Stalin's regime was represented by the most complete worker democracy that has yet been implemented nationwide in any country.

It was a true 'dictatorship of the proletariat' lead by the vanguard of the proletariat answerable and guided by the will of the proletariat and Stalin is still a popular and respected figure by many to this day.


can't go into much detail as I don't have the time, but I'm sure that anarchists and left coms will be able to present you with a detailed critique of Marxism-Leninism in relation to what socialism actually means.

And Marxist-Leninists can present a detailed critique of other movements and a defense of Marxist-Leninism based on how it preserved the ideals of true socialist democracy.


Anarchists want to start building socialism from the bottom up, without the interference of those leaders who call themselves the leaders of the working class. It is the job of the working class themselves, history has proved that your methods have decayed into tyranny.

What evidence? The Anti-Proletariat and Anti-Soviet propaganda of the capitalist world?

[chegitz guevara]

So far, no one in this thread knows wtf they are writing about, least of all the Stalin-fans.

The reason, IN SPAIN, the the CP ended up crushing the revolution and shooting the anarchists and POUM is because the Spanish CP (PCE) was not a working class party. In Spain, the workers were overwhelmingly anarchist. The CP was a tiny, insignificant organization ... until the USSR began shipping weapons to the Republic. Because the Spanish CP was the recipient of the aid from the USSR, it had an influence that far exceeded its original numbers.

The PCE, because it argued that the revolution needed to wait and that the fascists must be crushed first, attracted the masses of petty bourgeois who were horrified and frightened by both anarchist "excesses" (burning churches, sexual liberation, etc.) but were also opposed to the military rebellion. From a tiny organization, the PCE grew and grew.

A poster above questions why Loach's movie wasn't made about Madrid. Because it was loosely based on Orwell's, Homage to Catalonia, which was itself a biographical account. But supposing Loach had made the movie about Madrid. Who saved Madrid? It was the anarchists and their leader, Durutti.

The failure in Spain was not inevitable. It was the result of fuckups on the part of the anarchists and government and backstabbing by the PCE. The fact that the PCE stabbed the revolution in the back in no way mitigates the incredible heroism of those who fought under the PCE's banner, especially the international brigades. But instead of shooting fascists, in addition, the PCE shot anarchists and supposed Trotskyists.

But it should never have gotten to the point that the PCE could do this. The anarchists fucked up by refusing to topple the government and make the revolution. Had they done this, had they smashed the bourgeois state and created a workers state (which would be anathema to them), then neither the Republic nor the PCE would have been in the position to fuck things up like they did. For example, the Republic refused to move a weapons factory to Catalonia even though the fascists were advancing on it. They would rather it fall into fascist hands than the anarchists be able to be in control of the manufacture of weapons. Of course, once this factory was seized, the Republic was completely dependent on Soviet arms.

Further too, the anarchists (and the Republic and PCE) fucked up by trying to fight a conventional war against a trained military. We can't fight them by their rules. We're not good enough. We have to fight by our rules, guerrilla war, people's war. Guerrilla war was invented in Spain! And they didn't use it!?! The Republic should have granted Spanish Morocco independence. That would have undermined Franco's military.

[RedMarxist]

Well, this thread got out of hand quickly. Look, Anarchists can suck it! Marxism-Leninism has won the day in the former USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. Four of those nations are still around today. N. Korea can suck it however, because it's a puppet regime created by the USSR at Stalin's behest.

[Dunk]

The working class will determine how to rule themselves. None of this sectarian finger pointing or circle jerking will matter. I put anti-capitalist under my name for a reason. If we are all for the abolition of private property, that is currently enough. Let's save the details for during and after the revolution, in which case I suggest we keep in mind that we absolutely must work together. A divided enemy is a weak enemy.

[GallowsBird]

A poster above questions why Loach's movie wasn't made about Madrid. Because it was loosely based on Orwell's, Homage to Catalonia, which was itself a biographical account.

That was actually the late Comrade Bill Alexander (who was there at the time) by the way and he mentioned Orwell in his article.


But supposing Loach had made the movie about Madrid. Who saved Madrid? It was the anarchists and their leader, Durutti.

We all know about Durrutti and his collumn and I for one respect his actions in the campaign. But aren't you forgetting the other defenders of Madrid a little? Such as the International Brigades?

Also Madrid fell, after a heroic resistance.

[/QUOTE]PCE stabbed the revolution in the back in no way mitigates the incredible heroism of those who fought under the PCE's banner, especially the international brigades.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with your view that the PCE stabbed the revolution in the back however I am glad you have at least mentioned the International Brigade and the other combatants.

At least you admit that both sides are too blame. My main point is that too many people blame the Soviets and PCE and never mention what they did right, nor do they generally mention what the other side of the Revolutionary forces did wrong. So you make a fair post, even if I still disagree with much of it. But then I am a Stalinist so I do eat babies and skewer cats for fun so I admit I may be off my rocker!

[GallowsBird]

Actually on re-reading my posts I think my original posts were slightly out of line. I responded to the OP's post, which I took as an act of sectarian trolling and should have been more tactful rather than responding with more sectarianism. Though I don't think I am wrong in regards to the content of the message I think I am wrong on the way I wrote it.

