Spain 1936

[Guest_Alf]

On Saturday 8 July the ICC will be holding a public meeting in London (2pm, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1). The meeting will be on the war in Spain, which began 70 years ago, with Franco’s attempted coup on July 19 1936.

We have advertised the meeting in our paper World Revolution as ‘Spain 1936-37: the Italian communist left and the Friends of Durruti’.

We will start by presenting the analysis made by the Italian communist left of the events of July 1936, which can be summarised as follows: the Francoist putsch was countered by the working class, fighting with its own methods: mass strike, fraternisation with the troops, self-arming of the workers. But this initial proletarian response was very quickly diverted from its logical goal of insurrection against the bourgeois state towards a struggle in defence of the Popular Front; and, in a global context of growing military conflicts, the ‘civil’ war in Spain was rapidly transformed into an inter-imperialist war, a dress rehearsal for the second world massacre.

Against the mobilisation of the working class on this terrain, the Italian left refused to support the Republic and called for class struggle against both camps. In this they were extremely (though not totally) isolated, because the majority of those who called themselves revolutionaries came out in one way or another with the position of ‘fight fascism first, then deal with the Republic’ – in short, with a more or less open support for the Republic. This famously included the CNT in Spain, which sent ministers into the Republican state.

We will then focus on the events of May 1937 and the Friends of Durruti group. For the Italian left, the strikes and barricades ‘behind the lines’ in Barcelona in May 37 were a striking confirmation of its analysis: the working class had returned to its own methods of struggle against the whole of the Popular Front regime. The Friends of Durruti group, which had emerged from within the CNT as a working class reaction to the official betrayals, attempted to live up to the responsibilities of a revolutionary organisation during these events. The Friends of Durruti was a genuine expression of the wider revolutionary aspirations which had come to the surface in July 1936 and which made their last stand in May 1937. At the same time it was unable to make a complete break from the CNT and anarchist ideology, which prevented it from drawing all the necessary conclusions from this experience.

We think that this meeting provides an opportunity to hold a constructive debate about the lessons of these historic events. We naturally encourage all our contacts and sympathisers to attend, and at the same time invite those less familiar with, or even highly critical of, left communist positions to come along and put forward their views. We will ensure maximum time for discussion and for the presentation of alternative interpretations of the war and the role of the Friends of Durruti group. .

Contacts and readers of our press who are unable to attend the meeting are invited to send e-mails or letters dealing with the subject of the forum. These will be read out and discussed at the meeting.

We encourage participants on these forums to respond to this invitation, both by making responses on this thread and by coming to the meeting. Again, we will read out and discuss contributions to the meeting posted on this thread by those who are unable to come to the meeting to put forward their views in person.

[Guest_Alf]

On Saturday 8 July the ICC will be holding a public meeting in London (2pm, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1). The meeting will be on the war in Spain, which began 70 years ago, with Franco’s attempted coup on July 19 1936.

We have advertised the meeting in our paper World Revolution as ‘Spain 1936-37: the Italian communist left and the Friends of Durruti’.

We will start by presenting the analysis made by the Italian communist left of the events of July 1936, which can be summarised as follows: the Francoist putsch was countered by the working class, fighting with its own methods: mass strike, fraternisation with the troops, self-arming of the workers. But this initial proletarian response was very quickly diverted from its logical goal of insurrection against the bourgeois state towards a struggle in defence of the Popular Front; and, in a global context of growing military conflicts, the ‘civil’ war in Spain was rapidly transformed into an inter-imperialist war, a dress rehearsal for the second world massacre.

Against the mobilisation of the working class on this terrain, the Italian left refused to support the Republic and called for class struggle against both camps. In this they were extremely (though not totally) isolated, because the majority of those who called themselves revolutionaries came out in one way or another with the position of ‘fight fascism first, then deal with the Republic’ – in short, with a more or less open support for the Republic. This famously included the CNT in Spain, which sent ministers into the Republican state.

We will then focus on the events of May 1937 and the Friends of Durruti group. For the Italian left, the strikes and barricades ‘behind the lines’ in Barcelona in May 37 were a striking confirmation of its analysis: the working class had returned to its own methods of struggle against the whole of the Popular Front regime. The Friends of Durruti group, which had emerged from within the CNT as a working class reaction to the official betrayals, attempted to live up to the responsibilities of a revolutionary organisation during these events. The Friends of Durruti was a genuine expression of the wider revolutionary aspirations which had come to the surface in July 1936 and which made their last stand in May 1937. At the same time it was unable to make a complete break from the CNT and anarchist ideology, which prevented it from drawing all the necessary conclusions from this experience.

