The Feral Underclass
22nd March 2005, 17:12
I cannot find the thread where this debte was happening, but some people were discussing anarchism in practice and you gave, what I believe, to be an unfair criticism of the anarchist history.
Originally posted by Severian
Those are still the limits of anarchist behavior in a revolutionary crisis.
Anarchists have to accept our failures in terms of achieving a defeat of a state power, capitalist or socialist, but Leninists must also recognise our success if you want to analyse and criticise our history. Success' which are almost always ignored.
The Spanish anarchists collectivised vast areas of rural and urban Spain and applied anarchist principles to modes of organisation and distribution. This was a success. It is fact.
The failure to maintain this success can, I admit, be put down to your argument. The state was stronger, which is what your argument amounts to.
Yes, the state was stronger and the anarchists, especially in Spain, had to concede defeat, but I think one should look at how that defeat arouse.
Was it because the anarchist theory is flawed? or, is it because the tactics employed by that specific group of people, at that specific moment in history was flawed.
Leninists attempt to argue the latter, but if this was the case, how did the CNT-FAI manage to collectivise and organise cities and rural collectives to such a degree that in many parts production actually increased.
If anarchist theory is flawed how then were the anarchists able to offer real control to the workers and peasants in Catalonia, Barcelona and Aragon? Control which gave them direct power over their means of production.
The CNT joined the Popular Front government in an effort to maintain support for the collectives among professional politicians. This was their fatal error.
Instead of creating arms and organising the workers and peasants into a mass army, the CNT tried the soft approach used so often by bourgeois socialists and liberals. To talk nicely to them and try to compromise.
In 1936 popular support for the Collective of Aragon forced the Popular Front government to recognise the collective. The CNT believed that collaboration and trust would be enough to protect the collectives from the state.
What nonsense! Instead of arming the anarchist brigades to fight the fascists the popular front government demanded that the anarchists lay down their arms and depend on the Popular Army.
The anarchists largely accepted this, but the FAI split and 'Friends of Durruti' was created. They called for a 'Revolutionary Workers Junta' which would have seen the workers within the anarchist collectives organised and prepared to defend themselves against the state. This led to confrontation with the Assault Guards (former [feared] bourgeois special police unit) and government forces.
Instead of fighting the fascists the Stalinist led Popular Front government attacked the Barcelona collective and invaded Catalonia.
The CNT was betrayed. After losing time, without arms or the production of them, against a well armed and Stalin backed army, there was absolutely no practical way that the collectives could have been defended.
The Assault guards attacked and dissolved the Council of Aragon, smashed the collectives and which led to the collapse of Aragon front; held against the fascists by anarchist brigades. The fascists were in Madrid by 1939.
The Spanish civil war and the collectives did not fail because the theory was flawed, it failed because they were betrayed by Leninists, who in the end, simply had more guns.
Eddie Conlon said in his pamphlet 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action'; (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html)
"The Spanish Revolution does not negate anarchism. If anything, long before Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary it showed the bankruptcy of Stalinism and the State Capitalism of Russia. The activities of the Stalinists were far from what real socialists would have done. On the other hand the anarchist masses threw themselves into a fight against fascism, and its cause, capitalism. Unfortunately the revolution was not complete, the CNT leaders held it back. Indeed their behaviour highlights the effect that power can have on even those who lay claim to anarchism. Spain provided important lessons for anarchists. It showed the inadequacy of syndicalism, the need for political anarchism and the need for an anarchist political organisation. We have to understand that the state and political power does not 'die'; it has to be smashed."
Tactical and practical errors. Errors which lessons can easily be drawn.
Originally posted by Severian
Those are still the limits of anarchist behavior in a revolutionary crisis.
Anarchists have to accept our failures in terms of achieving a defeat of a state power, capitalist or socialist, but Leninists must also recognise our success if you want to analyse and criticise our history. Success' which are almost always ignored.
The Spanish anarchists collectivised vast areas of rural and urban Spain and applied anarchist principles to modes of organisation and distribution. This was a success. It is fact.
The failure to maintain this success can, I admit, be put down to your argument. The state was stronger, which is what your argument amounts to.
Yes, the state was stronger and the anarchists, especially in Spain, had to concede defeat, but I think one should look at how that defeat arouse.
Was it because the anarchist theory is flawed? or, is it because the tactics employed by that specific group of people, at that specific moment in history was flawed.
Leninists attempt to argue the latter, but if this was the case, how did the CNT-FAI manage to collectivise and organise cities and rural collectives to such a degree that in many parts production actually increased.
If anarchist theory is flawed how then were the anarchists able to offer real control to the workers and peasants in Catalonia, Barcelona and Aragon? Control which gave them direct power over their means of production.
The CNT joined the Popular Front government in an effort to maintain support for the collectives among professional politicians. This was their fatal error.
Instead of creating arms and organising the workers and peasants into a mass army, the CNT tried the soft approach used so often by bourgeois socialists and liberals. To talk nicely to them and try to compromise.
In 1936 popular support for the Collective of Aragon forced the Popular Front government to recognise the collective. The CNT believed that collaboration and trust would be enough to protect the collectives from the state.
What nonsense! Instead of arming the anarchist brigades to fight the fascists the popular front government demanded that the anarchists lay down their arms and depend on the Popular Army.
The anarchists largely accepted this, but the FAI split and 'Friends of Durruti' was created. They called for a 'Revolutionary Workers Junta' which would have seen the workers within the anarchist collectives organised and prepared to defend themselves against the state. This led to confrontation with the Assault Guards (former [feared] bourgeois special police unit) and government forces.
Instead of fighting the fascists the Stalinist led Popular Front government attacked the Barcelona collective and invaded Catalonia.
The CNT was betrayed. After losing time, without arms or the production of them, against a well armed and Stalin backed army, there was absolutely no practical way that the collectives could have been defended.
The Assault guards attacked and dissolved the Council of Aragon, smashed the collectives and which led to the collapse of Aragon front; held against the fascists by anarchist brigades. The fascists were in Madrid by 1939.
The Spanish civil war and the collectives did not fail because the theory was flawed, it failed because they were betrayed by Leninists, who in the end, simply had more guns.
Eddie Conlon said in his pamphlet 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action'; (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html)
"The Spanish Revolution does not negate anarchism. If anything, long before Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary it showed the bankruptcy of Stalinism and the State Capitalism of Russia. The activities of the Stalinists were far from what real socialists would have done. On the other hand the anarchist masses threw themselves into a fight against fascism, and its cause, capitalism. Unfortunately the revolution was not complete, the CNT leaders held it back. Indeed their behaviour highlights the effect that power can have on even those who lay claim to anarchism. Spain provided important lessons for anarchists. It showed the inadequacy of syndicalism, the need for political anarchism and the need for an anarchist political organisation. We have to understand that the state and political power does not 'die'; it has to be smashed."
Tactical and practical errors. Errors which lessons can easily be drawn.