Police in anarchist Spain?

[Regicollis]

Do anyone know how things like crime and public order was dealt with in the anarchist areas of Spain during the revolution and the civil war? I can't imagine them having a police force but at the same time any society needs some sort of "police work" to be done.

[wunks]

I don't think crime, as in apolitical petty crime, was a big issue. though they did have enforcement of what people could get from shops, etc. it seems unlikely that anyone would come after you if you were caught doing petty crime, if for no other reason because it was a civil war and they had to have priorities. political policing, such as the arrests of nationalists and prevention of right wing speech and assembly was done by people who were basically volunteer anarchist police.

[Imposter Marxist]

Anarchist Spain wasn't actually revolutionary, and infact, they set up state capitalism by working with unions.

[Zav]

Anarchist Spain wasn't actually revolutionary, and infact, they set up state capitalism by working with unions.
The fuck is this shit? Fail troll is fail.
http://www.myfacewhen.com/106/

[Imposter Marxist]

The Anarchists collectivised and trade unions owned the means of production. This is a fact. Also, the leaders of the Unions were fat cats who were very similar to leaders such as stalin and lenin

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

The Anarchists collectivised and trade unions owned the means of production. This is a fact. Also, the leaders of the Unions were fat cats who were very similar to leaders such as stalin and lenin
Collectivisation of the land was extensive. Close on two thirds of all land in the Republican zone was taken over. In all between five and seven million peasants were involved. The major areas were Aragon where there were 450 collectives, the Levant (the area around Valencia) with 900 collectives and Castille (the area surrounding Madrid) with 300 collectives.

Collectivisation was voluntary and thus different from the forced ‘collectivisation’ in Russia. Usually a meeting was called and all present would agree to pool together whatever land, tools and animals they had. The land was divided into rational units and groups of workers were assigned to work them. Each group had its delegate who represented their views at meetings. A management committee was also elected and was responsible for the overall running of the collective. Each collective held regular general meetings of all its participants.

If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share.

One indicator of the solidarity is the fact that 1,000 collectivists from the advanced Levant moved to Castille to help out.

Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country". Unfortunately many collectives were smashed by the Stalinists before this could be done.

They of course had collectives, but there were no bosses, only delegates.

EDIT : Here are sources :
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm...br7/spain.html
http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-...and-revolution
http://www.weisbord.org/Collective.htm
http://struggle.ws/ws91/sapin33.html

[wunks]

Collectivisation was voluntary and thus different from the forced ‘collectivisation’ in Russia.considering how unlikely it is that all collectivization was voluntary, this need to be sourced and the source needs to be analyzed. I'm not sure if people understand how civil wars actually work if they think one sides economic activity was purely on a voluntary basis.

[Imposter Marxist]

Collectivisation of the land was extensive. Close on two thirds of all land in the Republican zone was taken over. In all between five and seven million peasants were involved. The major areas were Aragon where there were 450 collectives, the Levant (the area around Valencia) with 900 collectives and Castille (the area surrounding Madrid) with 300 collectives.

Collectivisation was voluntary and thus different from the forced ‘collectivisation’ in Russia. Usually a meeting was called and all present would agree to pool together whatever land, tools and animals they had. The land was divided into rational units and groups of workers were assigned to work them. Each group had its delegate who represented their views at meetings. A management committee was also elected and was responsible for the overall running of the collective. Each collective held regular general meetings of all its participants.

If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share.

One indicator of the solidarity is the fact that 1,000 collectivists from the advanced Levant moved to Castille to help out.

Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country". Unfortunately many collectives were smashed by the Stalinists before this could be done.

They of course had collectives, but there were no bosses, only delegates.


You missed my point. The Unions were still owning means of production. Collectization isn't socialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

You said it wasn't revolutionary, and that it was state capitalism.

Maybe you just phrased yourself wrong and should apologize?

[Tim Cornelis]

considering how unlikely it is that all collectivization was voluntary, this need to be sourced and the source needs to be analyzed. I'm not sure if people understand how civil wars actually work if they think one sides economic activity was purely on a voluntary basis.

