[STUDY GROUP] "towards A Fresh Revolution"

[rebelworker]

So although the piece is fairly short, i though it would be a good idea to split it into two sections to better facilitate more focused discussion.

I figure the First section, which we can start discussing Friday FEB 23rd:
will include everything covering the history segment of the document.

When we are done that we can move on to the final section of the text containing the actual proposals of the Friends of Durruti Group, called OUR POSITION.

I think we should not discuss the forwards included in the online link I posted in the poll, that is only discuss the actually original text as it was published in 1938.

Unless there are any real objections i figure this is the best way to go.

[JKP]

I actually posted this a while back before but no one even replied:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...wtopic=44529&hl (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44529&hl)

Maybe the thread topic wasn't the most relevant one.

[rebelworker]

I think the text poses some extreemly important organisational and political questions.

But the Friends of Durruti group and their position is a little unknown.

Hopefully the study group will help to educate people about this important junction in the Spoanish revolution and also clairify important historical failings of anarchism that have been adressed within the anarchist movement.

[The Grey Blur]

Can we begin discussing this now?

I have found it a very interesting pamphlet to read, and I'm nearly done.


Originally posted by friendsofdurruti
We would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise
I liked that

[rebelworker]

I wanted to give it a little bit of time before we start to discuss it because i didnt want people who havnt finished yet to get left behind and miss some of the discussion.

I mean if you really want to start now, its not the end of the world but it would be cool if you could wait another three- four days.

Thanx

PS glad your enjoying it, in my opinon they defentily represent on of the most practical and effective moments of anarchisms history.

[The Grey Blur]

Sure I'll wait, I exaggerated a bit in that I'm only halfway thru but it's quite an addictive read. I have a large work load though so I shall see when I have the time to finish it, 3 or 4 days should be grand.

[Raúl Duke]

Could someone post an online txt link of the book/pamphlet to be discussed?

I would appreciate it :)

[Janus]

Could someone post an online txt link of the book/pamphlet to be discussed?

Towards a Fresh Revolution (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=938)

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:36 pm
Could someone post an online txt link of the book/pamphlet to be discussed?

I would appreciate it :)
I already posted it?

[rebelworker]

Let the discussion begin!

I unfortunately cant join yall till tommorrow....

[SPK]

TAFR:
“What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.” (Page 7)

The Friends of Durutti spend a lot of space in this pamphlet denouncing the bourgeoisie, the imperialists in France and Britain, the German and Italian occupiers, the communists, the socialists, and so on. Yes, those are the problems that defined the overall context in Spain. But the quote above poses the truly central question for the Friends: what of the anarchists there? Anarchism as a political line has to be able to deal with that given, existing, historical context: it cannot wish for a different, simpler, or more convenient situation that seems more compatible with its perspective and approach. The ruling class, neocolonialism, the treachery of Stalinism, et al weren’t anything new, and militants had decades (prior to 1936) during which they could have struggled over approaches to these problems and planned for those difficulties that were sure to arise during a revolutionary rupture and process. Other difficulties are not so clear – we don’t have a crystal ball to see into the future – but militants should have at least done some hypothetical, speculative thinking to plan for the different possibilities. And to ensure that they could, during a revolution, act in accordance with basic, core anarchist principles. That would be one of the most basic, minimal tests required of a political ideology to determine whether or not it was viable and engaged with the real world.

This doesn’t seem to have happened, and it led to anarchists in Spain to violate those core ideals:
- Anarchists oppose the state. However, anarchists from the CNT / FAI became ministers in the republican government.
- Anarchists believe in the direct, democratic, grassroots control of their organizations. However, the CNT / FAI leadership routinely acted in a commandist fashion (for example, by ordering their base to abandon armed resistance during the 1937 Barcelona uprising), and the base anarchist membership followed those orders.
- Anarchists reject the idea of transition phases from bourgeois democracy to socialism or from socialism to communism. However, it is indisputable that a significant proportion, perhaps a majority, of anarchists actively supported -- on a day-to-day basis in the trenches and on the front lines -- the anti-fascist approach of the republic. If they hadn’t, they would have simply gone home.
- And so on.

