Leninism/Maoism

[ComradeRed]

Maoism cannot succeed. It's requirements (no industrial revolution, guerrila warfare revolution) is a fatal flaw. The industrial revolution REQUIRES bourgeoisie to invest into factories.

The dictatorship of the proletariat (Leninism, from my understanding) can succed; however, i believe it gives too much power to not enough people. This schism can warp people to do evil things, their m.o. is personal power.

I'm an anarcho-marxist, but this is just my insight of maoism/leninism, can any one help me here to see if i just misinterepreted it?

[SonofRage]

Your analysis seems a bit simplistic but I agree that the Marxist-Leninist model and it's derivitives have a 100% failure rate thus far.

[ComradeRed]

Tell me, is there any other communist models out there, other than marxism? If so, gimme a link please.

[SonofRage]

I was talking specifically about Marxist-Leninism and it's offspring (Trotskyism, Maoism). There is another Marxist model called Marxist-Deleonism which is a blend of orthodox Marxism and Syndicalism. You can check out the DeLeon links in my sig or check out this article (http://www1.minn.net/~nup/4Mar2001.htm) by the New Union Party

[Saint-Just]

SonOfRage, not only his his analysis simplistic, it is completely false. Did you not notice or neglect to mention this?

Maoism cannot succeed. It's requirements (no industrial revolution, guerrila warfare revolution) is a fatal flaw. The industrial revolution REQUIRES bourgeoisie to invest into factories.

Maoism is Marxism-Leninism as practiced by Mao Zedong. Mao started a massive industrial revolution and started the Chinese space programme. Secondly Geurrilla Warfare is not a particularly important part of Marxism-Leninism, Mao saw Geurrilla Warfare as the best way of creating a revolution in countries such as China, he was evidently right, it was a hardly a fatal flaw.

The dictatorship of the proletariat (Leninism, from my understanding) can succed; however, i believe it gives too much power to not enough people. This schism can warp people to do evil things, their m.o. is personal power.

Leninist parties also advocate removing people who have no ideological motive and people who have an ideological motive counter to that of the party. In Russia they removed people such as this from the party, sometimes readmitting them and later killing them if they became dangerous.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a Marxist idea, Lenin also used it.

[SonofRage]

His argument was so simplistic, it seemed a bit of a waste of my time since I do not agree with Marxist-Leninist programs. I think Mao's way may have been best for China or third-world nations, but not for a modern, well-developed capitalist nation.

My main problem with the Marxist-Leninist program (including Maoism) is that the centralization of power and the oppression of dissent that was justified by trying to "defend the revolution" ultimately proved a failure at exactly this task every time.

[andresG]

It depends on what you mean.

Succesful in doing what?

As Chairman Mao said, under Maoism, China went through "a massive industrial revolution", which established capitalism. And the same can be said about Russia under Leninism.

So, Maoism and Leninism are sucessful in establishing capitalism in feudal countries.

As for their sucess in advanced capitalist nations,
that's another story! :lol:

[ComradeRed]

Ok, sorry for not replying, but i had to go outta town.
Allow me to elaborate.
Maoism is a form of communism. Communism's goal, to my understanding, is to create a classless society with no gov't. How can maoism do this, if considered a communism, if the state is agrarian based? The industrial revolution is inevitable, and the bourgeoisie will emerge, as well as their oppression. I see that maoism cannot be considered a communism because of this flaw, am i right or wrong with this interpretation?

Leninism, in my opinion, CAN work; however, it is a dictatorship. I do not like dictatorships and thought that this was a flaw, because what would seperate this from the other dictatorships?

[SonofRage]

ComradeRed,

You really need to expand on your arguments. They are very simplistic and either contain half-truths or confused information.

[ComradeRed]

O.K. can u clear it up for me?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:33 AM
Ok, sorry for not replying, but i had to go outta town.
Allow me to elaborate.
Maoism is a form of communism. Communism's goal, to my understanding, is to create a classless society with no gov't. How can maoism do this, if considered a communism, if the state is agrarian based? The industrial revolution is inevitable, and the bourgeoisie will emerge, as well as their oppression. I see that maoism cannot be considered a communism because of this flaw, am i right or wrong with this interpretation?

