The Good Fight: The Spanish Civil War

[Stew312856]

Can we make this an ongoing forum to serve as a clearinghouse archive for various Spanish Civil War materials, including films, pictures, books, etc.

I find this period fascinating and important.

[Stew312856]

First topic to discuss:

Interventionism- What sort of lesson is to be learned from the fact that the Left Democrat anti-war/isolationists of the 30's were able to dissuade Roosevelt from getting involved in Spain?

The problem of the Left, I feel, is that absolute pacifism is problematic in the instance of real crises for democracy. The Rwanda and Bosnia examples show perfect Western capitalist real-politik, the lack of intervention in these 3 countries precipitated fascist terrors.

[Stew312856]

http://www.governmentattic.org/docs/FBI_Veterans_of_Abraham_Lincoln_Brigade_1937-1948.pdf

FBI Report on Abraham Lincoln Brigades

[Jose Gracchus]

Do you really believe the imperial conquering apparatus (do you really think that's not what that hypertrophy of military equipment--TWELVE supercarriers to France's....one, just to name one example among many--is for?) can be persuaded and encouraged to act in the interests of 'good'?

The U.S. and UK hung the Second Spanish Republic out to dry, precisely because they in many ways feared a Republican victory more than a Nationalist one. Embargoes on the combatants were declared self-righteously, but basically ignored. Oil flowed freely to Franco.

Fascism and genocide for the Western powers aren't a question of 'non-intervention', 'pacifism', and 'appeasement'. A better description for Western agency regarding the rise of fascism would be...collaboration.

You sound like you have drank way too much of the 'humanitarian intervention' Kool-Ade that gets cooked up in the Ivy Leagues as a plausible pass for Democrats to make war on the defenseless.

[Belleraphone]

If America had gotten involved in the Spanish Civil War, the republican forces might have won but the anarchists would lose. Obviously a capitalist Spanish Republic is better than Franco fascism, but the preservation of anarchism would've been impossible with US assistance. The US would simply act in its own interests.
Content: Vivir la Utopia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y (luckily for you its in english)

[Stew312856]

Do you really believe the imperial conquering apparatus (do you really think that's not what that hypertrophy of military equipment--TWELVE supercarriers to France's....one, just to name one example among many--is for?) can be persuaded and encouraged to act in the interests of 'good'?

The U.S. and UK hung the Second Spanish Republic out to dry, precisely because they in many ways feared a Republican victory more than a Nationalist one. Embargoes on the combatants were declared self-righteously, but basically ignored. Oil flowed freely to Franco.

Fascism and genocide for the Western powers aren't a question of 'non-intervention', 'pacifism', and 'appeasement'. A better description for Western agency regarding the rise of fascism would be...collaboration.

You sound like you have drank way too much of the 'humanitarian intervention' Kool-Ade that gets cooked up in the Ivy Leagues as a plausible pass for Democrats to make war on the defenseless.

No, in fact I would say I see through the Kool-Aid very well, thank you. The handling of Rwanda and Bosnia was one of criminal negligence on the part of the International Community towards Fascist parties, Milosevic was a hyper-nationalist trying to re-constitute a parody of Tito's Yugoslavia. The Orthodox Christian Serbs and Catholic Croatians united, only a few decades after the Ustaša Party had established a concentration camp infrastructure, so to partition Bosnia and force the Muslims out. The NATO powers were complicit in the slaughter because they wanted strategic positioning with the groups that won and also Germany, Austria, and other major economic powers were fully subsidizing the economies of the former USSR. Religious bigotry, imperialism, and military-industrial capitalist interests were the major force at work in the three Balkan Wars, not socialism of any stripe, and the mistake was made by the Left again, just as in the case of World War II and Hitler, calling for non-intervention.

Roosevelt himself was interested in building empire and got us into Vietnam mere months prior to his death, he agreed to help facilitate the return of the French to Indochina along with the British after they defeated Japan, that was an instance of colonialism. NATO utilized the situation for colonialist purposes into Central Europe for military positioning only under public pressure.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why makes paeans for the "international community" if your conclusion from history is that its help has always been fictitious? There is no 'international community'. There is the international bourgeoisie and the international proletariat.