I really don’t get how anarchists in Spain so quickly and so effortlessly lapsed back into the old, standard political modes. This contradiction is very sharp and is one of the most striking characteristics of the Spanish revolution. The Friends don’t really address this question in any in-depth way. They had recommendations for the immediate future, but that comes in the next section.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:45 pm
Anarchism as a political line has to be able to deal with that given, existing, historical context: it cannot wish for a different, simpler, or more convenient situation that seems more compatible with its perspective and approach. The ruling class, neocolonialism, the treachery of Stalinism, et al weren’t anything new, and militants had decades (prior to 1936) during which they could have struggled over approaches to these problems and planned for those difficulties that were sure to arise during a revolutionary rupture and process.
I think the Friends of Durruti knew this; in fact they make the same point themselves against the CNT leaders. They write: "The CNT did not know how to live up to its role. It did not want to push ahead with the revolution with all its consequences. They were frightened by the foreign fleets, claiming that Barcelona would come under fire from ships of the English fleet. Has any revolution ever been made without
having to overcome countless difficulties? Is there any revolution in the world, of the advanced type, that has been able to avert foreign intervention?"

A little after the bit you quote.

The thing that caught them by surprise was the treachery of the CNT leadership. It's sorta like the situation of revolutionary Marxists during WWI, shortly after the final betrayal by the Second International: even those who knew the social-democratic leaders were rotten were not well-prepared to deal with it.

They had to start trying to pull together the revolutionary forces in the middle of the crisis. Difficult to do that and gain the strength to affect events - in time.


However, the CNT / FAI leadership routinely acted in a commandist fashion (for example, by ordering their base to abandon armed resistance during the 1937 Barcelona uprising), and the base anarchist membership followed those orders.

Actually, I'm not sure the last part is always true. It's true the CNT/FAI leadership was able to scuttle the 1937 uprising - but not instantly; workers remaining on the barricades for days after the leaders began calling them on to leave.

Felix Morrow argued that it was the POUM leadership which turned the scales for capitulation. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch10.htm) Seeming more "left" than the CNT leaders, they were more dangerous betrayers.

MOrrow also writes here about other attempts by the CNT ranks to overcome the leaders' betrayals. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch10.htm)

This kind of thing is pretty common in revolutionary situations, where militant workers are trying to push past a reformist misleadership. It's just that the reformist misleadership was much better organized, and more centrally organized. Which is inevitable if a revolutionary party isn't built up ahead of time.

I'm not sure that the CNT was ever democratically organized; I'd guess it developed a bureaucracy like most unions. The FAI was an afterthought compared to the CNT, and probably one of the bureaucracy's instruments for maintaining control of the CNT.

If there's some new revelation here, it's probably just that anarchist organizations have all the same problems as others. Declaring yourself anti-authoritarian, for grassroots democracy, etc., does not by itself resolve anything - there are no magic bullets that insure rank-and-file control. It's a constant struggle.


Anarchists reject the idea of transition phases from bourgeois democracy to socialism or from socialism to communism.

Not sure if that's true of many anarchists on this board - a lot seem to have accepted the Menshevik/Stalinist "stages of revolution" concept by way of Redstar. But the Friends of Durruti correctly point out: "The memory of the political conditions which capitalism caused in the XVllth XVlllth and XlXth centuries has grown vague. What is more petit bourgeois democratic illusions on what earlier bids-like 1873, or April-brought about have been shattered. After February the only type of revolution
possible in Spain was social revolution-such as that which blazed with such splendour in July." and: "Capitalism, having extinguished feudalism in its own territory, finds itself in the incongruous position of having to bolster feudal regimes in the countries it seeks to exploit."

1873 and April apparently refer to past bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Spain.


However, it is indisputable that a significant proportion, perhaps a majority, of anarchists actively supported -- on a day-to-day basis in the trenches and on the front lines -- the anti-fascist approach of the republic. If they hadn’t, they would have simply gone home.

Um, what? Going home would certainly not represent a better, more revolutionary approach! It would represent a worse approach - similar to the Stalinists "they're all equally bad" early-1930s line which let Hitler take power almost without firing a shot.

No, the problem is not "anti-fascism" - it is a reformist approach to fighting fascism. The challenge is not to "go home" or stand aside from the fight against Franco, but to lcarry forward the basically revolutionary mobilization against Franco to overthrow the "republican" capitalists who are sabotaging the fight. On this, the Friends of Durruti are right too. It would be hard to be wrong on this during the events, on the scene.


I really don’t get how anarchists in Spain so quickly and so effortlessly lapsed back into the old, standard political modes.