Leninism, in my opinion, CAN work; however, it is a dictatorship. I do not like dictatorships and thought that this was a flaw, because what would seperate this from the other dictatorships?
I agree with SonOfRage.

ComradeRed, did you read my post above?

Maoism does not really exist, what you are talking about is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and its hardly any different from Marxism-Leninism.

Mao never attempted to create an agragarian based economy. Mao recognised that industrialisation was essential for China to become a more affluent country with greater living standards and international standing. The only thing he did say is that it is necessary to increase agragarian output before increases in industrial output. This is economic fact, but not something well recognised at the time. It is essential that agricultural output can meet the food requirements of industrial workers for a country to successfully industrialise.

There was big industrialisation in China, as I said above, Mao even started a Space Program. And, China had industrialised successfully by the early 60's.

I would forget about Maoism if I were you, it has very little substance to it compared to Marxism and Leninism. I would learn about these other two things first.

Secondly, on Leninism, Marx said that every society is a dictatorship, bourgeois society is a bourgeois dictatorship. He said socialist society would be a proletarian dictatorship. You are confusing a Marxist idea as a Leninist idea.

[The Role Of Ideology]

The dictatorship of the proletariat (Leninism, from my understanding)

I'm not sure you quite grasp what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.

It doesn't actually imply that a dictator takes power, rather that the proletariat becomes the dominating class and works to put an end to the class struggle on their terms. It isjust a tool of the revolution that will hasten the march towards socialism.

Matt

[The Feral Underclass]

It doesn't actually imply that a dictator takes power, rather that the proletariat becomes the dominating class and works to put an end to the class struggle on their terms. It isjust a tool of the revolution that will hasten the march towards socialism.

Various kinds of ideas can be classified by their relationship to the authentication process. There are ideas systematically prepared for authentication ("theories"), ideas not derived from any systematic process ("visions"), ideas which could not survive any reasonable authentication process ("illusions"), ideas which exempt themselves from any authentication process ("myths"), ideas which have already passed authentication processes ("facts"), as well as ideas known to have failed- or certain to fail- such processes ("falsehoods" - both mistakes and lies).

- Thomas Sowell

[Soviet power supreme]

Maoism cannot succeed. It's requirements (no industrial revolution, guerrila warfare revolution) is a fatal flaw. The industrial revolution REQUIRES bourgeoisie to invest into factories.

We must warn the Nepalese maoists that they must create a capitalist country instead of socialist.

But why the guerilla warfare is a fatal flaw?It worked in China,Cuba and now in Nepal.

[The Role Of Ideology]

Various kinds of ideas can be classified by their relationship to the authentication process. There are ideas systematically prepared for authentication ("theories"), ideas not derived from any systematic process ("visions"), ideas which could not survive any reasonable authentication process ("illusions"), ideas which exempt themselves from any authentication process ("myths"), ideas which have already passed authentication processes ("facts"), as well as ideas known to have failed- or certain to fail- such processes ("falsehoods" - both mistakes and lies).

Point?

[The Feral Underclass]

erm...i think the point is blaringly obvious...it's even higlighted!

[The Role Of Ideology]

ideas which could not survive any reasonable authentication process

:D :D :D This from someone with 'anarchist' in his name :D. Tell me, what kind of 'authentication process' has Anarchy ever been through?

Matt

[ComradeRed]

SonofRage and Mao, my mistake. I was speaking to my english teacher, he explained that maoism is based upon an agrarian state. My fault for not clearing that up.

Soviet, sorry for the confusion, what i was trying to say was that having no industrial revolution is fatal, not guerrilla war. Thanks for clearing that up, that It could be a socialism instead of a capitalism.



Tell me, what kind of 'authentication process' has Anarchy ever been through?
What about anarcho-syndaclism?

Role of idealogy, thanks for clearing that up too, I was taught that communism from my english teacher.

Damn cappie propaganda. :angry: Public skools teaching communism can't work.
:angry:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by The Role Of [email protected] 5 2004, 06:00 PM

ideas which could not survive any reasonable authentication process

:D :D :D This from someone with 'anarchist' in his name :D. Tell me, what kind of 'authentication process' has Anarchy ever been through?