What is the point of going on-and-on about 'pacifism' and 'what could have been done' unless you think there is something to the 'humanitarian intervention' ideology and think U.S. imperialism might be re-purposed for moral good this side of the social revolution?

[freethinker]

What a shame that the war was lost...

Despite all of the failures in the 20th century the world's people have become liberalized ... as resources deplete and this civilization declines Socialism may succeed by the later half of this century

Of course the British Empire and the American so called Republic did not aid the Republican Spanish.

[Stew312856]

What is the point of going on-and-on about 'pacifism' and 'what could have been done' unless you think there is something to the 'humanitarian intervention' ideology and think U.S. imperialism might be re-purposed for moral good this side of the social revolution?

These two instances under Clinton, if anything, reflect the inherent moral bankruptcy of Fukuyama's END OF HISTORY theory, the glorious victory of capitalism in the Cold War was supposed to unite the world under a vision of Capitalist Utopia. Culturally, the would-be 'Liberal' Capitalist Left in America were apt to bash people over the head with pro-capitalist fare like SCHINDLER'S LIST, which glorifies the 'one good Capitalist in Germany' so to further this Fukuyama ideology.

[Stew312856]

Granada TV documentary, not too shabby, though obviously biased in places against the Anarchists.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBF57A39A088A24D5

[Stew312856]

The online archive of George Orwell writings, including his dispatches from Spain, HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, and further reflections on the war written later in his career.

http://www.george-orwell.org/

[Franz Fanonipants]

The online archive of George Orwell writings, including his dispatches from Spain, HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, and further reflections on the war written later in his career.

http://www.george-orwell.org/

Orwell was a rat.

[Stew312856]

Orwell was a rat.

He was the first to recognize that Stalin was dangerous. 1984 and ANIMAL FARM are pro-socialist, though in a English Labor Party brand rather than pro-Soviet.

[Franz Fanonipants]

He was the first to recognize that Stalin was dangerous.

why was comrade s "dangerous" comrade?

[Stew312856]

Pick a reason, Comrade:

Lenin's own warning in which he said to edge Stalin out of the Party leadership.

The Moscow Show Trails that killed Zinoviev and other Old Guard Bolsheviks under the false accusations of treason.

The exile of Trotsky.

The Cult of Personality, later denounced by Khruschev.

The ridiculous agricultural plans involving multiple harvests in a single year.

The Molotov-Ribbetropp Pact (though that was a Faustian deal brought about by isolationism).

Persecution of Jews based on the false assumption they were allied with Trotsky.

I am not going to kow-tow into a Western apologetic, the colonialist machine was spinning and active with FDR, it was his machinations with the Brits and French at the end of the war that began our wonderful vacation in Vietnam. However, self-critique is vital also, merely jumping boats from pro-US to pro-Soviet without any regard for the fact that the CP USSR was in fact prone to internal violence and making dissenting Party members 'disappear' is intellectually foolish, Stalin was a thug and brute who utilized Communism much like the Tsar utilized religion a generation before to justify everything from Pogroms to Russian-on-Russian violence. Slavoj Zizek himself is adamant about the fact that Stalin was evil and has devoted his studies to the phenom of Stalinism and other -isms that engender oppression. This does not, furthermore, make me any less a Marxist, critique of the Soviet failures is important so to refine praxis.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I am not going to kow-tow into a Western apologetic.

you just did so

[Stew312856]

you just did so

So the murder of Trotsky was perfectly fine?

[Franz Fanonipants]

So the murder of Trotsky was perfectly fine?

Trotsky was scum, so yes.

[Stew312856]

But Trotsky also was a Socialist. Now it comes to light, your own prejudice against Trotskyists. Okay, take your pathetic attempts to start a fight and get me banned because of your own hang ups against anti-Stalin Socialists and FUCK OFF, you creepy troll.