I think we should be more civil (me included) as this thread is in danger of becoming a flame-war (and I think I and the OP have contributed the most to this state of affairs). We don't want to start something like the Trotsky vs Stalin wars that plague this forum from time to time (which I have missed posting on as I was a lurker at the time of most of them).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

.

Empty Anti-Marxist rhetoric. I shall use your tactic of counter-arguing here and say "'Marxism-Leninism' as championed by Stalin's regime was represented by the most complete worker democracy that has yet been implemented nationwide in any country.

It was a true 'dictatorship of the proletariat' lead by the vanguard of the proletariat answerable and guided by the will of the proletariat and Stalin is still a popular and respected figure by many to this day.





What evidence? The Anti-Proletariat and Anti-Soviet propaganda of the capitalist world?

where's your evidence?

consider this: to be anti-marxist leninist is not equal to being anti-marxist, and certainly not equal to being anti-proletarisn (the opposite in fact).

[dernier combat]

Four of those nations are still around today.
How does the ability of bureaucratic ruling classes to maintain their hegemony over the working class and resist destruction by the forces of a more powerful bourgeoisie for so long help the working class in any way? Your post proves nothing and is of no value to this thread.

[gestalt]

As supposed materialists, how exactly do ideologies win revolutions?

[Nolan]

The most successful troll in history. Two of them, actually.

[syndicat]

I think it's best to analyze this in terms of the class interests served by the Spanish Communist Party and the Comintern. in Russia a bureaucratic ruling class had been consolidated, and MLism was part and parcel of the ideological justification for this new class system there.

The Spanish Communist Party aimed to create a similar regime in Spain. they adopted from the Comintern a 2-stage theory of the revolution. First, they would work to have the Republican state -- which had collapsed -- rebuilt, especially a rebuilt conventional hierarchical army and police. they worked to control the academy to train officers and the "commisars" appointed as political controllers in the "People's Army."

the PCE's 2-stage strategy was also permeationist. first they were permeate the army and police, and then use their power their to gain state power. they were quite successful in pursuing this, and once they'd gained dominant control over the poliice and army (after May 1937) they used this to strip the Left Socialists of their union halls and newspapers, to crush them, and to persecute the POUM....in other words, to destroy or defang their competitors for power.

the next stage would be nationalizing the economy with a managerial hierarchy in control. by 1938 they'd gained dominance in the UGT and got that union to develop a statist program of nationalizing the whole economy, stripping the workers of the self-management they'd achieved in the revolution.

the PCE from the beginning of the civil war worked assiduously to recruit members of the "middle classes" -- professionals, managers, farm land owners, small shopkeepers, and so on. these cadre would provide a basis for consolidating an administrative/managerial class in Spain. by 1937 only 40 percent of the PCE's members were workers. It was a party based in the administrative and small business classes, striving to create a system in which the working class would be subordinate to an administrative class.

[Jose Gracchus]

The MLs are simply utterly full of shit. The Partido Communista de Espana [PCE] was a party based increasingly on property owners, the middle class, by 1937 it was less than forty percent workers. Need anyone say more? The PCE was not a working class party in its fundamentals. I don't think anyone even needs to say more.

[Dimmu]

Well, this thread got out of hand quickly. Look, Anarchists can suck it! Marxism-Leninism has won the day in the former USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. Four of those nations are still around today. N. Korea can suck it however, because it's a puppet regime created by the USSR at Stalin's behest.


And all of these countries are eather state-capitalists or just pure capitalists when it comes to China..

[Gorilla]

It's kind of useless to discuss the internal politics of the Spanish Republic without acknowledging at least in passing that the Republican side was FUCKED from the very beginning, being under attack by the better part of its own military, Italy and Germany, plus embargo by Britain and France.

You can try to make a dollar out of sixteen cents however much you want but that does not add up to victory, especially if the Soviets took a hike as well.

The Soviets resisted the move to social revolution because they were trying to court UK and France in an alliance with Nazi Germany. Of course that would prove to be fruitless (hence the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact) but they didn't know it at the time. Backing a social revolution would have pretty much guaranteed the fall of the PF gov't in France, and the intervention of France and Britain on the fascist side.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The reason most Marxist-Leninists are slightly antagonistic towards Marxism because many of us see it as endangering the Revolutionary movement with its lack of realistic goals and near non-existent planning towards the Revolution. The Spanish Civil War shows us the dangers of unfettered Anarchist and Trotskyist attitudes. Many of the Anarchists in Spain would rather make an Anarchist commune than actually fight the enemy that endangered them in many case (look at Catalonia)

Anarchist "communes", or more accurately the expropriation of the means of production by the working class, and the subsequent running of a planned worker controlled economy was the best chance the working class had of succeeding, of course, they did fight as well though.


that coupled with the fact many Anarchists are against the Trade Unions (the life's blood of the worker),

This is where I think my ideas differ from a Marxist-Leninist. Trade unions are negotiators for the capitalist class, officials are a negotiating committee for capital. They divide workers against themselves. No structure without rank and file control is capable of being "the life's blood of the worker".


hate other leftists more than many rightists and have an irrational fear of any authority

We argue verbally with other leftists, we argue physically with fascists.