Matt
Just look at the success in Africa dopy! Like in Somolia where the government has almost no control at all! O how I wish I could be a Somolian.... Anarchy is a one way trip to libertarian capitalism. A strong government is needed to enforce socialist laws and to manage the economy. But I agree with Chairman Mao as far as Leninism/Maoism is concerned. :P

[Morpheus]

Somalia hasn't been in anarchy for centuries. Somalia has a government today and even has a president. His name is Abdikassim Salad Hassan. I'm assuming your'e thinking of the civil war that began in 1991. This started when the Somaliland Republic, in north Somalia, declared independance. Afterwards other regions also attempted to establish governments independant of the national government. Rival factions declared themselves the only legitimate government of Somalia, nominated their own presidents, and went to war with each other. One government is bad enough, but Somalia is afflicted with multiple governments - all fighting each other for supremacy. The state was not abolished, just mulptiplied. Civil war is not anarchy.

During the civil war each faction established it's own state within the area it took control over. There most definately were government officials (I can name some of them if you'd like), in the West they were sometimes refered to as "warlords." And most did have taxation of some sort. They also had their own armed bodies of people with which to enforce their rule and fight rival states; though these didn't always come in the form of official police they served basically the same function. In addition, Somalia continued to practice capitalism (with elements of Feudalism) throughout this whole period - which is completely incompatable with anarchy. Somalia has most definately been a hierarchical society for several centuries. Rule by warlords is not anarchy.

The same nonsense equating anarchy with choas used to be said about democracy. If we don't have a Monarchy, there'd be complete choas! It's a standard smear tactic, based upon misrepresentations. I could say the same to you - look, Somalia had no Monarchy. Therefore, democracy (or socialism) must be choas! Look at Somalia, that is democracy (or socialism)! Of course, just as democracy (or socialism) is more then merely the absence of Monarchy, anarchy is more then the mere absence of the state. No anarchist has ever claimed that Somalia was in anarchy (not even at the very beginning of the civil war) nor was the situation brought about by anarchists. You should try actually reading some anarchist theory (you know, BOOKS) instead of regurgitating the crap you get from CNN.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I don't think anarchy is even possible, someone will always fill in the power vacuum. Be it a dictator, biker gang, businuss, family, or warlord. Something needs to be there for some kind of social order.

[Morpheus]

I don't think anarchy is even possible, someone will always fill in the power vacuum. Be it a dictator, biker gang, businuss, family, or warlord. Something needs to be there for some kind of social order.

You have provided zero evidence to support this assertion. As I said before, your'e just repeating capitalist nonsense. We know for a fact that anarchy is possible because most of human history has been lived in anarchy. Most hunter-Gatherer societies were anarchist. Humanity has been around for over 100,000 years yet the state has only been around less than 10,000 years. Marx called this "primitive communism." In more modern times we have the Spanish & Ukrainian revolutions as further examples.

[ComradeRed]

Right, back to the subject. If maoism turns into socialism it failed its obligation as a type of communism. Communism's goal is for a classeless society through revolution of the masses. Therefore, maoism cannot be communist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Tell me, what kind of 'authentication process' has Anarchy ever been through?

The Paris commune, Spain 1936-1939, paris 1968 and the Anti-capitalist movement.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:35 AM
Right, back to the subject. If maoism turns into socialism it failed its obligation as a type of communism. Communism's goal is for a classeless society through revolution of the masses. Therefore, maoism cannot be communist.
Maoism is essentially Marxism-Leninism. It is not an ideology, nor a form of communism. A Maoist advocates a socialist state that would eventually make the transition to a communist state.

[The Role Of Ideology]

The Paris commune, Spain 1936-1939, paris 1968 and the Anti-capitalist movement.

Communists were involved and the majority in all these things (dunno about Paris 68 though).

Matt

[The Feral Underclass]

Communists were involved and the majority in all these things (dunno about Paris 68 though).

This is a complete lie!

None of the anti-capitalist demonstrations, prague, seattle, genoa and the like were organized by authotarians. All the action of the ACM is co-ordinated without a central authority or hierarchy. All the action that was taken was due to anarchists.