Anarchists usually cite the fact that individual peasants were allowed to cultivate their land independent from the collective.

British historian Antony Beevor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Beevor) (not an anarchist): "the very fact that every village was a mixture of collectivists and individualists shows that the peasants had not been forced into communal farming at the point of a gun."

(2006). Battle for Spain the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. New York: Penguin Books. p. 295


The Anarchists collectivised and trade unions owned the means of production. This is a fact. Also, the leaders of the Unions were fat cats who were very similar to leaders such as stalin and lenin

While the revolution is deserving of a lot of criticism, this is ridiculous. Moreover, you are derailing the thread with your nonsense.

@OP
I've read in Homage to Catalonia that workers' patrols were set up to replace police. I don't know how they qualitatively differed from police though.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

To get back on track the Spanish anarchists had very repressive organs to root out opposition, etc. etc. They weren't as "libertarian" as you may think.

[Grenzer]

Their claim to anarchism merely obfuscated the fact that they had not surpassed capital and were just perpetuating it in a form other than liberal capitalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is what Orwell had to say about the workers' patrols:


Meanwhile the workers had weapons in their hands, and at this stage they refrained from giving them up. (Even a year later it was computed that the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Catalonia possessed 30,000 rifles.) The estates of the big pro-Fascist landlords were in many places seized by the peasants. Along with the collectivization of industry and transport there was an attempt to set up the rough beginnings of a workers' government by means of local committees, workers' patrols to replace the old pro-capitalist police forces, workers' militias based on the trade unions, and so forth.


The workers' patrols had been ordered to dissolve and the pre-war police forces were back on the streets. One result of this was that the cabaret show and high-class brothels, many of which had been closed by the workers' patrols, had promptly reopened.


The process of collectivization was checked, the local committees were got rid of, the workers patrols were abolished and the pre-war police forces, largely reinforced and very heavily armed, were restored, and various key industries which had been under the control of the trade unions were taken over by the Government (the seizure of the Barcelona Telephone Exchange, which led to the May fighting, was one incident in this process); finally, most important of all, the workers' militias, based on the trade unions, were gradually broken up and redistributed among the new Popular Army, a 'non-political' army on semi-bourgeois lines, with a differential pay rate, a privileged officer-caste, etc., etc.


To get back on track the Spanish anarchists had very repressive organs to root out opposition, etc. etc. They weren't as "libertarian" as you may think.

You need to distinguish between the workers' patrol ("police") and the anarchist militias. The atrocities were committed by the militias while OP is specifically asking about the police.


Their claim to anarchism merely obfuscated the fact that they had not surpassed capital and were just perpetuating it in a form other than liberal capitalism.

I don't think anyone is claiming the anarchists in urban areas surpassed capital--in rural areas, arguably. That being said, anarchism and capital are not mutually exclusive. But more importantly, you are derailing the thread by making this about capital, anarchism, and the nature of "anarchist" Spain, as opposed to answering OP's question.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think Ghost Bebel and Imposter Marxist need to start sourcing their claims and step away from oneliners and move on towards more extensive arguments before I start to consider them trolling and tendency baiting. This is not a forum where I will allow unsubstantiated tendency wars.

[Rafiq]

Is there now a rule on citing sources? Bebel's claim doesn't need a source, it's a perfectly valid Marxian criticism. It's like making Anarchists "source" the claim that the SU was "Authoritarian". Absurd.

Be consistant, hindsight.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is there now a rule on citing sources?


I think considering this is the history subforum there should be.

Further, your alleged example of "Anarchists aren't asked to source their claims of the SU being authoritarian," is silly considering this wouldn't negate what's being said more, it just points out that a citation and source rule should be implemented evenhandedly. Oh and there points were fairly ridiculous.

[Comrade Jandar]

You missed my point. The Unions were still owning means of production. Collectization isn't socialism.

Nationalization is not socialism either.

[Comrade Jandar]

To get back on track the Spanish anarchists had very repressive organs to root out opposition, etc. etc. They weren't as "libertarian" as you may think.