If various Anarchists in Spain didn't demand autonomy then maybe the Spanish Revolution would have been won. If anything the Anarchists and Trotskyists betrayed the worker and the cause rather than sticking together to face the fascist hordes of Franco. Sorry, but a war zone is not the best place for setting up collectivist communes. The Anarchists, as a whole, should have pulled their weight (as to be fair some Anarchists did) more and supported the Soviet Backed Republic, won the war and then tried to sort out their differences with the central authority. Another reason is that the Anarchists made all the side issues into the main issue when in fact the main goal should be the class-struggle;in this case specifically the struggle against Franco and his fascists.

This is bollocks. The soviet backed republic was a capitalist force, they did not consider the class struggle as their main goal, maybe an opportunistic Lenin would have backed a foreign revolution in 1918 but the Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1919 seemed to suggest from that point onward a policy of "socialism in one country", by 1936 Stalin isn't looking for a foreign revolution, he's looking for allies, and that Spanish gold. Why else did they uphold private property, sometimes when planned worker controlled economies in both the countrysides and the towns were in place? Why else did the NKVD execute CNT, POUM and FAI members?


A successful Revolution needs a vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries, central authority and careful planning as the Bolshevik Revolution shows us.

A successful revolution needs mass scale industrial direct action towards the goal of working class control of the economy. Without this it isn't a revolution.


And it is two easy to trot out the same old line about the "Soviet betrayal" when the Soviet Union did at least supply arms, send advisors, organise international support (including the International Brigades) and pro-Republican propaganda.

Well they did also get $500 million dollars worth of gold for their efforts.


I am not quite a pan-leftist so I do think that many movements aren't particularly suited. Sadly I think Anarchism can't work and would only be a detriment to the cause. That is my personal view anyway.

Fair enough, I think the same about Marxist-Leninism for its faith in trade unions and its lack of commitment to rank and file workplace militancy in its methods of organising.

[Jose Gracchus]

It's kind of useless to discuss the internal politics of the Spanish Republic without acknowledging at least in passing that the Republican side was FUCKED from the very beginning, being under attack by the better part of its own military, Italy and Germany, plus embargo by Britain and France.

You can try to make a dollar out of sixteen cents however much you want but that does not add up to victory, especially if the Soviets took a hike as well.

The Soviets resisted the move to social revolution because they were trying to court UK and France in an alliance with Nazi Germany. Of course that would prove to be fruitless (hence the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact) but they didn't know it at the time. Backing a social revolution would have pretty much guaranteed the fall of the PF gov't in France, and the intervention of France and Britain on the fascist side.

The only real hope, in my mind, was to commit to a kind of hard revolutionary stance, and hope to spread the revolution to Portugal and France once it had been consolidated in Spain. The fact is playing touchy-feely with the liberal bourgeoisie under an arms embargo while the USSR used you as a hopeful pawn in her foreign policy was a mug's game for the Spanish working class and poor peasantry. I think the only [narrow] real hope was revolution and proletarian internationalism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

What I want to know, is why are anarchists and trotskyists lumped into the same category? Trotksyism is a branch of Leninism isn't?

Anti-Stalinism at the time was big from Anarchists and Trotskyists.

[black magick hustla]

i piss on the comintern and the cnt leadership i hope they like the taste of my fluids in their graves

[syndicat]

The reason most Marxist-Leninists are slightly antagonistic towards Marxism because many of us see it as endangering the Revolutionary movement with its lack of realistic goals and near non-existent planning towards the Revolution. The Spanish Civil War shows us the dangers of unfettered Anarchist and Trotskyist attitudes. Many of the Anarchists in Spain would rather make an Anarchist commune than actually fight the enemy that endangered them in many case (look at Catalonia)

well, this is the sort of nonsense i suppose one should expect from a Stalinist. Catalonia would have been taken by the fascist army at the outset of the golpe de estado if it weren't for the organized, armed fight back of the anarcho-syndicalist unions, through their neighborhood defense groups and coordinating Defense Committee. they gained the support of most of the rank and file cops of the Republican Assault Guard in the process.

second, this person ignores what the fight in spain was about. it was about workers revolution, and the emancipation of the working class. that's why as soon as they defeated the army, the seized the means of production...on a vast scale. over 18,000 companies were directly expropriated by the worker unions. this is building an authentic socialism from the ground up.

but this Stalinist deprecates worker management of production because he doesn't really believe in that. he beliieves in a fake socalled "socialism" that empowers a bureaucratic class to rule over the working class.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its always fun to see tendency wars fuelled. I see the original OP has been deleted. :)

I think it is a sound historical analysis to conclude that everybody betrayed everybody in Spain. The Republican forces lacked cohesion and cooperation.

Ultimately that contributed to the defeat. But the real fundamental problem was the policy of non-intervention as far as it relates to the resulting blockade on gun and arms deals. In a situation in which the nationalists had such superiority in this field...that was killing.

[syndicat]

it was naive for the Communists and Socialists to expect arms from the capitalist regimes anyway. they're not going to arm a proletarian revolution.

they needed a different strategy. altho it is true that the massive arms assistance received from Germany and Italy was very important, I'm not sure the anti-fascist side was doomed by this. Given that the Republic was cheated by everybody right and left in arms dealings (including Stalin), it would have been smarter to invest more of the funds in building an arms industry in Catalonia, which was an industrial area with a skilled workforce. the anarchists proposed this but the gold was sent to Russia instead. the workers had seized the Hispano-Suiza factory that made high performance aircraft engines...but this was not made the basis of a native fighter aircraft production.

also the Left political leaders fought the war in propaganda terms, using massive frontal assaults to try to achieve a "crushing victory" but only lost men and supplies in these assaults. the Republican army was ultimately destroyed in the Battle of Ebro. it had no fighting capacity after that.