Paris and Spain both failed because the authotarians got involved and they were by no means the majority.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 6 2004, 10:20 AM
Maoism is essentially Marxism-Leninism. It is not an ideology
Why not?

[Saint-Just]

Thats an interesting point. Yes, I think you could call it an ideology, Mao develops Lenin's theory of the party. He constructs ideas on how the party should conduct itself in relation to the masses.

I would still not call it an ideology, it is more so Marxism-Leninism as practiced by Mao. Have you read a lot of MIM (Maoist International Movement articles)? Reading those you could probably look at it as an ideology, on scientific socialism and so forth. But really they have analysed what Mao did, it doesn't develop Marxism-Leninism or change it particularly. At very least, Marxism and Leninism are far more substantial ideologies than Maoism I would say.

[The Role Of Ideology]

actually Maoism is quite radically different to Leninism in some ways but similar in other. For example Mao's philosophy of 'peasant communism' and very odd economic management.

Anyway i can't make a long post as I'm knackered. Good night:blink:.

[Comrade Zeke]

Ok first of COMRADE RED im talking to you MAOISM involves Pesant uprising a Guerrilla war;Heck Mao paratically invented the Communist revoltution Che Gueverra read all about him. Second off Mao is one of the most oppresive Dicatators ever,he is a gross disgusting man who only took a bath about 5 times in his life,he was a womanizer and a glutton and he oppressed his people and turned all of China into Collective farms where everyone was forced to work. But Maosim is a from of Communism ,i dont care what all of you say a compleate Communism will never happen the closes thing that came to true Communism was the Soviet Union. Maosim is accually i really bad from of Communism because under is rule China could not advance into the mondern world. SO COMRADE RED TO ANSWEAR YOUR QUESTION NO MAO DID NOT TURN INTO A SOSCIALISM BECAUSE IT WAS JUST COMMUNIST PRINTED ALL OVER. Socialism is like Sweden or Denmark. Communism is like U.S.S.R and Cuba and China. <_<

*I tip my hat to you Comrade red
Long live the Cuban Revoltution&#33;&#33;
And Marshal Tito.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 08:40 AM

Communists were involved and the majority in all these things (dunno about Paris 68 though).

This is a complete lie&#33;

None of the anti-capitalist demonstrations, prague, seattle, genoa and the like were organized by authotarians. All the action of the ACM is co-ordinated without a central authority or hierarchy. All the action that was taken was due to anarchists.

Paris and Spain both failed because the authotarians got involved and they were by no means the majority.
I&#39;m not sure about Prague and Genoa, but I live in Seattle, and the CPUSA was very involved in the WTO protests, which I assume is what you&#39;re talking about (unless you mean the Seattle general strike in the early 1900s).

I by no means support the CPUSA, but "authoritarians" were involved in organizing the demonstrations.

[YKTMX]

Anti-capitalist movement

Lie. The SWP organized one of the biggest anti-capitalist demos even before Seattle. And Seattle itself had more to do with the Teamsters and the Enviros than Anarchists&#33;

As for Genoa? Who was the biggest icon of that demo (which I was on). Proudhon? Kropotkin? Bukharin?

No, Che. A blatant Leninist and "authoritarian".

Just because the Black Bloc and their ilk like to get on the news by fighting the police doesn&#39;t mean Anarchism has anything approaching a monopoly or even a majority influence in the movement.

[The Feral Underclass]

Seattle, Genoa and the social forum were organized and ran on anarchist principles. There were no central authorities but elected representatives who co-ordinated activities based on co-operation with each other. There was no central committee or SWP lackies pulling the shots. It was done on anarchist principles and it worked. All the carnivals, street activites and direct action were organized by anarchist groups. The anti-captialism movement and those demonstrations were all examples of how anarchism can work on a large scale and under pressure.

It seems very strange that not one SWP banner was being flown those days...they new they werent welcome, they new the anarchists had succeeded and they kept away...

