POUM and FAI-CNT relationship.

[Bala Perdida]

From my understanding the POUM was a sort of libertarian Marxist organization, surrounded by controversy. They never held a specific Marxist tendency but did have qualities of Trotskyism and Luxemburgism. Despite that, they were very anti-Soviet/anti-Stalinist throughout their existence. The Soviet Union did their best to make sure no arms, intended for groups like PCE and PSUC, ended up in the hands of either the POUM or CNT. From the little I've read about the POUM, it seems like the most supportable Marxist group I've ever come across. This of course coming from my libertarian views. Are there any other notable organizations like this?
Anyways, the CNT and FAI, I feel, are more well known on this forum and possibly in the leftist scene. The CNT was an anarchist labor union with mostly anarcho-syndicalist views. The CNT seemed to have it's own militia, but was still heavily aligned with the FAI. The FAI was an organization of Iberian anarchists, holding mostly anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist views. The FAI also seemed to have it's own militia, and was usually combined in force with the CNT.
Since the CNT was the largest labor union in the mix, from my understanding, many, if not most, members of the FAI and POUM where also members of the CNT. The CNT and FAI are usually regarded as one entity, hence the CNT-FAI. The CNT and POUM are documented as fighting alongside each other, but I found nothing on the FAI. This leaves me wondering if it's implied that the FAI was with the CNT on this. In the end the CNT is said to have been critical of the POUM which later left the group isolated. The isolation lead to their downfall, and their leader (Andreu Nin) was killed by the NKVD.
So ultimately, how where the relations between the POUM and CNT-FAI? Was it implied that the FAI also fought alongside them? Why was the CNT critical of them? What did the POUM think of the CNT-FAI?

[Devrim]

From my understanding the POUM was a sort of libertarian Marxist organization, surrounded by controversy. They never held a specific Marxist tendency but did have qualities of Trotskyism and Luxemborgism.

While there may be the occasional individual who does so, I have never heard of an organisation that described itself as 'Libertarian Marxist'. As a term it doesn't really make much sense, and is generally used by anarchists with the meaning 'Marxists we like', but would never be used by the people it refers to to describe themselves.

Also the POUM did belong to a specific tendency. It was a member of the 'London Bureau', officially know as the 'International Revolutionary Marxist Centre (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bureau)', sometimes refered to as the 'Two and a Half International'.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

From my understanding the POUM was a sort of libertarian Marxist organization, surrounded by controversy. They never held a specific Marxist tendency but did have qualities of Trotskyism and Luxemburgism. Despite that, they were very anti-Soviet/anti-Stalinist throughout their existence.

As Devrim already pointed out, the POUM was a member of the London Bureau of centrist parties, a particularly confused organisation that included groups from the ultra-propagandist Archeio-Marxists to the remnants of the international sympathisers of the Russian Right Opposition. In fact the POUM was a merger of the formerly ILO-affiliated Communist Left of Spain and the Bloc of Workers' and Peasants, a group of Spanish supporters of Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky. The POUM also participated in the Popular Front. They can't really be called Trotskyist.

Furthermore, "Luxemburgism" is not an actual tendency, but a title taken up by certain Trotskyists, Mandel in particular, and some of the more "libertarian" ultraleft groups, often based on little more than quotes from Luxemburg's work, including notoriously a book she never intended to publish in the form in which it was circulated, taken out of context.

[Bala Perdida]

I'm not sure, I just said libertarian Marxist because of they're seemingly anti-authoritarian way of operating. The Trotskyism and Luxemburgism I just picked up reading around a little. Although I did know they were denounced by other Trotskyists.

[Devrim]

I'm not sure, I just said libertarian Marxist because of they're seemingly anti-authoritarian way of operating. The Trotskyism and Luxemburgism I just picked up reading around a little. Although I did know they were denounced by other Trotskyists.

What does an 'anti-authoritarian way of operating' mean?

Devrim

[Bala Perdida]

Basically the whole opposition to the USSR and their role in the revolutionary Catalonia. You know, setting up worker controlled establishments. Work place democracy. Much of the same things the anarchists did, which is why I labeled it "anti-authoritarian" for lack of a better term.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Basically the whole opposition to the USSR and their role in the revolutionary Catalonia. You know, setting up worker controlled establishments. Work place democracy. Much of the same things the anarchists did, which is why I labeled it "anti-authoritarian" for lack of a better term.