We think that this meeting provides an opportunity to hold a constructive debate about the lessons of these historic events. We naturally encourage all our contacts and sympathisers to attend, and at the same time invite those less familiar with, or even highly critical of, left communist positions to come along and put forward their views. We will ensure maximum time for discussion and for the presentation of alternative interpretations of the war and the role of the Friends of Durruti group. .

Contacts and readers of our press who are unable to attend the meeting are invited to send e-mails or letters dealing with the subject of the forum. These will be read out and discussed at the meeting.

We encourage participants on these forums to respond to this invitation, both by making responses on this thread and by coming to the meeting. Again, we will read out and discuss contributions to the meeting posted on this thread by those who are unable to come to the meeting to put forward their views in person.

[Guest_Alf]

On Saturday 8 July the ICC will be holding a public meeting in London (2pm, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1). The meeting will be on the war in Spain, which began 70 years ago, with Franco’s attempted coup on July 19 1936.

We have advertised the meeting in our paper World Revolution as ‘Spain 1936-37: the Italian communist left and the Friends of Durruti’.

We will start by presenting the analysis made by the Italian communist left of the events of July 1936, which can be summarised as follows: the Francoist putsch was countered by the working class, fighting with its own methods: mass strike, fraternisation with the troops, self-arming of the workers. But this initial proletarian response was very quickly diverted from its logical goal of insurrection against the bourgeois state towards a struggle in defence of the Popular Front; and, in a global context of growing military conflicts, the ‘civil’ war in Spain was rapidly transformed into an inter-imperialist war, a dress rehearsal for the second world massacre.

Against the mobilisation of the working class on this terrain, the Italian left refused to support the Republic and called for class struggle against both camps. In this they were extremely (though not totally) isolated, because the majority of those who called themselves revolutionaries came out in one way or another with the position of ‘fight fascism first, then deal with the Republic’ – in short, with a more or less open support for the Republic. This famously included the CNT in Spain, which sent ministers into the Republican state.

We will then focus on the events of May 1937 and the Friends of Durruti group. For the Italian left, the strikes and barricades ‘behind the lines’ in Barcelona in May 37 were a striking confirmation of its analysis: the working class had returned to its own methods of struggle against the whole of the Popular Front regime. The Friends of Durruti group, which had emerged from within the CNT as a working class reaction to the official betrayals, attempted to live up to the responsibilities of a revolutionary organisation during these events. The Friends of Durruti was a genuine expression of the wider revolutionary aspirations which had come to the surface in July 1936 and which made their last stand in May 1937. At the same time it was unable to make a complete break from the CNT and anarchist ideology, which prevented it from drawing all the necessary conclusions from this experience.

We think that this meeting provides an opportunity to hold a constructive debate about the lessons of these historic events. We naturally encourage all our contacts and sympathisers to attend, and at the same time invite those less familiar with, or even highly critical of, left communist positions to come along and put forward their views. We will ensure maximum time for discussion and for the presentation of alternative interpretations of the war and the role of the Friends of Durruti group. .

Contacts and readers of our press who are unable to attend the meeting are invited to send e-mails or letters dealing with the subject of the forum. These will be read out and discussed at the meeting.

We encourage participants on these forums to respond to this invitation, both by making responses on this thread and by coming to the meeting. Again, we will read out and discuss contributions to the meeting posted on this thread by those who are unable to come to the meeting to put forward their views in person.

[FinnMacCool]

I think one of the three of the biggest lessons anarchists can learn from these events is

1) Establish your collectives really fast

2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much

and most importantly

3) Don't ally with the leninists in a revolution ever again.

Thats really all I can think of right now.

[FinnMacCool]

I think one of the three of the biggest lessons anarchists can learn from these events is

1) Establish your collectives really fast

2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much

and most importantly

3) Don't ally with the leninists in a revolution ever again.

Thats really all I can think of right now.

[FinnMacCool]

I think one of the three of the biggest lessons anarchists can learn from these events is

1) Establish your collectives really fast

2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much

and most importantly

3) Don't ally with the leninists in a revolution ever again.