Anarchists aren't as idealistic as you think. Anarchists generally have no problem with using coercion against class enemies or counter-revolutionaries.

[PhoenixAsh]

nobody made the claim that the USSR was authoritarian in this thread and neither is that a subject of much controversy btw.

What is a subject of controversy is if you state anarchists in Spain weren't revolutionaty or when you claim the unions were owned by "fat cats" posted in oneliners and do not offer any evidence for the claim at all. Then you are merely engaging in tendency baiting and eliciting a flame war. Especially if repeated in the face of sourced replies.

And those are definately against forum rules: http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft-history-some-t108719/index.html

[Rafiq]

Good. I'll be sure to note of it the next time someone claims that Lenin wasn't a revolutionary without offering citation.

[Raúl Duke]

I recall once hearing that for many things the anarcho-syndicalists would use death-penalties. Not sure to what extent, perhaps reserved for counter-revolutionaries. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Do anyone know how things like crime and public order was dealt with in the anarchist areas of Spain during the revolution and the civil war? I can't imagine them having a police force but at the same time any society needs some sort of "police work" to be done.

Mostly through judicial and extra-judicial executions. Since Spain was on a wartime footing, most serious criminal offences were solved by simply shooting the perpetrator.

[x359594]

I'm currently reading The Spanish Holocaust by Paul Preston, a detailed study of repression during the Spanish Civil War. On the anti-fascist side, virtually all the revolutionary organizations who established militias exercised repression against pro-fascist individuals. By and large accused fascists were brought before revolutionary tribunals and allowed to defend themselves. Some were executed, most were kept in detention. When there were summary executions it was in response to specific fascist atrocities or news of same brought to the Republican zone by refugees.

Most of the rear guard violence on the Republican side occurred during the first three months of the war. In the early weeks there was unorganized score settling and paybacks that were later handled by tribunals. Many of the accused were released because the charges were not proven.

Concerning ordinary policing, some activities were decriminalized and treated as social problems, prostitution for example. Theft, burglaries and break-ins were dealt with either through restitution or detention. Conviction of murder and rape invariably resulted in detention. The death penalty was reserved for treason, sabotage and espionage.

Preston gives a figure of 49,000 dead in rear guard reprisals of one sort or another in the Republican Zone. By contrast, the fascists executed about 300,000.

[WanderingCactus]

I'm currently reading The Spanish Holocaust by Paul Preston, a detailed study of repression during the Spanish Civil War.

Is that a worthwhile read? I've been looking to study the topic some more, and this seems like a fair place to start.

[x359594]

Is that a worthwhile read?

Absolutely. Preston has written about modern Spanish history extensively, particularly the Civil War. Though for a general history there's Preston's The Spanish Civil War: Revolution, Reaction and Revenge, Anthony Beevor's The Battle for Spain and The Civil War and Revolution in Spain by Pierre Broue and Emile Temime.

[#FF0000]

To get back on track the Spanish anarchists had very repressive organs to root out opposition, etc. etc. They weren't as "libertarian" as you may think.

Anarchists never are. (That isn't a slight tho)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Considering the way that anarcho-syndicalism works, and that they were, in fact, in a civil war, it is justifiable to use police.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't get why people always assume anarchists are or would be "libertarian" (false dichotomy) towards counter-revolutionaries during a civil war and revolutionary situation.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I don't get why people always assume anarchists are or would be "libertarian" (false dichotomy) towards counter-revolutionaries during a civil war and revolutionary situation.

There is no such a thing as being libertarian to someone. (I guess you already know that)

They assume that if anarchists call themselves libertarians, they must treat everyone the same manner.

Libertarians advocate freedom, authoritarianism interferes with freedom, therefore it must be destroyed.
Thinking like this also creates the dillema of: "if I destroy that man, wether he is a fascist or not, I am taking away his freedom to live", so in order for one to secure the freedom of some he must destroy the freedom of others, therefore we must try to secure freedom for as much people as possible, while taking freedom from as less people as possible, anarchism can achieve this.