The POUM, and the London Bureau in general, were much less opposed to the Soviet Union under Stalin than the Fourth International (the London Bureau secretary Brockway notably claiming that any criticism of the Stalinist persecution of Trotskyists was counter-revolutionary - until the heads of the Right Opposition started rolling as well), or the Bordigists for example, and I hope no one is going to call the Bordigists "anti-authoritarian". The POUM was part of the Popular Front government, moreover. And what is the use of "workplace democracy" when it means the workers managing their own exploitation for the ends of the "anti-fascist" bourgeoisie and the Popular Front government?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

All members of the FAI were members of the CNT, but not all members of the CNT were members of the FAI. To be more specific, the FAI was a group created within the CNT to keep it revolutionary and oppose any deviations from the revolutionary Anarchist ideology. More specifically, they didn't want the CNT to move towards Bolshevism, reformism or class collaboration.

All leading members of the CNT, i.e. having any sort of influence on the movement, belong to the FAI. It was a sort of a informal dictatorship, if you may, they tended to sack members that did something that the FAI didn't agree with, as far as I recall they sacked various syndicalist editors and other members that didn't agree with FAI's strategy of individual violence. There was some sort of a split before the revolution began, but I don't recall specificities.

As regards the POUM, I am not sure of any specific details, but I know that on the front the CNT and the POUM were fighting alongside one another. They also were on the same side of the barricades during the May Days. As far as I'm concerned they had good relations.

[Bala Perdida]

The POUM, and the London Bureau in general, were much less opposed to the Soviet Union under Stalin than the Fourth International (the London Bureau secretary Brockway notably claiming that any criticism of the Stalinist persecution of Trotskyists was counter-revolutionary - until the heads of the Right Opposition started rolling as well), or the Bordigists for example, and I hope no one is going to call the Bordigists "anti-authoritarian". The POUM was part of the Popular Front government, moreover. And what is the use of "workplace democracy" when it means the workers managing their own exploitation for the ends of the "anti-fascist" bourgeoisie and the Popular Front government?
I'm not sure. I'm not as concerned about their ideology as I am with their relationship with the FAI-CNT. Also, the other red questions.
Still, I don't know much about the POUM. So if you wanna post some info on them, I guess you can feel free to.

[Devrim]

All members of the FAI were members of the CNT, but not all members of the CNT were members of the FAI. To be more specific, the FAI was a group created within the CNT to keep it revolutionary and oppose any deviations from the revolutionary Anarchist ideology.

At which it utterly failed, the anarchist Ministers in the government of Largo Caballero all came from the FAI.


As regards the POUM, I am not sure of any specific details, but I know that on the front the CNT and the POUM were fighting alongside one another. They also were on the same side of the barricades during the May Days. As far as I'm concerned they had good relations.

Yet this is a simplification. Many CNT members took part in the fighting alongside the POUM, but whilst the POUM tried to co-ordinate the movement the CNT called upon workers to disarm.


I'm not sure. I'm not as concerned about their ideology as I am with their relationship with the FAI-CNT. Also, the other red questions.

I think that you miss the point. The political questions are not secondary to some organisational questions, but central. The POUM took up positions to the left of the CNT both on a practical and theoretical lesson. This, it has to be said is more damning of the CNT that it is praise of the POUM.

On an organisational level, many members of the POUM were also members of the CNT.

Devrim

[Kill all the fetuses!]

At which it utterly failed, the anarchist Ministers in the government of Largo Caballero all came from the FAI.

I am quite sure that you are wrong. Largo Caballero was a leader of the UGT and the right-wing socialists, later changing his reactionary stance somewhat, opportunistically, if I may add. I am not sure where did you get this one from.

In fact, Durruti, being the leading member of the FAI, called for killing all the politicians or something to that effect. In vain, apparently.


Yet this is a simplification. Many CNT members took part in the fighting alongside the POUM, but whilst the POUM tried to co-ordinate the movement the CNT called upon workers to disarm.

I think that you miss the point. The political questions are not secondary to some organisational questions, but central. The POUM took up positions to the left of the CNT both on a practical and theoretical lesson. This, it has to be said is more damning of the CNT that it is praise of the POUM.

