Spanish Civil War

[EverythingNothing]

In my opinion,the best example the the stalinists did not support the people and it's will is the Spanish Civil War
Eg: Stalinists arresting and "making people wanish" leftists (POUM,CNT,FAI etc.)
A very good account is George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia,and briefly in Hemingway's For whom the bell tolls (There was that young communist who mentions Dolores Ibarruri (Famous "first" user of No Pasaran) and someone there ask the young commie that Dolores Ibarruri's son fights like he does?

What are your views on this? (Spanish war and Stalinists,and their betrayal)

[Remus Bleys]

Let the shit storm commence.

[Brutus]

The Stalinists were the only communists who were fully committed to fighting the war (thus their coalition with the PSOE and the other moderate socialists), rather than going off on some social-revolution and fighting a highly trained army whilst massacring the rich in petty revenge tactics. In the end the fascists won due to better supply, funding, equipment and training- the defeat of the republic was nothing to do with the Stalinists; if anything, the Stalinists prolonged its life.

[EverythingNothing]

Brutus:
You need to remember the Barcelona May Days
The Leftists lost due to Stalin's terror: Assasinating republican leaders,including The anarchosyndicalist Durutti

Wikipedia -> Barcelona May Days

And I also recommend you to read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia (I have it)

You shall bear in mind the Barcelona May Days
and the probable assasination of Durutti

I really recommend Homage To Catalonia (I can send it)

I suggest you to examine the Barcelona may days..and the probable assasination of Durutti

And I also reccomend reading Homage to Catalonia (I can send it)

[The Jay]

The Stalinists were the only communists who were fully committed to fighting the war (thus their coalition with the PSOE and the other moderate socialists), rather than going off on some social-revolution and fighting a highly trained army whilst massacring the rich in petty revenge tactics. In the end the fascists won due to better supply, funding, equipment and training- the defeat of the republic was nothing to do with the Stalinists; if anything, the Stalinists prolonged its life.


You can't be serious. If you mean that the war that they were fighting was the preservation of petite bourgeois property and an alliance with the bourgeois in general then you're damn right they were serious. You just said plainly that the seizing of land and property was counter to what the real goal should have been. Yes, the revolutionaries were fighting the fascists, but they were also at war with the status quo - including the liberal factions. What you said was either trolling or advocating class collaboration.

[EverythingNothing]

I am sorry about the multiple post,I committed this on other threads too, I am not used yet that post need an approval of the staff,and I presume that my post was not sent due to an error,and I post it again right away..

[Thirsty Crow]

You can't be serious...
...What you said was either trolling or advocating class collaboration.
What's so surprising here? Modern Marxism-Leninism is based on upholding each and every tactical line by the CP of USSR and the Comintern as at least "necessary", if not actually desirable and revolutionary (ultimately). What's surprising is the candid character of this assessment, openly stating what few actually would (maybe clothing it in specific rhetoric). And yeah, that's what Marxism-Leninism exhibits, a specific kind of a defense of class collaboration.

[Brutus]

You can't be serious. If you mean that the war that they were fighting was the preservation of petite bourgeois property and an alliance with the bourgeois in general then you're damn right they were serious. You just said plainly that the seizing of land and property was counter to what the real goal should have been. Yes, the revolutionaries were fighting the fascists, but they were also at war with the status quo - including the liberal factions. What you said was either trolling or advocating class collaboration.

It was advocating class-collaborationism, but the Spanish republic was a bourgeois-democracy. Plus we have to remember Stalin's situation: a fascist Spain would be very bad, but so would a communist Spain. A communist Spain would scare the west into an alliance with Hitler; Stalin wanted an alliance with England and France so had to exercise moderation. I'm not condoning the repression of leftists, but I understand Stalin's position as a leader of a bourgeois state Who had the world against it.

[LiamChe]

In my opinion,the best example the the stalinists did not support the people and it's will is the Spanish Civil War
Eg: Stalinists arresting and "making people wanish" leftists (POUM,CNT,FAI etc.)
A very good account is George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia,and briefly in Hemingway's For whom the bell tolls (There was that young communist who mentions Dolores Ibarruri (Famous "first" user of No Pasaran) and someone there ask the young commie that Dolores Ibarruri's son fights like he does?

