The Spanish Civil War

[enigma2517]

I remember reading a long while ago about collectives during the Spanish revolution. It seemed pretty cool until I got down to a part that mentioned at one point the collectives became paranoid(?) of each other and even held a few battles now and then. Thats kind of disturbing.

I was really liking the anarchist train of thought, it seemed to be much more....humanitarian than Leninism. However, isn't this just the kind of thing a state would prevent? Then again...who would prevent the war between those states? Sooo circular...oh well.

Am I really suggesting we want something as dangerous and volitale as the State existing and controlling our actions....no... I'm pretty sure that it will inevitably lead to more (undesolvable) classism. But still....what prevents war between these small collectives.

Resources are obviously going to get scarce at one point....without a central authority to dictate how they are distributed chaos might break out. Communism is the elimination of scarcity. Most of that involves the capitalist market creating aritificial scarcity. But sometimes real physical scarcity occurs too. Famine....and all that other good stuff. While we could probably develop large enough graineries and the like later but until then we'd have to hold out. Would the Soviet Union have made it through those first few rough years without falling apart if were under some sort of libertarian (anarchist) control?

Haha I'm just ranting now.

Anyway, question is, can anybody tell me about the collectives attacking each other, their motivations, how we can prevent this in the future, etc. Also, feel free to comment on the theory part of it too.

Peace

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Now, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember reading or hearing of such a thing as collectives fighting between themselves. I have read Sam Dolgoff's "The Anarchist Collectives" and he makes no mention of such things. Although, given how he was an Anarchist, his book is obviously biased towards them, although, self-critical at the same moment.

In Antony Beevor's "The Spanish Revolution," Beevor also makes no reference to collectives fighting, but does make a note how there were inequalities between collectives and also the hoarding of goods and selfishness of collectives, but nothing indicating open conflict.

He also states how many collectives were very passionate about the uselessness of competition. Goods were distributed to them as much as possible, given war time shortages, and in fact in Catalonia (where Anarchist influence was the largest) production rose nearly one-fifth. However, given these facts, the collectives were a pretty good success, but we must also remember their short lives. The Stalinist-Communists (PSUC) along with many bourgeois elements, were against the collectives, and hence, against the Social Revolution taking place. Many of this has to do with politics and Spain's perception to the world, but also the Soviet Union's own interests. Spain was a sort of pawn in the ideological chess match of the 1930s and 1940s.

An active movement against the Anarchist, and their collectives, was mounted by the Central Government and led to violence of all kinds. All this eventually culminated in the "May Days" in Barcelona, but that is a different story.

So on the whole, I don't believe that the collectives would have reverted to violence given the very nature of the Anarchists of Spain at that time and I have seen nothing to show that. The only violence I am aware of involving collectives was their forced closure by the Central Government which was controlled by the PSUC at the time.

In regards to your theory, scarcity is inevitable in any economy. Centralized distribution is necessary, but, given Revolutionary Spain's example, it is possible for Anarchism to create this distribution organization. War time played havoc with this system developed by the Anarchists and it had many obvious shortcomings. But given time, it would have been streamlined, besides, it was Spain, which still to this day does not share the North's fervent time neurosis.

I hoped that answer your question in my normal, longwinded ways. Some good books you would like to recommend are "The Spanish Civil War" by Antony Beevor. "The Anarchist Collectives" by Sam Dolgoff, and "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. All of them are very interesting books, and fast reads.

TGOW

[enigma2517]

Yeah I wanna check out Homage....George Orwell is a cool guy

[Salvador Allende]

A key problem was the lack of co-operation among the different factions. We all know Madrid would have fallen in 1936 if it weren't for early Soviet help (before the law was passed). The Communist and Socialist parties were both part of the Popular Front while many Anarchists refused to join the Popular Front and many Trotskyists refused to as well. At first these groups even tried to block the volunteers that were coming from all over the world to help the Republican faction. Factional disputes from the Popular Front and several Anarchist and Trotskyist areas led to battles (not all Anarchist and Trotskyist groups fought the Popular Front, many joined it). Much infighting was because of the lack of organization and co-operation from groups outside the Popular Front and their refusals.

[trotsky_lives]

Salvador,

can you explain which laws you are referring to which put a stop to Soviet support. Why were they passed, who argued in favour of thwm etc.

Also, on a point of clarification. The Trotskyists in spain during the war fluctuated around the 50 mark. None of them participated in the Popular front government. Its a common stalinist mistake/slur/etc but why let facts get in the way of good discussion. You are probably confusing them with the POUM, who were Centrists - i.e. the vacilated between revolution and reform but more often than not, reform. They were part of the London Bureau which included the Independent Labour Party, Revolutionary Socialist Party in Holland and a few other whom I can't remember.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 1 2004, 12:13 AM
A key problem was the lack of co-operation among the different factions.
In Eddie Conlon's pamphlet "Anarchism in Action - The Spanish Civil War" he says:


As with the militias, slander was also thrown at the collectives. It was claimed that each one only looked after itself and did not care about the others. This was rubbish as in many areas equalisation funds were set up to re-distribute wealth from the better off areas to the poorer ones. It was ensured that machinery and espertise were shifted to the areas most in need of it. Indeed one indicator of the feeling of solidaritiy is the fact that 1,000 collectivists from the Levant, which was quite advanced, 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 peasents 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."


We all know Madrid would have fallen in 1936 if it weren't for early Soviet help (before the law was passed).