On an organisational level, many members of the POUM were also members of the CNT.

Devrim

I am always baffled by why the CNT is equated with several sell-outs. It's all true and horrible, but it's a simplification, if not a distortion, nevertheless. CNT's rank-and-file not only didn't give up to the reactionary voices of the leadership of the CNT, but acted in a diametrically opposed way to their demands. If the entire social revolution, most notably in the countryside, isn't enough of a proof, the May Days was pretty much the result of rank-and-file's defiance to the leadership in the government.

I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on POUM's role, but whatever they did, they were rather marginal as far as I'm concerned.

[Devrim]

I am quite sure that you are wrong. Largo Caballero was a leader of the UGT and the right-wing socialists, later changing his reactionary stance somewhat, opportunistically, if I may add. I am not sure where did you get this one from.

No, I am not wrong. The CNT entered the government, and four FAI members became ministers:

[QUOTE=Wiki]CNT–FAI collaboration with government during the war In 1936, the CNT decided, after several refusals, to collaborate with the government of Largo Caballero. Juan García Oliver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Garc%C3%ADa_Oliver) became Minister of Justice (where he abolished legal fees and had all criminal dossiers destroyed), Diego Abad de Santillán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Abad_de_Santill%C3%A1n) became Minister of the Economy, and Federica Montseny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federica_Montseny) became Minister of Health, to name a few instances.


It was later ratified by a vote of the organisation as a whole.


I am always baffled by why the CNT is equated with several sell-outs. It's all true and horrible, but it's a simplification, if not a distortion, nevertheless. CNT's rank-and-file not only didn't give up to the reactionary voices of the leadership of the CNT, but acted in a diametrically opposed way to their demands. If the entire social revolution, most notably in the countryside, isn't enough of a proof, the May Days was pretty much the result of rank-and-file's defiance to the leadership in the government.

The CNT is equated with sell-outs for the quite simple reason that it sold out. The majority of the people fighting in the May Days in Barcelona were members of the CNT, but the organisation itself called for the workers to disarm in the face of their enemies.



I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on POUM's role, but whatever they did, they were rather marginal as far as I'm concerned.

I am not here to defend the POUM. I don't thing marginal is an apt description though. The POUM had at the time tens of thousands of members, and its leader, Nin, was a member of the popular front government. Those to the left of the POUM who defended revolutionary positions, the anarchist 'Friends of Durruti', and the Trotskyist 'Seccion Bolshevik-Leninista' could perhaps be described as marginal.

Devrim

[Kill all the fetuses!]

No, I am not wrong. The CNT entered the government, and four FAI members became ministers:

It was later ratified by a vote of the organisation as a whole.

I am terribly sorry, I read that Largo Caballero was a member of the FAI. My bad and you are right on this.


The CNT is equated with sell-outs for the quite simple reason that it sold out. The majority of the people fighting in the May Days in Barcelona were members of the CNT, but the organisation itself called for the workers to disarm in the face of their enemies.

I don't understand this position, but it might be indicative of one's politics... What is the organization itself if not the rank-and-file? At very least it seems to me as an open question, more realistically, though, it seems to me a ridiculous position to equate the organization with its leaders who not only were sell-outs, but their orders were defied by the rank-and-file on many occasions. Even if you want to argue that the rank-and-file of the CNT sold out, there is, I think, qualitative and quantitative difference in their selling out so it makes sense to distinguish between the two, because otherwise it's just massively confusing.

[Thirsty Crow]

At very least it seems to me as an open question, more realistically, though, it seems to me a ridiculous position to equate the organization with its leaders who not only were sell-outs, but their orders were defied by the rank-and-file on many occasions.As Devrim has already pointed out, after the May Days in Barcelona and the entry of anarchists as ministers into the popular front government, the only faction of the CNT-FAI that defended revolutionary position were the Friends of Durruti, a numerical minority if there ever was a minority. It's entirely unclear what exactly are you referring to when you mention the rank-and-file who "defied orders".

The point is not to collapse the difference between the officials of the organization and its base; rather, it is to highlight the fact that no effective opposition to class collaboration came out of either.