[Franz Fanonipants]

But Trotsky also was a Socialist. Now it comes to light, your own prejudice against Trotskyists. Okay, take your pathetic attempts to start a fight and get me banned because of your own hang ups against anti-Stalin Socialists and FUCK OFF, you creepy troll.

you have a persecution complex comrade that will probably not do you so well on revleft.

[Stew312856]

you have a persecution complex comrade that will probably not do you so well on revleft.

I have already formally contacted committed users about your continued harassment and cyber-bullying, a crime in the US. Either back off or face consequences, you sexist Pig.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There were many moments during the SCW which communists can rightly look at with admiration...the defense of Barcelona at the beginning of the coup stands out in particular. I wonder what would've actually happened if the Republicans beat the Nationalists, though. Negrin seemed to think that "Spanish Leninism" would be a bit kindler and gentler than it's Russian counterpart, but I'm not convinced. IIRC in Anthony Beevor's book on the war, the Nationalists killed somewhere in the area of 250,000 people after they achieved victory...I can't help but wonder if Spain wouldn't have just become a puppet state of the USSR, with an amplified system of imprisonment, torture and execution that had already existed during the war.

Actually, that's probably what would've happened.

Not that the conduct of the "Republican anarchists" was anything to write home about.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I have already formally contacted committed users about your continued harassment and cyber-bullying, a crime in the US. Either back off or face consequences, you sexist Pig.

man i hope that you are a sock for maldoror because that would be awesome

[Franz Fanonipants]

Not that the conduct of the "Republican anarchists" was anything to write home about.

that's always been my real concern with the vilification of Spanish Leninism. i mean basically you've got people breastbeating about dudes who happily raped nuns (could be nat'list propaganda idk) getting shot.

i wouldn't be kosher with killing my anarchist comrades on this board but shit, come on.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The nun rape was mostly BS. The Nationalists at one point released a report, basically justifying their role in the war, in which they listed supposed Republican atrocities, and there was only one incident of nun rape hinted at. Not even accused directly, just kind of insinuated. And if anyone would've brought up the nun rape subject, it would be the Nationalists in their propaganda.

Of course, it would be folly to try and say that clergy didn't get killed, that happened. A lot of them were accused of being collaboraters with the fash...if you were accused of being a fash collaborater by the communists they'd give you a brief cursory hearing, after which you'd be convicted and shot.

If you were accused of being a collaborater by the anarchists, you'd just be shot sans show tribunal.

In any case, the POUMistas and anarchists weren't persecuted for nun-rape.

[Franz Fanonipants]

what exactly was the soviet union's wording of the "kill all anarchists" declaration?

[Tim Finnegan]

Orwell was a rat.
You say that as if the CPGB wasn't institutionally bound to rat-dom itself.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why would you troll this thread with Trotsky-Stalin bait? In any case, Orwell was certainly not "the first" to realize Stalin was "dangerous." The Western anticommunists simply thought they would do well to selectively promote his anti-Stalinist literature, and support for the bankrupt 'totalitarian' thesis.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You say that as if the CPGB wasn't institutionally bound to rat-dom itself.

its a fair cop bro

orwell still was a rat, stalin or not. that dude spied on comrades for MI-5.

[Stew312856]

The nun rape was mostly BS. The Nationalists at one point released a report, basically justifying their role in the war, in which they listed supposed Republican atrocities, and there was only one incident of nun rape hinted at. Not even accused directly, just kind of insinuated. And if anyone would've brought up the nun rape subject, it would be the Nationalists in their propaganda.

Of course, it would be folly to try and say that clergy didn't get killed, that happened. A lot of them were accused of being collaboraters with the fash...if you were accused of being a fash collaborater by the communists they'd give you a brief cursory hearing, after which you'd be convicted and shot.

If you were accused of being a collaborater by the anarchists, you'd just be shot sans show tribunal.

In any case, the POUMistas and anarchists weren't persecuted for nun-rape.