[YKTMX]

It seems very strange that not one SWP banner was being flown those days...they new they werent welcome, they new the anarchists had succeeded and they kept away

I seen lots of SWP flags in Genoa. Probably because I was with a few of their members. As for the way the thing was organised. The demos were organised at the World and European Social Forums, where decisions were collectively made and followed. And there was plenty of involvement from top SWP members ofcourse&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

The demos were organised at the World and European Social Forums, where decisions were collectively made

The actually day in seattle was co-ordinated as i told it. As for the european social forum, I never saw lindsey german or chris harmen there. maybe there were some "top swp officials" but not of any significance and they certainly did not influence the proceedings that much. And notice the word collective...there was no genoa central committee giving out orders from up high. It was decided on COLLECTIVLY just as you said and the days events where organized just as seattle was. Anarchism in practice. An example, just as ROI asked for.

[redstar2000]

I don&#39;t care what all of you say, a complete Communism will never happen...

Why not?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

As for Genoa? Who was the biggest icon of that demo (which I was on). Proudhon? Kropotkin? Bukharin?

No, Che. A blatant Leninist and "authoritarian".

I assume you meant the Russian anarchist Bakunin, and not the "market-Bolshevik" Bukharin.

Anyways, you mis-understand the difference between the "iconic Che" and the real man.

Che as an "icon" does not "symbolize" Leninism or authoritarianism...but rather the personification of "the man who rebels". He is "the bearded guy in the hills with a rifle"...not the business-suited bureaucrat in a corner office at the Ministry of Industry.

Had people in Genoa actually wished to declare ideological fealty to Leninism, they would have carried portraits of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao (or some combination thereof). Evidently, they did not do so.

The "iconic" Che may well turn out to be a better revolutionary than the real Che ever was...an outcome that I think would have pleased him.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:53 AM
As for Genoa? Who was the biggest icon of that demo (which I was on). Proudhon? Kropotkin? Bukharin?

No, Che. A blatant Leninist and "authoritarian".
Well, if any anarchist did attempt to display a Proudhon or a Bakunin as an icon, they surely would have been demonised.

No anarchist should be the subject of an icon. It is akin to worship.

So that explains the (essential) lack of &#39;anarchist icons&#39;.

Oh, and ask me if I like Kropotkin.

[YKTMX]

I assume you meant the Russian anarchist Bakunin, and not the "market-Bolshevik" Bukharin.

Yes, sorry, my mistake.


Anyways, you mis-understand the difference between the "iconic Che" and the real man.

Che as an "icon" does not "symbolize" Leninism or authoritarianism...but rather the personification of "the man who rebels". He is "the bearded guy in the hills with a rifle"...not the business-suited bureaucrat in a corner office at the Ministry of Industry.

Had people in Genoa actually wished to declare ideological fealty to Leninism, they would have carried portraits of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao (or some combination thereof). Evidently, they did not do so.


Yes, I accept that. I was simply responding to AT&#39;s claim that the anti-capitalist movement was an anarchist movement, when there is simply no proof of that. I wasn&#39;t trying to say either that the AC movement was "Leninist", that would be silly.

Lenin, however, was more present than you might imagine. A vast proportion of the people on the march would have been children when the Berlin Wall fell. Stalinism is no longer a monkey or their (or my) back. We can now reclaim Lenin for ourselves. And this is something to celebrate.

[Vinny Rafarino]

We must warn the Nepalese maoists that they must create a capitalist country instead of socialist.



Not necessary. The USSR up until &#39;53 was the perfect model of socialism being expertly created without the use of a free market enterprize.

Social economics use a variety of models to effectively re-produce value for goods and commodities without domestic privitisation of the means of production. Suplus value that is extracted from goods and sevices, whether they are for domestic or international use is then used to operate an efficient social economic platform. Wages go up, healthcare, housing, transportation and food programmes are paid for and there is no market descrepency in international value.

This creates 2 distinct driving factors in relation to domestic GDP.

1) Commodities are traded at the "international market value" meaning there will inevitable be surplus value extracted from these goods.

2) Domestic spending will continually increase.

The result is a positive increase in GDP. This is a very brief description of how social economics works, I don&#39;t feel like digging all the threads up in this forum where I was, on more than one occasion, very precise. It would more than likely bore you all to death in any case. Just ask Redstar2000.

