Why Didn't The CNT Declare Libertarian Communism?

[socialistjustin]

I have wanted to ask this question for awhile. Why did the CNT decide that the situation was not ripe for libertarian communism and instead join an antifascist alliance? What lessons can be learned from it?

[Sheepy]

That infighting only makes things worse, hence the Barcelona May Days.

[Art Vandelay]

At the time, facing fascism, it would have been pure suicide for the CNT to declare themselves against both the republic and the nationalists. There only chance was to join the united front. However they were also vocal in their slogan that the "revolution cannot be separated from the war," and resisted attempts from the republic to take back the gains of the revolution.

[socialistjustin]

How do we know this for sure? It didn't really work out when they joined the alliance either so how much worse would it have been to declare libertarian communism and take control? My memory is shady on this subject so I might be missing something here which is why I started the thread. From what I remember from reading various books on this is that the CNT might have committed suicide by doing this, but they should have done it anyway.

[The Douche]

Shit storm will probably result:

http://struggle.ws/inter/malatesta_synd.html

Unions, even ones that are radical, anti-capitalist, communist, and revolutionary in nature have a mediating role. They negotiate with the bosses, they go between workers and bosses. It is only natural that after years of compromising with the bosses that they would compromise with the state.

The CNT essentially settled a contract with the republic to put social revolution on the back burner in the name of the anti-fascist struggle.

The FAI saw this coming, the FAI was essentially a group of insurrectos (they certainly would've been insurrectos/hipster communist types if they were around today), and they had, as their goal, to work within the CNT to keep it sticking to anarchism, and to oppose compromise with the state. But they weren't successful.

[Belleraphone]

I don't agree, the CNT was trying to stop fascism from completely destroying the revolution even if it means making compromises with the far lesser of two evils, the Republicans.

[The Douche]

I don't agree, the CNT was trying to stop fascism from completely destroying the revolution even if it means making compromises with the far lesser of two evils, the Republicans.

A popular front government ensured the death of the revolution just as much as a fascist victory did.

[Belleraphone]

I understand that. They basically had two choices, fight the republicans and fascists, or fight the fascists along with the republicans. They made the right choice, it was going to be destroyed by fascists anyway.

[The Douche]

I understand that. They basically had two choices, fight the republicans and fascists, or fight the fascists along with the republicans. They made the right choice, it was going to be destroyed by fascists anyway.

Woah, woah, woah...

The anarchists did not have to attack the republican government. The bulk of the Spanish working class was mobilized with the anarchists, only Soviet secterianism stunted that. (since the soviets poured money and arms into the popular front, and not the organization the workers themselves favored)

Anyways, its totally wrong to say that the anarchists would have to fight the republic. Like, totally wrong. That was not the situation at all, until the republican forces attacked.

[Belleraphone]

They would've had to eventually fight the republicans anyway even if the nationalists had been defeated. I wasn't necessarily referring to at that specific point in time, so please don't make unbased assumptions. Joining the republican forces certainly increased the odds of defeat for the fascists. The anarchists had to make some hard choices, and in retrospect most of them were right. They would've been crushed by the fascists anyway so the point is moot.

[Devrim]

I have wanted to ask this question for awhile. Why did the CNT decide that the situation was not ripe for libertarian communism and instead join an antifascist alliance? What lessons can be learned from it?


What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.


At the time, facing fascism, it would have been pure suicide for the CNT to declare themselves against both the republic and the nationalists.


I don't agree, the CNT was trying to stop fascism from completely destroying the revolution even if it means making compromises with the far lesser of two evils, the Republicans.

I think that these posts present it as a choice between fighting the fascists or the republicans. It sounds like there were too forces fighting and the anarchists had to choose one of them. That isn't really the case though. The republic was reconstructed with the active participation of the CNT. In Catalonia in July 1936 the CNT were the power, Lluís Companys, the President of Catolonia stated as such. The republic only continued to exist as it did because the CNT played its part in reconstructing it.


The FAI saw this coming, the FAI was essentially a group of insurrectos (they certainly would've been insurrectos/hipster communist types if they were around today), and they had, as their goal, to work within the CNT to keep it sticking to anarchism, and to oppose compromise with the state. But they weren't successful.

Far from 'keeping the CNT sticking to anarchism', the FAI were the ones who joined the government.


That infighting only makes things worse, hence the Barcelona May Days.

This makes it sound as if it was just some disagreement amongst the left, whereas what the May Days in Barcelona were was the working class fighting against capital and the state.

Devrim

[The Douche]

Far from 'keeping the CNT sticking to anarchism', the FAI were the ones who joined the government.

Huh? I thought it was the other way around? I could be wrong, I haven't cared much for SCW history since I was younger. Wikipedia states the following:


It was founded in Valencia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_%28city_in_Spain%29) in 1927 (after a preliminary meeting the previous year in Marseille (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)), to campaign for keeping the CNT on an anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) path by challenging the bureaucracy of the CNT - which it viewed as having grown to become a mediating link between labor and capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29), rather than a representative of the working class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class).

and


From 1931, possibilist union officials (the pro-Republican 'Treinta' and their followers) were systematically forced out of office or expelled, leading to the creation of anti-FAI opposition unions within the CNT in March 1933. The most moderate trade-unionists, under Ángel Pestaña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Pesta%C3%B1a), were ultimately expelled, forming the Syndicalist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalist_Party) in April 1934, and leaving the CNT leadership under firm FAI control by the time of the Civil War.