Thats really all I can think of right now.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:00 PM
3) Don't ally with the communists in a revolution ever again.
Sounds like a pretty weak-ass revolution to me then.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:00 PM
3) Don't ally with the communists in a revolution ever again.
Sounds like a pretty weak-ass revolution to me then.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:00 PM
3) Don't ally with the communists in a revolution ever again.
Sounds like a pretty weak-ass revolution to me then.

[Cult of Reason]

2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much


What?


3) Don't ally with the communists in a revolution ever again.

Substituting Leninists for communists, then fine.

[Cult of Reason]

2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much


What?


3) Don't ally with the communists in a revolution ever again.

Substituting Leninists for communists, then fine.

[Cult of Reason]

2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much


What?


3) Don't ally with the communists in a revolution ever again.

Substituting Leninists for communists, then fine.

[FinnMacCool]

What?
THe anarchists weren't allowed to get as much support as they needed because they were way too eager to condemn religion.


Substituting Leninists for communists, then fine.
Oh yeah my bad. When I say communists I'm reffering to LEninists.

[FinnMacCool]

What?
THe anarchists weren't allowed to get as much support as they needed because they were way too eager to condemn religion.


Substituting Leninists for communists, then fine.
Oh yeah my bad. When I say communists I'm reffering to LEninists.

[FinnMacCool]

What?
THe anarchists weren't allowed to get as much support as they needed because they were way too eager to condemn religion.


Substituting Leninists for communists, then fine.
Oh yeah my bad. When I say communists I'm reffering to LEninists.

[Cult of Reason]

I was under the impresion that the execution of the local (fascist) priest was a very popular act.

[Cult of Reason]

I was under the impresion that the execution of the local (fascist) priest was a very popular act.

[Cult of Reason]

I was under the impresion that the execution of the local (fascist) priest was a very popular act.

[Forward Union]

Well, that was generally only Catholic priests, and that was only because the catholic church had supported the fascists. It, unfortunatly wasn't primarily an anti-religous thing.

[Forward Union]

Well, that was generally only Catholic priests, and that was only because the catholic church had supported the fascists. It, unfortunatly wasn't primarily an anti-religous thing.

[Forward Union]

Well, that was generally only Catholic priests, and that was only because the catholic church had supported the fascists. It, unfortunatly wasn't primarily an anti-religous thing.

[Donnie]

I've read in a book that some of the local villagers started burning cross's, snaping and shooting cross's well thats what I read in my book "The Spanish Labyrinth: An Account Of The Social And Political Background Of The Spanish Civil War" By Gerald Bernan.

It's a really good book if your intrested in the Spanish Civil War, I found that it was.

[Donnie]

I've read in a book that some of the local villagers started burning cross's, snaping and shooting cross's well thats what I read in my book "The Spanish Labyrinth: An Account Of The Social And Political Background Of The Spanish Civil War" By Gerald Bernan.

It's a really good book if your intrested in the Spanish Civil War, I found that it was.

[Donnie]

I've read in a book that some of the local villagers started burning cross's, snaping and shooting cross's well thats what I read in my book "The Spanish Labyrinth: An Account Of The Social And Political Background Of The Spanish Civil War" By Gerald Bernan.

It's a really good book if your intrested in the Spanish Civil War, I found that it was.

[Cult of Reason]

I read his section on Anarchism.

[Cult of Reason]

I read his section on Anarchism.

[Cult of Reason]

I read his section on Anarchism.

[Alf]

The point being made by the original post was that after the initial workers' uprising of July 1936, the class struggle was derailed both by people who called themselves 'anarchists' and 'marxists'. The CNT and the POUM, as well as the Stalinist party, saved the bourgeois Republic by participating first in the Central Committee of Anti-fascist Militias, and then in the Generalidad, the Catalan government. These organs provided a left cover for the Republic. Anti-fascism was a trap for the workers, leading them to defend one part of the bourgeoisie against the other, when the crying need was for the workers to retain their independence and oppose both camps. In May 1937, when the workers of Barcelona rose up against the Popular Front, both the official 'anarchists' and the official 'marxists' sabotaged the general strike and paved the way for the repression of the workers. Some 'anarchists' (like the Friends of Durruti) and some 'marxists' (such as the 'Bolshevik-Leninists' around Munis) stood with the workers, though none were as clear about the meaning of these events as the Italian communist left around the review Bilan.