One, is "lapsed back" accurate? That is, was the CNT a revolutionary organization that suddenly "lapsed" into reformism? I doubt it, and the Friends of Durruti don't really seem to think so either. As you quote: "What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory."

The CNT leadership were union bureaucrats, and acted like most union bureaucrats. Their ideological label was different from social-democratic or Stalinist bureaucrats, but their social basis and material interests were the same. So it acted much the same. If it was more "left" in its reformism, this was probably more because of pressure from below than because of differences in the leaders themselves. Some Spanish Socialist Party and UGT leaders also put on a left mask - Caballero for example. And the POUM, of course, put on more of a left mask than the CNT.

Otherwise, I think there are some issues involving anarchism generally, but maybe the next section would be a better place to look at those.

****

One thing in the article seems, maybe, problematic: the assertion that Spain is a colony, economically, and that the working class needs to fight for Spain's independence from foreign capital. I see that there's a basis for this assertion: that Spain was mostly agricultural, and much less developed than other West European countries. Also that a lot of the economy was foreign-owned.

But is this sufficient to treat Spain as a "colony", and adopt a political approach of fighting for Spain's "independence from foreign capital"?

***

Does anyone know if this article is available in the original Spanish? Might be useful if there are any questions of interpretation.

[rebelworker]

A couple of thoughts...

As for the reformist turn of the CNT leadership, Severin pretty accuratly sribes the situation. From what I have read on the CNT, much of the leadership, although there were some exceptions, were in the CNT because it was the largest most combatative union, not because it was anarchist.

Most of them called themselves anarchists, but there attachment to anarchism was much more a liberal idealism, they saw anarchism as something not atainable in their lifetimes, it was a far off utopia.

Any revolutionary positions taken by the union was the result of grassroots pressure. The FAI although largely an intellectual organisation, which by the time of the revolution had ceased to have any serrious potential as a revolutionary organisation capable of driving the struggle, did tie togeather large networks of very dedicated anachist union militants, so there was a constant pressure on the leadership. It was more a radical caucus within the un ion than anything else. The FoD new this and were attempting to build, far too late, a democratic, wholly anarchist, revolutionary organisation capable of giving the much needed leadership alternative to the burocrats and politicians largely at the helm of the CNT.

[Enragé]

i think the question is, how then did the CNT indeed come to be such an organisation, even though clearly at its inception it was meant to be anarchist/anarchosyndicalist?

[The Grey Blur]

i think the question is, how then did the CNT indeed come to be such an organisation, even though clearly at its inception it was meant to be anarchist/anarchosyndicalist?
I think through the same problems that affect many unions - that their leadership occupied a priveliged position in relation to the rank and file and this developed into a compromise attitude. But a reformist tendancy was always present within the CNT even from it's inception as can be seen from a large portion of this current leaving in 1932 to openly pursue class collaboralism with the "Syndicalist Party".

The article itself I found extremely interesting, as well as a useful historical description of the revolution and counter-revolution in Spain. I stole one extremely inspirational quote from Durruti for my sig. I couldn't find a single sentence I disagreed with, something which can't be said of certain modern anarchist currents such as those who reject violence, the class struggle or fudge other basic issues. Perhaps this reflects the difference in class make-up between the Spanish anarchists and "Anarchist" groups today such as, say, RAAN.

"All revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise" - I think this sentence should be branded onto the foreheads of those "leftist" idiots who reject violence through some moral hang-up. And this, written by working-class Anarchists, reflects the fact that harsh class war and suppression of counter-revolutionaries (whatever their rhetoric or personal political label) is not a Leninist testament - but a working-class one.

Also, their stance on alliance with other unions is correct: "At present, an agreement with the revolutionary wing of the UGT by the CNT is a feasible prospect." If this had demand had been taken earlier we could have avoided the defeats and betrayals that sectarianism from above lead the Spanish socialists to make. There are examples of UGT miners going on strike and the CNT workers with other mine-related jobs ignoring it, leading to the defeat of first the one, then the other, militant worker movement, when unity would have lead to victory for both.

What is extremely revealing of the political direction of the Friends of Durruti, namely, a Bolshevik one ( :o shock horror!), is their use of the exact same phrasing as Lenin - "What Is To Be Done?" They had seen and understood the problem of a mass movement without a revolutionary leadership. Too late though to create a truly revolutionary tendency which could have united militant workers of all left political shades and pushed for the Fresh Revolution demanded in this pamphlet.