[Urban Rubble]

The Anarchist Tension

For argument&#39;s sake let&#39;s assume that Seattle and Genoa were organzied by Anarchists. Why are you acting like that is some proof that Anarchism can work ? I don&#39;t think getting a demonstration organized is tantamount to running a stateless society free of hierarchy. I am not necessarilly disagreeing with your views, I just don&#39;t think organizing a demonstration is evidence of Anarchy "working".

[The Feral Underclass]

Urban Rubble


For argument&#39;s sake let&#39;s assume that Seattle and Genoa were organzied by Anarchists. Why are you acting like that is some proof that Anarchism can work ? I don&#39;t think getting a demonstration organized is tantamount to running a stateless society free of hierarchy. I am not necessarilly disagreeing with your views, I just don&#39;t think organizing a demonstration is evidence of Anarchy "working".

This is a classic argument which really dosnt make any sense. First of all it wasnt simply a demonstration, it was the co-ordination of hundreds of thousands of people, all belonging to different organizations, all wanting to participate in different things. It was done, succesfully, using anarchist principles.

What you are saying is that society runs compeltely on an international basis. That the entire decision making process, economic and political, involves every single human being on the planet. This isnt true. The decision to make bread, and the manafacturing of it does not require the entire human population. Only maybe 5000 people in any one bread making collective. Look at any area of production and you will see that the actual amount of people involved in the administration of it does not total 6 billion people. Genoa and seattle were examples of huge amounts of people having the ability to use anarchist principles in order to organize themselves. Apply this to these areas of productions, communes or collectives, which contain equal too or less than the amount of people at these rallies and you can see that anarchism can work. Thus these rallies are a prime example of anarchism in practice.

[The Feral Underclass]

YouKnowTheyMurderedX


I was simply responding to AT&#39;s claim that the anti-capitalist movement was an anarchist movement

I was never claiming that the this was the case. I was asked to provide a working example of anarchism in practice. genoa and seatle are such examples.


We can now reclaim Lenin for ourselves. And this is something to celebrate.

Not for the working class.

[Saint-Just]

The protests in Seattle and Genoa were partly unsuccessful in areas because there was a lack of organisation. Protestors often formed in small blocks in unimportant areas where as they could have formed in larger blocks in key areas to have greater effect. One example is Genoa in which they could have blocked all roads out of the meeting but failed to do so. I read this in &#39;The Battle of Genoa and the Anti-Capitalist Movement&#39;, a book from &#39;One-Off Press&#39; that has accounts of Genoa from many different protestors. I won&#39;t quote the book directly since it would take a long time to find.

In addition, in Spain an Anarchist society existed for about one and a half years or so. However, the Republican forces, as you know, were sabotaged from within because of in-fighting. At one point the Communists asked the Anarchists to take control of the Republican forces but they refused, for obvious reasons. This is from an interview with a Spanish woman in the 70s (I cannot remember the name), she said that in retrospect they would have been better off doing so.

[The Feral Underclass]

The protests in Seattle and Genoa were partly unsuccessful

Are you crazy or are you just lieing? How can you possibly say this?


Protestors often formed in small blocks in unimportant areas where as they could have formed in larger blocks in key areas to have greater effect

Unfortunatly the police had different ideas. You weren&#39;t at seattle were you?


One example is Genoa in which they could have blocked all roads out of the meeting but failed to do so.

There was a three mile buffer zone around the entire area with 20,000 armed police, army and navel personel. They had batons, water canon and scud misslies placed around the meeting zone. How did you expect this to happen. You weren&#39;t at genoa either by the sounds of it. Fortunatly we managed to cause as much havoc as possible around the security zone which led to the murder of Carlo Guiliani, a 23 year old anarchist shot by police.


In addition, in Spain an Anarchist society existed for about one and a half years or so. However, the Republican forces, as you know, were sabotaged from within because of in-fighting. At one point the Communists asked the Anarchists to take control of the Republican forces but they refused, for obvious reasons.

Barcelona and other areas were collectivised and operated succesfully (read Homage to Catalonia). They failed because of betrayels by the communists who came into barcelona and attacked the anarchists, notably at the barcelona phone exchange. They also went into rural areas and into collectives and shot anarchists or anyone who did not support the stalinist line.