I think people should think more carefully about the labels they throw around. The important thing is whether an organisation stands with the working class against the bourgeois state. That's the decisive test.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+--> (FinnMacCool)2) Don't disillusion people by condeming religion too much[/b]

Yeah. Because, of course, had the various anarchists not shot the Catholic fascists, then everything would have worked out just fine. Except the incy wincy teeny weeny detail that Catholic knuckleheads provided the base for Franco and company....and, of course, the other tiny detail that they aided and abetted the fricking fascists.

But, you know, you're right. I'm sure that the CNT et al. would have avoided the various pitfalls presented had they started attending Sunday Mass. Heck, they may as well have just given up militant anarchism in favour of Catholicism....at least then we would have had a peaceful solution to the conflict.


Alf
....and, in a global context of growing military conflicts, the ‘civil’ war in Spain was rapidly transformed into an inter-imperialist war, a dress rehearsal for the second world massacre.

Uh, "transformed into an inter-imperialist war". Fuey.

But, let me guess, cause Uncle Joe sold a few guns to the anti-Franco forces, they were suddenly the organs of Russian Imperialism? The really loose way in which you define Imperialism, would make it possible for someone to, for instance, paint the ICC as an organ of "Brazilian Imperialism" because a few of your "sympathisers" like their football team....and no doubt buy their shirts. Honestly, I think you'd be better served to ditch this particular interpretation.

However, this meeting does look interesting....cause all the cool shit happens in London. Hey, I called an ICC event "cool shit", that&#39;s gotta&#39; be worth some Gold Stars....plus, I even quoted one of your articles favourably recently. Dear me, I think I&#39;ve got the syndrome. <_<

And, by the way, a while ago you had a meeting about the events in France. Is there any stuff on the internet about the results of this discourse?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jun 25 2006, 01:41 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jun 25 2006, 01:41 AM)
FinnMacCool
2) Don&#39;t disillusion people by condeming religion too much

Yeah. Because, of course, had the various anarchists not shot the Catholic fascists, then everything would have worked out just fine. Except the incy wincy teeny weeny detail that Catholic knuckleheads provided the base for Franco and company....and, of course, the other tiny detail that they aided and abetted the fricking fascists. [/b]
I realise you&#39;re talking about Spain, but just as for the sake of balance, it&#39;s worth mentioning that the priests in the Basque country didn&#39;t support the fascists and in fact support the quasi socialist Basque Republic.


Uh, "transformed into an inter-imperialist war". Fuey.

But, let me guess, cause Uncle Joe sold a few guns to the anti-Franco forces, they were suddenly the organs of Russian Imperialism? The really loose way in which you define Imperialism, would make it possible for someone to, for instance, paint the ICC as an organ of "Brazilian Imperialism" because a few of your "sympathisers" like their football team....and no doubt buy their shirts. Honestly, I think you&#39;d be better served to ditch this particular interpretation.


This is odd, because it&#39;s well known that the USSR did control the Republic&#39;s armed forces, even so far as to install commisssars and secret police.

And even more odd since you once defined Cuban aid to other countries as imperialist.

[FinnMacCool]

Yeah. Because, of course, had the various anarchists not shot the Catholic fascists, then everything would have worked out just fine. Except the incy wincy teeny weeny detail that Catholic knuckleheads provided the base for Franco and company....and, of course, the other tiny detail that they aided and abetted the fricking fascists.
I&#39;m not saying I disagree with you but its simply not very strategic thinking to go ahead and start pissing of a country which has many deep seated religious roots. There were other ways of dealing with the priests and it certainly did not have to end in their deaths.

And besides, not all religious groups were supportive of fascism.

[Alf]

Armchair Socialist: would you describe the Second World War as an inter-imperialist war?

And would you reject any idea that what happened in Spain was a step towards the world war?

I am glad you are interested in the meeting. How hard is it for you to travel to London?

We didn&#39;t succeed in recording the dicussions from the last London meeting for the internet, but we are making a more concerted effort with this forthcoming one. We are inviting people to make contributions on the threads, as you can see from the invitation. We have posted the invite on libcom (events and announcements) so you could do a post on that as well.