Their line on national independence is also correct I feel and again something which reflects the mass (in regards to echoing the feelings of the majority of the CNT rank-and-file) and class nature of the Friends of Durruti movement, not surrendering to abstract theoretical contributions with no practical worth.

"Nor should the business about religion come up for further discussion. The people have already delivered its final verdict on that issue. Nonetheless, a tendency aimed at re-opening the churches, has emerged. Implementation of the law of freedom of worship and celebration of masses lead us to the conclusion that those in Government have forgotten the days of the great burnings."

Could someone give a bit more background on this? Specifically the law mentioned and who was behind it.

Their key points on winning the war against Franco are all correct as well, very much reminisecent of the Soviet organisation of the Red Army (proleterianisation, appeal to class alles, rationing), and we all know how successful that revolutionary army was. Many of their practical proposals were basic demands and slogans and very much achievable given the level of class consciousness existing within the Spanish proleteriat.

All I can say on finishing the pamphelt is that Los Amigos De Durruti were an inspiring group. I was very pleased with how they mentioned along with the abduction and execution of their own revolutionary members by the Stalinists that they mentioned Andres Nin, recognising the loss of a truly valuable working-class militant without regard to petty labels. Los Amigos and the POUM gave a political direction which was neccessary in Spain but too late. If earlier and better organised we could have seen the first defeat of fascism, leading onwards to Germany and Italy and culminating in a Red Europe. Viva. :hammer:

BTW - I don't want to turn this into yet another Anarchist vs Leninist debate, as I feel that my points are more factual than critical and point out some of the errors of certain sections of the modern day "Anarchist" movement in comparance to a mass working-class anarchist movement such as one which the FoD were part of. It's also a very small part of the overall idea that I took from this pamphlet, thanks.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 25, 2007 05:30 pm


Also, their stance on alliance with other unions is correct: "At present, an agreement with the revolutionary wing of the UGT by the CNT is a feasible prospect." If this had demand had been taken earlier we could have avoided the defeats and betrayals that sectarianism from above lead the Spanish socialists to make. There are examples of UGT miners going on strike and the CNT workers with other mine-related jobs ignoring it, leading to the defeat of first the one, then the other, militant worker movement, when unity would have lead to victory for both.

The UGT had stabbed the CNT in the back a number of times. Check out Bookchins, The Spanish Anarchists The Heroic Years 868-1936, it goes into detail about most of those situations.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:30 pm
The UGT had stabbed the CNT in the back a number of times. Check out Bookchins, The Spanish Anarchists The Heroic Years 868-1936, it goes into detail about most of those situations.
In any situation with two reformist-led organizations, both sides are going to be able to go back and forth like this. The German Social-Democrats and Stalinists did so similarly, for example.

The betrayals and failures of class solidarity on one side do not justify the same on the other. On the contrary, if you're going to overcome that history, somebody has to make the first move.

[JKP]

I read this a year ago, so apologies if any details are incorrect.


This doesn’t seem to have happened, and it led to anarchists in Spain to violate those core ideals:
- Anarchists oppose the state. However, anarchists from the CNT / FAI became ministers in the republican government.
- Anarchists believe in the direct, democratic, grassroots control of their organizations. However, the CNT / FAI leadership routinely acted in a commandist fashion (for example, by ordering their base to abandon armed resistance during the 1937 Barcelona uprising), and the base anarchist membership followed those orders.
- Anarchists reject the idea of transition phases from bourgeois democracy to socialism or from socialism to communism. However, it is indisputable that a significant proportion, perhaps a majority, of anarchists actively supported -- on a day-to-day basis in the trenches and on the front lines -- the anti-fascist approach of the republic. If they hadn’t, they would have simply gone home.
- And so on.

A distinction should be made between the CNT leadership and the Anarchist rank and file. As said in TAFR, the CNT never, I repeat never gave the order to collectivize the workplaces, nor did they give the order to attack the moored ships in the harbor and take their weapons so as to fight the fascists, and neither did they order the creation of workplace councils, or the militias, or the destruction of the churches; this all happened spontaneously, as apparently the working class perceived it to be in their class interest to do so. Furthermore, it also interesting that this Anarchist type of organization happened irrespective of initial ideology; none of the other unions and parties such as the POUM, UGT, and PCE gave out similar orders, yet this was still happening among their ranks.