Both of which imply that the FAI were on the path I stated. But the article does not go on to deal with the CNT joining the republican government, so again, I could just be remembering things incorrectly. I'm sure there is an article I can read about it on libcom...

[pastradamus]

Shit storm will probably result:

http://struggle.ws/inter/malatesta_synd.html

Unions, even ones that are radical, anti-capitalist, communist, and revolutionary in nature have a mediating role. They negotiate with the bosses, they go between workers and bosses. It is only natural that after years of compromising with the bosses that they would compromise with the state.

It happens in the trade union movement. Some members become so accustomed to chatting and working with the other side (the employers) that they become friendly with them and so ignore their purpose of fighting for the worker and will instead be leniant on the employer. This is maybe the biggest poison of the modern labour movement.


The CNT essentially settled a contract with the republic to put social revolution on the back burner in the name of the anti-fascist struggle.I wouldn't say that is totally true. The CNT were a revolutionary trade union. The set up and administered systems of trade and working conditions during the civil war. They also created collectives, especially in Barcelona.
The Republican government needed the CNT as much as the CNT needed the backing of the Republican government. The CNT was actively recruiting and training (along with the FAI) groups of armed men to fight against the fascists - which they did so very successfully. They fought as apprentices in the trenches, learning along the way and became highly proficient at it. It was far more important in my opinion to first destroy the fascist movement. We later see that it was precisely this infighting and lack of unity that destroyed the defense.


The FAI saw this coming, the FAI was essentially a group of insurrectos (they certainly would've been insurrectos/hipster communist types if they were around today), and they had, as their goal, to work within the CNT to keep it sticking to anarchism, and to oppose compromise with the state. But they weren't successful.

I disagree. The FAI helped restructure the union for the workers benefit ie - A union leader could only serve one term. But the CNT was the only Union in Spain during that period with a democratic structure. It was very transparent and was not only composed of Anarchists but others from many different backgrounds, not least the syndacalists. The FAI is only loosely defined as anarchist in my opinion. It was made up of a variety of people, some genuine pure anarchists but others were liberal leftists who were disillusioned with the other main groups. The CNT was an enormous union and even though it agreed to co-operate with the Republican government during the war , against many FAI members wishes, the FAI nevertheless embraced it (Both the CNT and the FAI members had refused many times previously, to collarborate with the Caballero government). It had over 1.5 million memebers and was a huge hub in the revolutionary infrastructure at the time. As Orwell described it:


The Anarchist viewpoint is less easily defined. In any case the loose term ‘Anarchists’ is used to cover a multitude of people of very varying opinions. The huge block of unions making up the C.N.T. (Confederación Nacional de Trabajadores), with round about two million members in all, had for its political organ the F.A.I. (Federación Anarquista Ibérica), an actual Anarchist organization. But even the members of the F.A.I., though always tinged, as perhaps most Spaniards are, with the Anarchist philosophy, were not necessarily Anarchists in the purest sense. Especially since the beginning of the war they had moved more in the direction of ordinary Socialism, because circumstances had forced them to take part in centralized administration and even to break all their principles by entering the Government. Nevertheless they differed fundamentally from the Communists in so much that, like the P.O.U.M., they aimed at workers’ control and not a parliamentary democracy. They accepted the P.O.U.M. slogan: ‘The war and the revolution are inseparable’, though they were less dogmatic about it. Roughly speaking, the C.N.T.–F.A.I. stood for: (1) Direct control over industry by the workers engaged in each industry, e.g. transport, the textile factories, etc.; (2) Government by local committees and resistance to all forms of centralized authoritarianism; (3) Uncompromising hostility to the bourgeoisie and the Church. The last point, though the least precise, was the most important. The Anarchists were the opposite of the majority of so-called revolutionaries in so much that though their principles were rather vague their hatred of privilege and injustice was perfectly genuine. Philosophically, Communism and Anarchism are poles apart. Practically—i.e. in the form of society aimed at—the difference is mainly one of emphasis, but it is quite irreconcilable. The Communist’s emphasis is always on centralism and efficiency, the Anarchist’s on liberty and equality. Anarchism is deeply rooted in Spain and is likely to outlive Communism when the Russian influence is withdrawn. During the first two months of the war it was the Anarchists more than anyone else who had saved the situation, and much later than this the Anarchist militia, in spite of their indiscipline, were notoriously the best fighters among the purely Spanish forces. From about February 1937 onwards the Anarchists and the P.O.U.M. could to some extent be lumped together. If the Anarchists, the P.O.U.M., and the Left wing of the Socialists had had the sense to combine at the start and press a realistic policy, the history of the war might have been different. But in the early period, when the revolutionary parties seemed to have the game in their hands, this was impossible. Between the Anarchists and the Socialists there were ancient jealousies, the P.O.U.M., as Marxists, were sceptical of Anarchism, while from the pure Anarchist standpoint the ‘Trotskyism’ of the P.O.U.M. was not much preferable to the ‘Stalinism’ of the Communists. Nevertheless the Communist tactics tended to drive the two parties together. When the P.O.U.M. joined in the disastrous fighting in Barcelona in May, it was mainly from an instinct to stand by the C.N.T., and later, when the P.O.U.M. was suppressed, the Anarchists were the only people who dared to raise a voice in its defence.
So, roughly speaking, the alignment of forces was this. On the one side the C.N.T.–F.A.I., the P.O.U.M., and a section of the Socialists, standing for workers’ control: on the other side the Right-wing Socialists, Liberals, and Communists, standing for centralized government and a militarized army.