[The Man]

Stalin was no Communist, rather he created Stalinism. It isn't surprising that he would want to destroy the most successful Communist movement in the world, lest the Soviets would overthrow him. Communism is naturally Anarchist. Such a society involves communes. I respect all my comrades, but it is my opinion that the Marxist-Leninists are missing the root of Capitalism, and that no 'Communist' State will ever be successful, due to the nature of power.

You just made the biggest Misconception about MLism ever. Congratulations.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

To seriously address the point...if you're a company that sells shoes, you would be quite happy if all other shoe shops would shut, because then everybody who wants shoes would have to come to you. In the same vein, if you're a socialist party (particularly if your intention was to take and exert political power), you'd be quite happy if there were no other socialist parties, because then everybody who wants socialism would have to come and join your party. As far as I can tell, these Marxists who want to set up a new state see the anarchists as a double threat: one because they would, inevitably, refuse to accept the legitimacy of the newly-created state, would probably even choose to fight against it, and would therefore be considered 'counter-revolutionaries'. The second reason is that outlined above: the mere existence of anarchism challenges Marxist monopoly over the left, over the whole socialist movement. Which would diminish their power, if it isn't universally accepted that their suggestions are the only ones available. Eliminate the competition, I tell you, like a shoe shop driving others out of business...eliminate it by killing its adherents, or by making sure that its attempts fail, so that it can be discredited by saying 'see, it doesn't work! Thus you have to be a Marxist, because only that will work!', but eliminate it at all costs...
To be fair isn't it the exact same way with anarchists? You admit yourself right here that an anarchist would by principles fight a state that Marxists create. Really you can flip anything you said here and apply it to anarchists.
The mere existence of Marxism challenges anarchist monopoly over the left, over the whole socialist movement. Which would diminish anarchist's power, if it isn't universally accepted that their suggestions are the only ones available, etc, etc.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

If a legitimate Marxist state was created, where the workers truly controlled the means of production and all other social decisions were made by a dictatorship of the proletariat that was enforced purely by the number of proletarians, then I doubt there would be many anarchists around. I suspect those who still took issue with a state having ANY power over them would become reformists rather than revolutionaries. But the anarchists on the board will have a much better idea on this than me.

On the other hand, we leftcoms and anarchists WOULD be purged by a ML state, no? And wisely, because we would become much more aggressive than we are under capitalism. I know I would.

EDIT: but yes, if leftcoms and anarchists were silly they could play the zero sum game of beating each other up to get more members. I can't think of any time this has happened, except in verbal arguments.

[Jose Gracchus]

I do think there should be a definite bridge toward between class struggle anarchists and some varieties of Marxist left communists [in particular, council communists].

[Savage]

I do think there should be a definite bridge toward between class struggle anarchists and some varieties of Marxist left communists [in particular, council communists].
Left Communists are open to any Anarchists that maintain Internationalism.

[Rooster]

I think that the main problem with the OPs post was that he believed there was actual socialism in the USSR which came about because, and only because, there was a small vanguard party that was involved with the revolution. These two points offer a variety of debate, obviously. I dunno, man. People just have a very unrealistic idea of how things happen(ed).

[El Chuncho]

i piss on the comintern and the cnt leadership i hope they like the taste of my fluids in their graves

Very elegant of you! :thumbup1:

Seriously though, why are people still arguing here? This thread was started by a troll, now banned, to cause a flame war. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Very elegant of you! :thumbup1:

Seriously though, why are people still arguing here? This thread was started by a troll, now banned, to cause a flame war. :rolleyes:


:-) :-) Because never mind which way we are going to spin it...we Anarchists can't trust those pinko commie bastards!!! :-) :-)


No...but in all seriousness...the question is legitimate. How can the revolutionary left cooperate when, given the past, we are also very apt to betray each other and fight each other.

This is still very relevant because what guarantee is there that when a revolution finally comes it will not revert back in the prosecution and purge of other sociaslists, communists and anarchists?

Look...when I was a communist we always saw Anarchists as being part of a problem to be solved, and some thought quite radically, before we could reach a truely comunist society. Now I am an Anarchist and whenever I debate with communists....the legitimacy of anarchism and the negative impact it may have on the succes of the revolution and post revolutionary society is still a big issue.

[Le Socialiste]

The reason most Marxist-Leninists are slightly antagonistic towards Marxism because many of us see it as endangering the Revolutionary movement with its lack of realistic goals and near non-existent planning towards the Revolution. The Spanish Civil War shows us the dangers of unfettered Anarchist and Trotskyist attitudes. Many of the Anarchists in Spain would rather make an Anarchist commune than actually fight the enemy that endangered them in many case (look at Catalonia) that coupled with the fact many Anarchists are against the Trade Unions (the life's blood of the worker), hate other leftists more than many rightists and have an irrational fear of any authority.