What law. The PCE had control of the government and they purposly refused arms to the FAI militias.


Communist and Socialist parties were both part of the Popular Front while many Anarchists refused to join the Popular Front and many Trotskyists refused to as well.

That's not true. The UGT and POUM all joined the Propular front in January 1936 followed by the CNT in the November.


At first these groups even tried to block the volunteers that were coming from all over the world to help the Republican faction.

That is a complete LIE! The Popular Front government, controlled by the PCE maintained that the regular army shjould be maintained and effectivly isolated the anti-fascist militias. It was the PCE who stopped volunteers from joining the militias and it was the PCE who controlled the distribution of arms from the Soviet Union. George Orwell said in "Homage to Catalonia": "I noticed that these (arms) were not being given out in equal quantities, but there was a marked preferenmce for the units which made up the Fifth Regiment" (PCE regiment).

In 1937 the PCE disbanded the workrs militias who had defended the revolution and outlawed POUM. They then reinstated the Civil Gaurd, the dreaded political police force then said that all militias should hand in their arms. George Orwell commnets in his book: "The anarchists were well aware that even if they surrendered their arms, the PSUC (the PCE in catalonia) would retain theirs, and this is in fact what happened after the fighting was over. Meanwhile actually visible on the streets, there were quantites of armes whihc would have been very welcome at the front, but were being retained for the "non-political" police forces in the rear."


Factional disputes from the Popular Front and several Anarchist and Trotskyist areas led to battles (not all Anarchist and Trotskyist groups fought the Popular Front, many joined it).

When were these battles?


Much infighting was because of the lack of organization and co-operation from groups outside the Popular Front and their refusals.

How on earth do you have the audacity to say that! your history is greatly distorted, either because you're ignorant or because you have a hidden agenda.

[eyedrop]

When were these battles?

He may be refering to the battles in Aragorn in July.

In 1937 they started an extensive campaign to break up the collectives in Aragorn. As much as 30 percent of the collectives were destroyed by mobile troops commanded by Enrique Lister in July 1937.

Read page 44 of The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff.

I have read 3 other norwegian books that thouched those battles and all agreed it was an attack by the government on the collectives, even those written by social democrats.

They were battles but were initiated by the government to whatever purpose they wanted (likely break up the collectives), you can't blame those battles on the collectives just because they didn't want to be controlled by the central government.




Communist and Socialist parties were both part of the Popular Front while many Anarchists refused to join the Popular Front and many Trotskyists refused to as well.


He is somewhat right, some groups such as Friends of Durruti didn't join the popular front,although most did, but one can't blame them as the popular front acted as an attemt by the government to gain control over the militias, as the chose all the generals.

If the popular front had been a federalistic co-ordination organisationthen I would blame all the anarchist for not joining it. But they had very hard conditions they needed supplies and weapons, without joining the popular army they would be hard pressed too get it.

Such groups as The iron column (are they the same as Friends of Durruti? can't remember) had too loot and steal supplies from friendly towns at times.



Much infighting was because of the lack of organization and co-operation from groups outside the Popular Front and their refusals.

You can say so if you define co-operation as obey us, if we take the aragorn example. When they didn't fit into the plans of the plans of the government, they weren't cooperating enough so they were sent troops after.

A failure of complying to all the other parts wishes isn't a lack of cooperating.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:12 AM
In 1937 they started an extensive campaign to break up the collectives in Aragorn.
He makes it sound as if the anarchists purposly went out of their way to cause trouble.


He is somewhat right, some groups such as Friends of Durruti didn't join the popular front,

The Friends of Durruti was created as opposition to the CNT's involvment in the popular front, so you're right they weren't apart of it. Personally I think they did right.

The CNT fucked up with being apart of the central government. They attempted to appease through parliment. It doesn't work.


If the popular front had been a federalistic co-ordination organisationthen I would blame all the anarchist for not joining it. But they had very hard conditions they needed supplies and weapons, without joining the popular army they would be hard pressed too get it.

They weren't getting supplies and weapons anyway. Or barely. But I agree, at the time it seemed logical, but unfortuantly professional politicians will always fuck you over.

[eyedrop]

He makes it sound as if the anarchists purposly went out of their way to cause trouble.

Agreed!


The Friends of Durruti was created as opposition to the CNT's involvment in the popular front, so you're right they weren't apart of it. Personally I think they did right.

I also think they did right.

The other tactic didn't show any result except them being screwed over.



The CNT fucked up with being apart of the central government. They attempted to appease through parliment. It doesn't work.

Incredible how many lessons we can learn from that revolution.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Factional disputes from the Popular Front and several Anarchist and Trotskyist areas led to battles (not all Anarchist and Trotskyist groups fought the Popular Front, many joined it).


When were these battles?

There were certainly battles between left-wing/revolutionary groups - notably the anarchist militias and the POUM - and the central government, most importantly the "May Days". However, to call them factional disputes is misleading. In reality, the central government and Stalinists were making an active and violent attempt to supress revolutionary currents - no wonder it lead to battles!

[Morpheus]

First the stalinists came for the POUM (semi-trotskyists). Then they came for the anarchists. Then they started attacking the collectives. Then the left-wing socialists. Then the right-wing socialists. Then the republicans. They waged war against all other factions and eventually suppressed them, leading to a totalitarian one-party state. Of course, the Stalinists war on everyone made it much easier for the fascists to win the civil war.