Even if you want to argue that the rank-and-file of the CNT sold out, there is, I think, qualitative and quantitative difference in their selling out so it makes sense to distinguish between the two, because otherwise it's just massively confusing.
What is really confusing is your mysterious idea of a "qualitative and quantitative difference" here. Namely, you don't even try to explain it. So, what's that difference actually?

[Blake's Baby]

...

I don't understand this position, but it might be indicative of one's politics... What is the organization itself if not the rank-and-file? At very least it seems to me as an open question, more realistically, though, it seems to me a ridiculous position to equate the organization with its leaders who not only were sell-outs, but their orders were defied by the rank-and-file on many occasions. Even if you want to argue that the rank-and-file of the CNT sold out, there is, I think, qualitative and quantitative difference in their selling out so it makes sense to distinguish between the two, because otherwise it's just massively confusing.

This makes no sense. Are you going to argue that the Nazi Party in Germany was a proletarian organisation because a lot of its members were workers? Most members of the Catholic Church are workers, is that a proletarian organisation? Almost all the unions in the beligerent countries in WWI supported 'their own' bourgeoisies and enrolled workers for the slaughter, are those organisations let off the hook because their members were workers? Did the social-democratic parties not really betray the working class, because some members opposed the war?

Surely you judge an organisation by what it does, not who its members are? Members of the CNT/FAI participted in the Popular Front government. Their participation was agree by the organisation; the organisation called for the workers to disarm; these are anti-working class actions. Thus, the CNT was an orgnisation that was opposed to the interestst of the working class, no matter what some of its members did.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

As Devrim has already pointed out, after the May Days in Barcelona and the entry of anarchists as ministers into the popular front government, the only faction of the CNT-FAI that defended revolutionary position were the Friends of Durruti, a numerical minority if there ever was a minority. It's entirely unclear what exactly are you referring to when you mention the rank-and-file who "defied orders".

The point is not to collapse the difference between the officials of the organization and its base; rather, it is to highlight the fact that no effective opposition to class collaboration came out of either.


What is really confusing is your mysterious idea of a "qualitative and quantitative difference" here. Namely, you don't even try to explain it. So, what's that difference actually?

The difference is that the leadership participated in the government, while rank-and-file, to a large extent, opposed it. That's your opposition. Was it effective? Depends on how you judge it. And there were hundreds of thousands of CNT members that kept building up the revolution in the countryside and significant amount of them in industrial Catalonia that created some sort of opposition to leadership in the government. That's a difference for me.


This makes no sense. Are you going to argue that the Nazi Party in Germany was a proletarian organisation because a lot of its members were workers? Most members of the Catholic Church are workers, is that a proletarian organisation? Almost all the unions in the beligerent countries in WWI supported 'their own' bourgeoisies and enrolled workers for the slaughter, are those organisations let off the hook because their members were workers? Did the social-democratic parties not really betray the working class, because some members opposed the war?

Surely you judge an organisation by what it does, not who its members are? Members of the CNT/FAI participted in the Popular Front government. Their participation was agree by the organisation; the organisation called for the workers to disarm; these are anti-working class actions. Thus, the CNT was an orgnisation that was opposed to the interestst of the working class, no matter what some of its members did.

Yes, that's exactly my point. The CNT rank-and-file built up the revolution in the countryside and defied the orders of the leadership on many occasions. The leadership acted in a way, which was opposed to what rank-and-file wanted to do and did. Hence, it doesn't make sense to collapse the leadership and rank-and-file under the "CNT" as if it was one and the same. It's like talking of the United States of America and its actions - you must distinguish between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, as any Marxist would do, otherwise your analysis is just worthless. The same applies here - it just doesn't make sense to collapse the rank-and-file and its leadership into one body as if they had the same interests, ideas and goals in mind. They didn't and that's my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Thirsty Crow]

The difference is that the leadership participated in the government, while rank-and-file, to a large extent, opposed it.What makes you conclude that? I'm not aware of any significant opposition to that practice, and moreover, even if you were able to verify this kind of opposition, it would remain nothing but a passive opposition amounting to nothing really - that's why I'm stressing effective opposition. How I judge the effectiveness? It's rather easy, the question that need to be asked here are along the lines of - did any significant, militant opposition aiming at deposing the leadership organize, and was it successful?

The answer to both questions is no.