What are your views on this? (Spanish war and Stalinists,and their betrayal)

The "Stalinists" betrayed no one. The POUM and the CNT-FAI were too busy forcing their "oh no Stalin is evil" political agenda down the throats of the republican side. The reason the Fascists won was because of the general sectarian attitudes among the CNT-FAI and POUM, which disunited the Republican side and made them vulnerable to the Fascists. There are many recorded instances in which PCE and Republican soldiers were attacked by the POUM and CNT-FAI members.

[Brutus]

The "Stalinists" betrayed no one.
I think recalling your top agent Koltsov to be shot, and torturing and extracting confessions from your allies counts as betrayal.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One of the reasons the Republicans lost the war was because they failed to prosecute a guerrilla war behind Nationalist lines, in favor of a purely traditional, symmetric military struggle. The Nationalists wouldn't have been able to hold territory nearly as well as they did...Anthony Beevor goes into this in his book about the war. So saying that the "Stalinists" prolonged the Republic's existence by their insistence on traditional tactics isn't exactly accurate.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The USSR under Stalin supplied huge amounts of material support to the republicans and assisted the war effort greatly but only on their own terms, just as you would expect from any imperialist power.

[LiamChe]

The USSR under Stalin supplied huge amounts of material support to the republicans and assisted the war effort greatly but only on their own terms, just as you would expect from any imperialist power.

So aiding the international Proletariat to help them fight Fascism= Imperialism :laugh:. Tell me how that even makes sense?

[reb]

The USSR under Stalin supplied huge amounts of material support to the republicans and assisted the war effort greatly but only on their own terms, just as you would expect from any imperialist power.

That's the problem. It provided material support to the bourgeois section of the state to support the state. Capitalists always need money.

[Per Levy]

So aiding the international Proletariat to help them fight Fascism= Imperialism :laugh:. Tell me how that even makes sense?

you do realize that this "aid" didnt come cheap, all of spains gold reserves were send to SU, the SU did sell all of its "aid" to spain, it didnt give it away. also the SU loyal spanish republic supressed the spanish proletariat at several ocasions. and i havnt even started with the purges done during the civil war wich didnt help the republicans at all. also imperialism is a bit more than just fascism and invading a other country and even then the SU did the latter with finland, just as an example.

[A.J.]

you do realize that this "aid" didnt come cheap, all of spains gold reserves were send to SU, the SU did sell all of its "aid" to spain, it didnt give it away.

Just as well otherwise the bling would've fallen into the hands of the fascists at the war's end!:ohmy:


also the SU loyal spanish republic supressed the spanish proletariat at several ocasions.

The vagueness of this claim exposes the disingenuousness and opportunism of the poster.


and i havnt even started with the purges done during the civil war wich didnt help the republicans at all.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

In any armed conflict certain security measures are necessary behind the lines in order to strengthen the front.

The ultra-leftist fifth-columnists got their just desserts.


also imperialism is a bit more than just fascism and invading a other country and even then the SU did the latter with finland, just as an example.

Obviously, non-Leninists seem to have a rather different conception of imperialism. The former seemingly equating it with territorial expanision(or even just mildly interfering in other countries internal affairs). For the latter, imperialism is a category principally belonging to the field of political economy. Specifically, the export of capital from 'advanced' countries(where capital is concentrated to such a degree the stage of monopoly has been reached) to 'backward' countries, where raw materials are sourced.

[reb]

So where is this socialist spanish republic now?

[LiamChe]

So where is this socialist spanish republic now?

That's a good question. The Republican side was being torn apart by sectarians (i.e. some Trotskyists, Ultra-Lefts, and Anarchists) and the vulnerability was exploited by the Fascists and they won. Had some of the Republican factions have been more interested in defeating fascism, then spreading certain anti-USSR and anti-Stalin political agendas, it may have existed.

[A.J.]

So where is this socialist spanish republic now?

Yet to come into existence.

[Hermes]

That's a good question. The Republican side was being torn apart by sectarians (i.e. some Trotskyists, Ultra-Lefts, and Anarchists) and the vulnerability was exploited by the Fascists and they won. Had some of the Republican factions have been more interested in defeating fascism, then spreading certain anti-USSR and anti-Stalin political agendas, it may have existed.

obv. withholding arms, ammunition, and other valuable resources from certain sections of the front due to their political affiliation is really beneficial to fighting fascism, as is actively spreading disinformation about your allies

[reb]

Yet to come into existence.

NO FUCKING WAY! REALLY?! I guess the tactics used didn't pan out too well, huh?

[DDR]

The vagueness of this claim exposes the disingenuousness and opportunism of the poster.