If various Anarchists in Spain didn't demand autonomy then maybe the Spanish Revolution would have been won. If anything the Anarchists and Trotskyists betrayed the worker and the cause rather than sticking together to face the fascist hordes of Franco. Sorry, but a war zone is not the best place for setting up collectivist communes. The Anarchists, as a whole, should have pulled their weight (as to be fair some Anarchists did) more and supported the Soviet Backed Republic, won the war and then tried to sort out their differences with the central authority. Another reason is that the Anarchists made all the side issues into the main issue when in fact the main goal should be the class-struggle;in this case specifically the struggle against Franco and his fascists.

A successful Revolution needs a vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries, central authority and careful planning as the Bolshevik Revolution shows us.

And it is two easy to trot out the same old line about the "Soviet betrayal" when the Soviet Union did at least supply arms, send advisors, organise international support (including the International Brigades) and pro-Republican propaganda.

I am not quite a pan-leftist so I do think that many movements aren't particularly suited. Sadly I think Anarchism can't work and would only be a detriment to the cause. That is my personal view anyway.


Anarchism didn’t endanger the revolution, nor did the supposed Trotskyists; it was by and large the efforts by the Republican government to withhold arms and ammunition, and the process of breaking up/reorganizing the established workers’ councils, committees, and syndicates. By reestablishing the old hierarchy, the government reestablished the old system of class suppression, exploitation, and bourgeois social politics. In essence, it betrayed the ideal of the revolution. By asking—demanding!—that the workers return to the old forms of oppression they sounded the death knell of the revolution. Revolution begins with the people, and if the people are not revolutionized, in mind, heart, and spirit, no revolution can succeed. Nor would it be genuine. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (at this point I’m beginning to sound like a broken record): the masses carry the revolution, and in order for it to be borne beyond simple victories the workers must recognize that bottom-led democracy is the only viable way forward. Democracy begins with the people, not a committee of a handful of ‘revolutionaries’. The dictatorship of the proletariat, in the hands of the Republican government, would have become a mirror-image of previous dictatorships—rather, it would ultimately be a dictatorship over the proletariat, casting its coercive will upon the workers at the expense of the revolution. The Spanish proletariat was sufficiently revolutionized at the start of the war; in fact they were conscious of their wants and needs and were determined to carry them out in a fashion that was steeped in class politics and awareness. And what did the government do? It broke up the collectives, the committees and syndicates, the worker-run factories, farmland, and cities/towns. And for what? Officially, it was to preserve order and stability in the face of Franco’s armies. Unofficially, it was the means by which the class struggle could be suppressed, forcibly reverting the movement back to its pre-revolution roots. The Republican government/state was counterrevolutionary, it shied away from proclaiming the liberty of the masses of workers in the name of socialism—all for receiving some semblance of foreign aid. The world didn’t want a Spain consumed with the liberation of the people from their capitalist chains; so the government toned down its rhetoric, told the people to wait and postponed the revolution indefinitely. It squandered the good will and spirit of the people in exchange for political legitimacy.

The anarchists, and those who identified with their sociopolitical/economic line (myself included), saw that the social revolution and the armed revolution were one. One could not happen successfully without the furtherance of the other. Armed and social struggle must be identified as inseparable qualities in any revolution if the movement is to claim a genuine break with the existing system. The Republican government didn’t do that. They were content to allow the old bourgeoisie to return to the long-held positions of power and influence, with the resurgence of power politics and the reestablishment of the old class structure. Nothing in their actions can be wholly defined as revolutionary. Clearly, they sought to exploit the workers during and after the war had ended (if they had won). The workers would have a government unsympathetic, even hostile, to their demands. The people had nothing—save for their strength in numbers. And the trade unions were no better! Surely, comrade, you can see that the trade unions are but the current upholders of the same capitalistic system of coercion and hierarchy. Once potential organs for revolutionary activity, they have become mere microcosms of the capitalist order of exploitation, suppressing the workers while claiming to speak for them! The answer doesn’t lie in these yellow organizations, but in the genuine convergence of all workers into self-managed, interconnected unions, councils, committees, and syndicates, all cooperating through the necessary class channels of production. The trade union bosses have no interests save one: the preservation of their own financial/political gains.

Yes, any potential revolution must be coordinated—however such cooperation must be organized and implemented by the workers, the people themselves. The state, the government, have no the interests of the masses at heart; they care only for their continued support, for how else can they legitimize their attacks on the working-class? The proletariat has only an erstwhile ally in the state; real struggle begins with them, not some government indifferent to the plight of the many.



If anything the Anarchists and Trotskyists betrayed the worker and the cause rather than sticking together to face the fascist hordes of Franco.


This is slander, comrade—slander against those who sought the betterment of the revolutionary ability of the working-class while carrying the revolution forward at the Front. I’ve already addressed why you’re statement concerning this matter is counterrevolutionary and ultimately undemocratic. I needn’t say more.



A successful Revolution needs a vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries, central authority and careful planning as the Bolshevik Revolution shows us.