[Devrim]

Both of which imply that the FAI were on the path I stated. But the article does not go on to deal with the CNT joining the republican government, so again, I could just be remembering things incorrectly.

You are right about their intentions. It turned out badly though.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Principle, especially independence from the bourgeoisie, is key...

[Zederbaum]

It didn't really work out when they joined the alliance either so how much worse would it have been to declare libertarian communism and take control? My memory is shady on this subject so I might be missing something here which is why I started the thread. From what I remember from reading various books on this is that the CNT might have committed suicide by doing this, but they should have done it anyway.

I dunno, it's not likely to be a very successful political movement that consciously mobilizes its members towards suicidal positions. Politics isn't just about taking ethical positions for the benefit of one's historical reputation. Perhaps they made some wrong choices, but it's a bit much to ask them to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their members and indeed the entire working class so they can pass an unsullied reputation down the generations. If they thought the choices they did make would have increased their chances of success, they were right to go for them.


On the CNT and FAI
The CNT was the dominant organisation. The FAI barely existed as a coherent body. It was more of a flag of convenience and its influence over the CNT as an organisation was minimal. Certain FAI members had at one time some influence but as an organisation their interventions were not organised enough to be dominant. We tend to expect that a smaller coherent body will exert influence over a larger looser one, but in this case, that framework doesn't really apply. I even wonder how much the FAI even existed as anything more than a flag of convenience at times. There's never been much indication that the FAI had coherent political thinking going, unlike, say, the Friends of Durrutti.


In Catalonia in July 1936 the CNT were the power, Lluís Companys, the President of Catolonia stated as such.

This is true, but perhaps not the whole picture. The CNT were by far the most dominant organisation in Barcelona in July 1936, but as the situation behind the frontlines stablised it was inevitable that other non-fascist forces would regather. Obviously the local bourgeois forces (Catalan nationalists, liberals) did so, but the real elephant in the room was the UGT and its sister political party. The CNT would have been unable to govern without bringing the UGT or the Socialist Party on board. A joint CNT-UGT agreement to govern would probably have carried enough weight to be legitimate as well as competent. The CNT on its own was big, but it simply wasn't big enough. It needed the UGT to be on board.

The UGT in effect declined the offer of an alliance that would have instituted straight working class government and this left the CNT in a tricky position. Should they go it alone in places where they had strength (Barcelona, Aragon)? But what would have happened in areas where they were the minority (e.g. Madrid, rural Catalonia)? Would it have fatally divided the anti-fascist forces? Remember they were immediately facing a strong fascist army. Even the Bolsheviks had a few months before they faced a serious threatening civil war situation.

Thus in these circumstances, where the UGT didn't want to institute a sort of syndicalist government, the CNT voted in a regional conference to co-operate in a cross class government in Catalonia and shortly after accepted the logic of that position and entered the national government. Perhaps not the correct decision (with hindsight I think adopting the Bolsheviks' tactics in the Kornilov crisis would have been better), but an understandable one.

The Friends of Durrutti's rather brutal criticism of the CNT's lack of realism contains a lot of truth. They didn't have a viable transitional programme and they hadn't thought out the probable complexity of the options that they would face. On the other hand, they were aware from the mid-1930s that Spain was in a revolutionary crisis and that the fascists would have to be physically confronted. Hence they were amongst the most ready to counter the fascists uprising when it occurred. Perhaps they expected a cleaner victory or defeat, when what they got was a messy stalemate.

As for libertarian communism, well it's not something that will exist by virtue of a simple declaration. They could have declared it, but it would have been an empty declaration. Even in the most fortunate of circumstances (a highly developed society which is dominated both politically and intellectually by left-wing ideas) there has to be a growth into libertarian communism and that takes time.

Spain in 1936 would have needed to develop a hell of a lot more to make it feasible. Plus the CNT commanded the support of only a minority of the population. Communism isn't something that can be imposed on a majority. Lastly, a civil war where you're likely to be on the losing side is not the most auspicious time to make the transition. Given the circumstances, the Spanish working class and the CNT in particular did remarkably well.

If there had been a working class government of the UGT-CNT and they had won the war, they could possibly have begun the journey towards libertarian communism. Even then, the world situation was hardly promising.