To be fair the Second Spanish Republic had really shitty episodes, like the supresion of the Asturian Red October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_miners'_strike_of_1934) revolt and Catalonian Independence (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamaci%C3%B3n_del_Estado_Catal%C3%A1n_en_octub re_de_1934) in 1934 or the events of Casas Viejas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benalup-Casas_Viejas_revolution) in 1933. Also anti-LGTB, anti-poor and anti-minotiries legislations' basis of franco¡st's regime, the Lazies and Criminals' Law (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_vagos_y_maleantes) was written in republican times. One must never forget that the Second Spanish Republic was a burgeoise democracy, but also one must remember that for spanish hystory that was propably one of the most emencipatorian events ever.


BTW, the casas viejas thing was conducted by general Muñoz de Grandes, who went in WWII to fight with the nazis as commander of the blue division, latter on when Ike (I think) came to negociate the deployement of some aerial bases he was greeted by Muñoz de Grandes with an Iron Cross arround his neck.

[A.J.]

To be fair the Second Spanish Republic had really shitty episodes, like the supresion of the Asturian Red October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_miners'_strike_of_1934) revolt and Catalonian Independence (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamaci%C3%B3n_del_Estado_Catal%C3%A1n_en_octub re_de_1934) in 1934 or the events of Casas Viejas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benalup-Casas_Viejas_revolution) in 1933. Also anti-LGTB, anti-poor and anti-minotiries legislations' basis of franco¡st's regime, the Lazies and Criminals' Law (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_vagos_y_maleantes) was written in republican times. One must never forget that the Second Spanish Republic was a burgeoise democracy, but also one must remember that for spanish hystory that was propably one of the most emencipatorian events ever.


The incidents you cite here all occured when the ultra-conservative, quasi-fascist CEDA were in goverment prior to the election of the Popular Front in 1936.
Indeed, it was the coming to power of the latter which acted as the catalyst for the very same reactionary social forces hitherto represented by CEDA to abandon participation in the bourgeois democracy of the II Republic and stage a military coup to re-establish their lost hegemony.
Consequently to denounce II Republic post the Popular Front government coming to power is an ultra-leftist slogan based on no appraisal of the balance of forces, objectively serving reaction.

[DDR]

The incidents you cite here all occured when the ultra-conservative, quasi-fascist CEDA were in goverment prior to the election of the Popular Front in 1936.
Indeed, it was the coming to power which acted as the catalyst for the very same reactionary social forces hitherto represented by CEDA to abandon participation in the bourgeois democracy of the II Republic and stage a military coup to re-establish their hegemony.
Consequently to denounce II Republic post the Popular Front government coming to power is an ultra-leftist slogan based on no appraisal of the balance of forces, objectively serving reaction.

The massacre of Casas Viejas was one of the reasons why the first socialdemocrat goverment of Azaña lost the elections to the CEDA, and the Lazies and Criminals's Law was also aproved in Azaña's presidency, so every one has it's sare of blame.

Also it's interesting that CEDA's people had nor during the war nor after any kind of power. The political aparatus was built by the joinint of three reactionary parties coopted by the militaries: Falange Española, las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacionalsindicalistas and Comunion Tradicionalista Carlista, forming the FET de las JONS, Falange española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacionalsindicalista. Beeing probably the most long and ridiculous party name in human hystory it was called the movement for shorts.

[Alonso Quijano]

I think the most beautiful thing we can take from that bloody war is the international brigades. We lost that war, but its character can definitely give us hope.

I don't want to focus on Stalin killing it more than focusing on the brave admirable spirit of those who lost, whether it was because of him or wasn't.

The Spanish internationalist movement should be role models at least in some aspects for us.

This was a proletarian fight like in no other event in history.

[erupt]

No matter what, I don't understand why we all can't agree that in-fighting destroyed the chances of winning.

If the different unions and political tendencies didn't fight each other and attempt to fight a traditional war rather then a guerrilla war, the chances of winning would have been much greater.

[Thirsty Crow]

No matter what, I don't understand why we all can't agree that in-fighting destroyed the chances of winning.

The very formation of the Popular Front and the inclusion of huge segments of the working class already signaled the destruction of any chances of winning - for the working class, that is. I think that's the point.

[erupt]

The very formation of the Popular Front and the inclusion of huge segments of the working class already signaled the destruction of any chances of winning - for the working class, that is. I think that's the point.

Can you explain in more detail why this is so?

I can't see how "the inclusion of huge segments of the working class" could destroy the chances of winning for the working class. What do you propose should have happened?