The Bolshevik Revolution showed us, alright. It exposed the hypocrisy and dictatorial aspirations of its leadership. The Bolsheviks were authoritarian in their management of the revolution, and showed their true colors when they broke up the worker and peasant-established soviets and workplace/town committees, only to reorganize them into mere mouthpieces for the Bolshevik minority. The workers were betrayed by the central authority. No vanguard can establish a revolution; it must, must begin with the people. A revolution is, at its very heart, a complete break with the previous system, with capitalism and all its many ills. The Bolsheviks may have genuinely believed in their actions—but then, that doesn’t excuse their short-sightedness and ill-preparedness in bringing about an actual socialistic society. They oversaw the emergence of a new political authority, the establishment of a new, coercive class of Party elites. And the Russian proletariat suffered for it.



And it is two easy to trot out the same old line about the "Soviet betrayal" when the Soviet Union did at least supply arms, send advisors, organise international support (including the International Brigades) and pro-Republican propaganda.


The USSR wanted a Soviet puppet in Spain. They saw the Spanish Civil War as yet another piece on the geopolitical chessboard. Their intent on crushing the worker-owned cities and townships are further evidence of the counterrevolutionary character of Stalin and the Republican government. Ultimately, it was about whether or not the Soviets could further the prove its hegemony in the communist/socialist world, and the broader world as well. The Spanish Civil War is a tragic case of the workers being betrayed by those claiming to defend their interests. It proved, yet again, that the will of the proletariat is best invested in their own collective strength; not in the government, or the state it defends.

[PhoenixAsh]

it was naive for the Communists and Socialists to expect arms from the capitalist regimes anyway. they're not going to arm a proletarian revolution.

Exactly.

Thats why they adapted to no-interference policy. Which I basically applaud...but also had the negative effect of banning any form of armament.

In the context of the situation that meant that the Nationalist forces were better equipped, better trained and had a huge advantage in conventional warfare.

The way the struggle was fought therefore was a losing battle from the start.


they needed a different strategy. altho it is true that the massive arms assistance received from Germany and Italy was very important, I'm not sure the anti-fascist side was doomed by this. Given that the Republic was cheated by everybody right and left in arms dealings (including Stalin),

Well...basically you are right. It is not one thing that doomed the anti-fascists. There were several other factors which came into play. But ultimately the AFs were at a huge disadvantage which was worsened by all the other elements.



it would have been smarter to invest more of the funds in building an arms industry in Catalonia, which was an industrial area with a skilled workforce. the anarchists proposed this but the gold was sent to Russia instead. the workers had seized the Hispano-Suiza factory that made high performance aircraft engines...but this was not made the basis of a native fighter aircraft production.

Very true.



also the Left political leaders fought the war in propaganda terms, using massive frontal assaults to try to achieve a "crushing victory" but only lost men and supplies in these assaults. the Republican army was ultimately destroyed in the Battle of Ebro. it had no fighting capacity after that.

Never use conventional tactics against a superior force in that area.

Moral superiority (and not morale) does not win battles...as one might expect.

[Gorilla]

No...but in all seriousness...the question is legitimate. How can the revolutionary left cooperate when, given the past, we are also very apt to betray each other and fight each other.

The Republican side was faced with impossible contradictions between the domestic political situation (a proletariat, and perhaps a third to half of the peasantry, ready for social revoltion) and the geopolitical situation (Germany and Italy already on the Fascist side, Britain and France wavering but likely to intervene on Franco's side if liberal leaders were purged and things got radical).

Good comrades (and, to be sure, opportunists and adventurists) found themselves trapped on either side of that contradiction. Describing it in moralistic terms as "betrayal" is unmaterialist and unhelpful.


This is still very relevant because what guarantee is there that when a revolution finally comes it will not revert back in the prosecution and purge of other sociaslists, communists and anarchists?

There are always purges in a revolution, and never guarantees. And who's to say it won't go the other way next time?

(As an example, granted a somewhat inadequate one, in Venezuela at the moment the PCV has been rather seriously marginalized, while entryist Trots are all over PSUV leadership.)


Look...when I was a communist we always saw Anarchists as being part of a problem to be solved, and some thought quite radically, before we could reach a truely comunist society.

Sorry that your Communist group was full of douchebags.

[Omsk]

First of all,some comrades here clearly don't know their facts good.And second,this thread evolved into a debate similar to the Stalin VS Trotsky threads,which is not something we should speak with pride,as both of the sides in the conflict usually either don't have good arguments,nor do they look upon the matters objectively,instead,they link and quote their own 'people' - people who spoke for either of the sides,so the very debate is likely to turn into a vulgar,inaccurate,over symplified argumentation without real arguments.

The term 'betrayal' is too harsh,and communists will not react lightly,in turn causing even more flame wars in this,all ready divided forum.


This is,however,one of the brightest examples of a workers struggle,regardless of their political provinency,it shows that a classless world is possible,and it gives us a glimpse of a world we might find ourselves in one day,a world opposed to capitalism and inhumanity,but it also shows that for that change to happen,we must follow the revolutionary socialist tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Another thing,in the past,Anarchists proved to be rather opposed to the communists and socialists in a number of events,for example,the Kronstadt rebellion,and the events in Spain.

But in these dark times,when almost the entire planet is controlled by the capitalist pigs and slaughterers,a unity between these two movements is perhaps needed,for we both share a similar cause,a classless society,in the end,it comes up to that.