[Omsk]

No,the poor Spanish anarchists were all alone in Spain, and they were terrorized by the PCE!

On a more serious note, the anarchists in Spain were notorious for their anti-Soviet activities and general attempts to bring down the PCE which became one of the strongest Republican elements in the conflict, with it's armed groups, propaganda activity and Soviet specialists help.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

On a more serious note, the anarchists in Spain were notorious for their anti-Soviet activities and general attempts to bring down the PCE which became one of the strongest Republican elements in the conflict, with it's armed groups, propaganda activity and Soviet specialists help.

Of course they did, authoritarianism and libertarianism are not compatible, how would those two live together?
Either the territory would be divided, or one would destroy the other.

[Omsk]

So i guess you can't/don't 'condemn' the Soviets for arresting the anarchists and other hostile elements?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

So i guess you can't/don't 'condemn' the Soviets for arresting the anarchists and other hostile elements?

I do, not because they didn't have to do that (which they did have to), but because they succeded.

[Omsk]

Hello double standards.Anyway i knew what you would say and i asked a rhetorical question.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Hello double standards.Anyway i knew what you would say and i asked a rhetorical question.

I also spoke of the hypothesis of dividing territory.

By saying that libertarianism and authoritarianism are not compatible it means it works both ways, wether it is anarchists messing with stalinists or stalinists shooting anarchists (guess which ine is more extreme).

[Omsk]

Anarchists messing with "Stalinists" ? I wouldn't call organized attacks 'messing', they were the cause of the major faults in the war effort.

[Art Vandelay]

There is no such a thing as being libertarian to someone. (I guess you already know that)

They assume that if anarchists call themselves libertarians, they must treat everyone the same manner.

Libertarians advocate freedom, authoritarianism interferes with freedom, therefore it must be destroyed.
Thinking like this also creates the dillema of: "if I destroy that man, wether he is a fascist or not, I am taking away his freedom to live", so in order for one to secure the freedom of some he must destroy the freedom of others, therefore we must try to secure freedom for as much people as possible, while taking freedom from as less people as possible, anarchism can achieve this.

As I said the libertarian and authoritarian scale is a false dichotomy. What is it that you do not understand about that? Also anarchists plan on taking freedom away from people.

[Tim Cornelis]

No,the poor Spanish anarchists were all alone in Spain, and they were terrorized by the PCE!

On a more serious note, the anarchists in Spain were notorious for their anti-Soviet activities and general attempts to bring down the PCE which became one of the strongest Republican elements in the conflict, with it's armed groups, propaganda activity and Soviet specialists help.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.


As I said the libertarian and authoritarian scale is a false dichotomy. What is it that you do not understand about that? Also anarchists plan on taking freedom away from people.

Not this nonsense again.

[Art Vandelay]

Not this nonsense again.

What nonsense? And secondly "again"? Not sure we have had a talk about this in the past so not sure what you are referring too, but yes I would stand by the statement (which most communists agree with) that the libertarian and authoritarian scale is a false dichotomy. Perhaps you could add something to the conversation?

[x359594]

...the anarchists in Spain were notorious for their anti-Soviet activities and general attempts to bring down the PCE which became one of the strongest Republican elements in the conflict, with it's armed groups, propaganda activity and Soviet specialists help.

I'm not certain what you mean by anti-Soviet activities. If you're referring to the specialists and advisers sent by the Soviet Union, there were few clashes between organized anarchists and Russian advisers.

As for the PCE, prior to the revolution it wasn't big enough to pose a threat to anyone and the CNT-FAI didn't make any attempt to bring it down.

After the revolution started PCE membership grew with the entry of the middle classes, both the petty bourgeoisie and well-to-do-peasants, into the Party. With the intervention by the USSR the PCE was empowered to repress anyone who did not go along with the restoration of private property. In addition, the PCE aided the NKVD in its hunt for dissident communists whether Spanish or foreign. Preston documents this in the book referenced above.