The reference to comrades who support Brazil caused a chuckle, but I think Uncle Joe&#39; support for the Republic was a bit more substantial than being entranced by Ronaldinho&#39;s smile.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by REPOMAN+--> (REPOMAN)And even more odd since you once defined Cuban aid to other countries as imperialist.[/b]

Uh, no. If I remember correctly, you&#39;re referring to a discussion where someone said "all countries have, at some point, had Imperial interests" and then someone else retorted that "Cuba hasn&#39;t". From memory, again, I recall pointing out that Cuban Aid to, perhaps, Angola, could be classified as an effort by the Cuban Administration to pursue its interests abroad. But, still, because the Cuban Administration had certain interests in Angola, doesn&#39;t make the Cuba an Imperialist country....unless one uses a rather loose definition of Imperialism. As is the case, incidentally, with both the ICC and, if memory serves me correctly, someone who was participating in the debate you mentioned.


Originally posted by FinnMacCool+--> (FinnMacCool)There were other ways of dealing with the priests and it certainly did not have to end in their deaths.[/b]

Other ways? Like what???

Come one now, how do you propose to deal with the Priests that were directly helping Franco and company?


Originally posted by Alf
Armchair Socialist: would you describe the Second World War as an inter-imperialist war?

Yes.


Originally posted by Alf
And would you reject any idea that what happened in Spain was a step towards the world war?

I&#39;m not, essentially, disputing that it was a "step". After all, the way Nazi Germany used Spain to fine tune its War Machine, is well documented. Rather, what I disputed, was your classification of the Spanish Civil War as an "inter-imperialist war".

You see, just because there is a link between the two, doesn&#39;t mean that said link is a directly causal one....like you are arguing. I mean, to use a football analogy here, just because that donkey of a ref sent of Deco tonight, doesn&#39;t mean that said ref is somehow linked with England. And, likewise, just because the Spanish Civil War presented certain opportunities and scenarios, doesn&#39;t mean that the nature of said War is the same as the nature of WWII.


Originally posted by Alf
I am glad you are interested in the meeting.

Honestly, I just need pictures for my Voodoo Doll. <_<


[email protected]
How hard is it for you to travel to London?

Well, it only takes a few hours, but it&#39;s more a question of cost than anything else. Certainly, within the next few months I&#39;ll be back in employment....and then, I&#39;ll likely try to come to something like this.


Alf
The reference to comrades who support Brazil caused a chuckle, but I think Uncle Joe&#39; support for the Republic was a bit more substantial than being entranced by Ronaldinho&#39;s smile.

<_<

Come on though, who&#39;s the ICC backing? France?

[FinnMacCool]

Other ways? Like what???

Come one now, how do you propose to deal with the Priests that were directly helping Franco and company?
YOu could&#39;ve exiled them. Jailed them. It&#39;s so easy to kill them. Could you not have been a bit more creative?

[Cult of Reason]

YOu could&#39;ve exiled them. Jailed them. It&#39;s so easy to kill them. Could you not have been a bit more creative?

In a revolutionary situation? I think that is one of the most impractical things I have ever heard. Exile them where? To the Nationalist side? :rolleyes:

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 09:59 AM


In a revolutionary situation? I think that is one of the most impractical things I have ever heard. Exile them where? To the Nationalist side? :rolleyes:
Why not? Their priests&#33; absolutely useless. Or you could&#39;ve pushed the problem on the communists or republicans or something. Or, if we had to, we could have killed them in a less fantastic manner.

[Cult of Reason]

Why not? Their priests&#33; absolutely useless.

They could have provided information to the other side. Think about it: they know their communities, they know the way around a village, a town. They can give names of militia members, and if any of their family are in Nationalist areas... Also, in the even of the Nationalists taking a village, if the priest was still alive he could point out those who are the most reolutionary etc..


Or you could&#39;ve pushed the problem on the communists or republicans or something.

And let them do our work for us and get the credit? No.


Or, if we had to, we could have killed them in a less fantastic manner.

That makes no sense: the more fantastic, the better (as long as it is quick. Firing squad is good). Priests were NOT popular and people would feel better. Besides, they are Fascists: they deserve anything they get.

[FinnMacCool]

They could have provided information to the other side. Think about it: they know their communities, they know the way around a village, a town. They can give names of militia members, and if any of their family are in Nationalist areas... Also, in the even of the Nationalists taking a village, if the priest was still alive he could point out those who are the most reolutionary etc..


Good point.