[PhoenixAsh]

First of all,some comrades here clearly don't know their facts good.And second,this thread evolved into a debate similar to the Stalin VS Trotsky threads,which is not something we should speak with pride,as both of the sides in the conflict usually either don't have good arguments,nor do they look upon the matters objectively,instead,they link and quote their own 'people' - people who spoke for either of the sides,so the very debate is likely to turn into a vulgar,inaccurate,over symplified argumentation without real arguments.

I agree...but objectively speaking...there were purges and usually it was the anarchists and others deemed unworthy and suffered in great numbers...not just in Spain.

And quoting your own people means that there is an absence of a clarified solution to the simple fact that once there is a revoution the idea of unity goes out of the window and thesis, anti-thesis synthesis is rapidly replaced by gulags and firing squads.

We can complicate matters if you want...but it all boils down to the simple fact there were mass purges of revolutionaries....be they Anarchist, Trotskists, Left-communists, council communists and what not.

Now...in the light of this history and established behaviour....how can we trust the group who did that ever again? Therefore we need debate to find a solution to the problem....because the porblem is not simpy put off until after the revolution....which is what Spain shows.


The term 'betrayal' is too harsh,and communists will not react lightly,in turn causing even more flame wars in this,all ready divided forum.

Everybody betrayed everybody in Spain....but the ones who really got betrayed are the workers. Because the radical and revolutionary lleft could not get their act together.

And that is the issue....can we?




This is,however,one of the brightest examples of a workers struggle,regardless of their political provinency,it shows that a classless world is possible,and it gives us a glimpse of a world we might find ourselves in one day,a world opposed to capitalism and inhumanity,but it also shows that for that change to happen,we must follow the revolutionary socialist tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

I don't know about Lenin.




Another thing,in the past,Anarchists proved to be rather opposed to the communists and socialists in a number of events,for example,the Kronstadt rebellion,and the events in Spain.

The Kronstad rebellion was only a rebellion because the Bolsheviks did not want to listen or talk.

Anarchists are not opposed to communists...they are opposed to authoritarian communists.



But in these dark times,when almost the entire planet is controlled by the capitalist pigs and slaughterers,a unity between these two movements is perhaps needed,for we both share a similar cause,a classless society,in the end,it comes up to that.

As we did always.

[chegitz guevara]

It's kind of useless to discuss the internal politics of the Spanish Republic without acknowledging at least in passing that the Republican side was FUCKED from the very beginning, being under attack by the better part of its own military, Italy and Germany, plus embargo by Britain and France.

I disagree. Those opposing the military coup had many opportunities to change the situation. They made a series of bad decisions which doomed them, regardless of other external circumstances.

Had they granted independence to Morocco immediately, they could well have been able to crush the rebellion in its infancy, as the Moroccan troops which were the back bone of Franco's army would have no longer had an interest in fighting for him.

In addition, the anti-military forces could have engaged in guerrilla war behind enemy lines. This would have tied up considerable amounts of forces in occupation duties, which would have rendered them unable to concentrate their forces at will.

The anarchists should have seized power. By refusing to take control of the state, they allowed the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie to re-establish control, through the mechanism of the Communist Party. Without smashing the bourgeois state and creating a workers state, the anarchists rendered themselves incapable of carrying out the national coordination of production and defense. The unorganized can never defeat the organized.

In other words, victory was possible ... had they made a revolution. Once they revolution failed, defeat was inevitable. Even had the Republic not made a series of bone headed criminal mistakes (like agreeing to the arms embargo, not moving their weapons factory, etc), even if the outbreak of general war in Europe would have meant aid from the liberal bourgeois democracies, the fall of France would have been followed shortly thereafter by the fall of Spain, and the fall of Gibraltar, which would have meant the end of the war for Britain.

But, revolution in Spain might have been followed by revolution in France, which would have been a major threat to the fascists.

[syndicat]

Had they granted independence to Morocco immediately, they could well have been able to crush the rebellion in its infancy, as the Moroccan troops which were the back bone of Franco's army would have no longer had an interest in fighting for him.

In addition, the anti-military forces could have engaged in guerrilla war behind enemy lines. This would have tied up considerable amounts of forces in occupation duties, which would have rendered them unable to concentrate their forces at will.



the anarchists attempted both of these things. they made contact with a national liberation Morrocan group, the Moroccan Action Group, and arranged to get Morroco declared independent. But Largo Caballero dithered and then the French government found out and were outraged and put huge pressure on the Largo Caballero government to not do this.

Spain is only well suited to guerrilla war in certain areas, so this should not be thought of as a panacea. nonetheless in 1937 Garcia Oliver for the CNT did propose creating a group of 200 anarchist organizers to infiltrate into the mountains of Andalucia, behind fascist lines, to create a guerrila army. it was known that 20,000 anit-fascists were hiding out in those mountains after Andalucia was overrrun. the Negrin government initially said "Yes" but then the Soviet ambassador informed him that they would not be willing to provide the arms for such a force, since anarchists would be organizing it.

the CNT in early Sept 1936 also proposed forming a workers government, through the two union federations replacing the Republican state with a National Defense Council to run a unified militia. But this was veto'd by Largo Caballero and the Left Socialist leadership, also under great opposition from the Soviet ambassador and the Communists.