Nuns were not raped, though the convents and monasteries were burned. The killing of clergy was a real thing, but also I find it striking that the so-called 'pro-life' Vatican was supportive of capital punishment in those days.

[Ismail]

Paul Preston in his book on the Spanish Civil War points out that the Francoists committed far, far worse atrocities than anything the Republicans did.

It's quite similar to many other incidents in history: the Republicans tended to strike at symbols of oppression, the reactionary Francoists ("Nationalists") struck at symbols of modernity, anti-clericalism, republicanism, feminism, basically anything positive and/or progressive.

@Explosive Situation, Helen Graham in The Spanish Republic At War notes that the PCE didn't trust Negrín all that much. The PCE obviously would have turned Spain into the prototype of a people's democracy if they had the potential, but then again isn't that natural? Isn't that what the Comintern's policy basically amounted towards? After all the goal of the PCE in the Popular Front was to demonstrate its fierce resistance to the enemy and thus win the backing of the people. The same thing happened in Albania when the CPA attacked and worked to alienate from the National Liberation Front any elements which called for negotiations with the enemy or vacillated against it. In Spain the PCE moved against Prieto, for instance, when he began to promote negotiations with the rebels. The PCE feared Negrín would also go down such a route, although he didn't.

Negrín was a liberal bourgeois figure. The PCE only worked with him because he was willing to work with the PCE and had a strong anti-capitulationist streak. His value independently of that wasn't much and the PCE knew that.

[Jose Gracchus]

I wonder what would've actually happened if the Republicans beat the Nationalists, though. Negrin seemed to think that "Spanish Leninism" would be a bit kindler and gentler than it's Russian counterpart, but I'm not convinced. IIRC in Anthony Beevor's book on the war, the Nationalists killed somewhere in the area of 250,000 people after they achieved victory...I can't help but wonder if Spain wouldn't have just become a puppet state of the USSR, with an amplified system of imprisonment, torture and execution that had already existed during the war.

Actually, that's probably what would've happened.

Not that the conduct of the "Republican anarchists" was anything to write home about.

I wonder too. There's several things to consider. One is that the society was already highly militarized, much of production and social life, industrial and urban or otherwise, subordinated to the rigors of war and civil conflict. Another was that the workers' uprising that defeated the coup attempt also resulted in the expropriation of much of the Spanish urban industrial and rural agricultural bourgeoisie.

Though the PCE was committed in many cases to de-collectivizing and privatizing property, one wonders to what extent in an actual victory, would indigenous bourgeois social reproduction be able to be maintained? Surely there would have been a cooling effect in terms of probable discrimination in investment and trade terms, and possible mass flight of capitalists and specialists. On the other hand, if the PCE deliberately or by default ended up moving toward something like the 1946-48 front systems in Eastern Europe, and toward 'people's democracy', it would probably have resulted in World War II sooner. Stalin did not want that, and at the time was busy re-writing the Soviet Constitution to meet the most glowing advancements in bourgeois constitutional writing (he specifically wrote-out the soviets except in name, though admittedly they had long been desiccated free of any authentic class content) in his zeal to try and cozy up to Western powers against the Nazi German and Japanese threats on his flanks.

I find it unlikely that Stalin would have authorized the CP to begin nationalizing everything, centralizing management and administration in a Gosplan and industrial ministries, and issuing Five Year Plans. One should recall that this was not even Stalin's aim immediately following World War II in the East. Rather, he intended for them to remain Soviet-influenced, CP-dominated liberal democratic regimes, friendly to Soviet security and geopolitical interests, but not necessarily Stalinist mini-me's.

I know syndicat and others who are read up on the SCW think that it was necessarily evolving into the kind of regime post-war we would call a Soviet satellite state, but I think that is based on the really questionable model that having removed many of the indigenous capitalists, there is an intrinsic 'class tendency' among the surviving bureaucrats, officials, specialists--'coordinators'--toward rule as a class-for-itself (i.e., an economy where all production is juridicially owned by the state, and open capital markets are suppressed), just as the bourgeoisie and proletariat do.