[Magón]

First of all,some comrades here clearly don't know their facts good.And second,this thread evolved into a debate similar to the Stalin VS Trotsky threads,which is not something we should speak with pride,as both of the sides in the conflict usually either don't have good arguments,nor do they look upon the matters objectively,instead,they link and quote their own 'people' - people who spoke for either of the sides,so the very debate is likely to turn into a vulgar,inaccurate,over symplified argumentation without real arguments.

The term 'betrayal' is too harsh,and communists will not react lightly,in turn causing even more flame wars in this,all ready divided forum.

^This

+

This

This is,however,one of the brightest examples of a workers struggle,regardless of their political provinency,it shows that a classless world is possible,and it gives us a glimpse of a world we might find ourselves in one day,a world opposed to capitalism and inhumanity,but it also shows that for that change to happen,we must follow the revolutionary socialist tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Doesn't = Solidarity or peace between MLs and Anarchists, what it does do, is make me laugh at what you tried doing, and possibly cause an actual flame war, if someone else reads it, and takes it anything more than a laugh.

Saying first off, that this thread is turning into a flame war, when everyone's been very civil about it (for the most part), and stating that people in these flame wars don't know what they're really saying, when they're saying it, (which I agree when it comes to an actual flame war). So I'm guessing you were trying to prevent that, even though from what I've read, it's all been civil and not leading to a flame war.

But then in the second part, it made me laugh, because you suddenly joined in on it, with saying that for this change to Communism happen, we have to follow the Leninist way of revolution. Which is funny, because you know there's no way in hell, Anarchists are seriously going to go along with that Party Line bullshit, and both the history between Leninism and Anarchism, and the history nowadays between the two, hasn't changed the other's opinion of one another; because of what you just said.

If someone were to continue on about Party Line slogans and ancient speeches, and the other were to just counter it, then it would indeed turn into a flame war, which you seemingly looked to be trying to prevent in the first part of your post. So I suggest that in the future, if you're stating against one thing, like a Flame War, don't start saying ancient Party Line one-liners like the only path to Communism, is through the Leninist agenda.

[chegitz guevara]

the CNT in early Sept 1936 also proposed forming a workers government, through the two union federations replacing the Republican state with a National Defense Council to run a unified militia. But this was veto'd by Largo Caballero and the Left Socialist leadership, also under great opposition from the Soviet ambassador and the Communists.

I don't think either the Republican government nor the PCE were in any position to stop the CNT from toppling the government and creating a workers state, had it chosen to do so.

One suspects that they'd be a lot less subject to the influence of the French imperialists on Morocco than Caballero and the Soviets on guerrilla war.

[Le Socialiste]

First of all,some comrades here clearly don't know their facts good.And second,this thread evolved into a debate similar to the Stalin VS Trotsky threads,which is not something we should speak with pride,as both of the sides in the conflict usually either don't have good arguments,nor do they look upon the matters objectively,instead,they link and quote their own 'people' - people who spoke for either of the sides,so the very debate is likely to turn into a vulgar,inaccurate,over symplified argumentation without real arguments.


True enough, I agree with you here.


This is,however,one of the brightest examples of a workers struggle,regardless of their political provinency,it shows that a classless world is possible,and it gives us a glimpse of a world we might find ourselves in one day,a world opposed to capitalism and inhumanity,but it also shows that for that change to happen,we must follow the revolutionary socialist tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin.


...You've lost me. By using the example of Lenin, you've basically asserted that all other methods for achieving a revolutionary socialist situation are unviable. This simply isn't true.


But in these dark times,when almost the entire planet is controlled by the capitalist pigs and slaughterers,a unity between these two movements is perhaps needed,for we both share a similar cause,a classless society,in the end,it comes up to that.

Undoubtedly - we just happen to disagree with the ways necessary for implementing a truly classess society. So long as we can avoid the tragedy that was the Spanish Civil War, I see nothing wrong with this. The question posed, though, is how? How can we put aside our differences without compromising some of the basic principles of our twin movements?

[syndicat]

I don't think either the Republican government nor the PCE were in any position to stop the CNT from toppling the government and creating a workers state, had it chosen to do so.



that was true only in the areas of the anti-fascist Zone where the CNT was a large majority of the labor movement and had the forces to do so. this would mean Valencia, Murcia, Catalonia and Aragon. in fact the CNT did set up a working class government in Aragon.

but there were large areas where the CNT was a minority and the UGT was the majority and had also significant armed forces of its own. particularly in Madrid and the central Castilian region and Asturias.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

There are always purges in a revolution, and never guarantees. And who's to say it won't go the other way next time?


Always? I would argue that it's avoidable. Violence is unavoidable. There will always be a white army, but defending yourself against it isn't a purge.

You do have a point, and I commend you for keeping my side on our toes when we spout crap like "when the last sociologist has been hung with the guts of the last bureaucrat..."

[StalinFanboy]

Sorry, but a war zone is not the best place for setting up collectivist communes. The Anarchists, as a whole, should have pulled their weight (as to be fair some Anarchists did) more and supported the Soviet Backed Republic, won the war and then tried to sort out their differences with the central authority. Another reason is that the Anarchists made all the side issues into the main issue when in fact the main goal should be the class-struggle;in this case specifically the struggle against Franco and his fascists.


so much irony. im lolin