Actually, I'm not sure the last part is always true. It's true the CNT/FAI leadership was able to scuttle the 1937 uprising - but not instantly; workers remaining on the barricades for days after the leaders began calling them on to leave.

Felix Morrow argued that it was the POUM leadership which turned the scales for capitulation. Seeming more "left" than the CNT leaders, they were more dangerous betrayers.

MOrrow also writes here about other attempts by the CNT ranks to overcome the leaders' betrayals.

This kind of thing is pretty common in revolutionary situations, where militant workers are trying to push past a reformist misleadership.

Keeping in mind that this was endemic to all of the originations involved to varying degrees, I agree 100%.


It's just that the reformist misleadership was much better organized, and more centrally organized. Which is inevitable if a revolutionary party isn't built up ahead of time.

Without letting this digress into Leninism VS Anarchism, I should say that the FOD (and myself included) would argue that said central and hierarchal organization is a symptom that something went wrong in the process.


I'm not sure that the CNT was ever democratically organized; I'd guess it developed a bureaucracy like most unions. The FAI was an afterthought compared to the CNT, and probably one of the bureaucracy's instruments for maintaining control of the CNT.

The FAI was "tethered" to the CNT like a ball and chain to preserve anarchist principles; it obviously wasn't enough.



If there's some new revelation here, it's probably just that anarchist organizations have all the same problems as others. Declaring yourself anti-authoritarian, for grassroots democracy, etc., does not by itself resolve anything - there are no magic bullets that insure rank-and-file control. It's a constant struggle.

Agreed. Even though steps were taken such as attaching the FAI, combating reformism is an enormous struggle that I dare say no major organization(of any shade) past or present has successfully defeated. While every type of organization is subject to reformism, I would add however, that the type of Organizational structure chosen can make this type of struggle easier or harder for the rank and file to accomplish.


Anarchists reject the idea of transition phases from bourgeois democracy to socialism or from socialism to communism.

Not sure if that's true of many anarchists on this board - a lot seem to have accepted the Menshevik/Stalinist "stages of revolution" concept by way of Redstar.

Collectivism?


No, the problem is not "anti-fascism" - it is a reformist approach to fighting fascism. The challenge is not to "go home" or stand aside from the fight against Franco, but to lcarry forward the basically revolutionary mobilization against Franco to overthrow the "republican" capitalists who are sabotaging the fight. On this, the Friends of Durruti are right too. It would be hard to be wrong on this during the events, on the scene.

Agreed, but who carries forward the revolutionary struggle is something that Anarchists find important.

And for the sake of on topic discussion, we'll just leave it at that.


Most of them called themselves anarchists, but there attachment to anarchism was much more a liberal idealism, they saw anarchism as something not atainable in their lifetimes, it was a far off utopia.

What is your basis for this? From what I've read, the 4 ministers tendency for collaboration with the state and foreign governments was their primary concern.


The article itself I found extremely interesting, as well as a useful historical description of the revolution and counter-revolution in Spain. I stole one extremely inspirational quote from Durruti for my sig. I couldn't find a single sentence I disagreed with, something which can't be said of certain modern anarchist currents such as those who reject violence, the class struggle or fudge other basic issues. Perhaps this reflects the difference in class make-up between the Spanish anarchists and "Anarchist" groups today such as, say, RAAN.

"All revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise" - I think this sentence should be branded onto the foreheads of those "leftist" idiots who reject violence through some moral hang-up. And this, written by working-class Anarchists, reflects the fact that harsh class war and suppression of counter-revolutionaries (whatever their rhetoric or personal political label) is not a Leninist testament - but a working-class one.

Agreed 100 percent. Although keep in mind that in the case of RAAN, it is only a tiny fraction of the Anarchist movement, and not representative of Anarchists at large.


They had seen and understood the problem of a mass movement without a revolutionary leadership. Too late though to create a truly revolutionary tendency which could have united militant workers of all left political shades and pushed for the Fresh Revolution demanded in this pamphlet.

No Anarchist would deny the need for revolutionary organization, what we are contentious about is what form it takes. Furthermore, the communist party in the republic completely failed to take advantage of the revolutionary situation as well.

Once again, for the sake of the discussion, can we please all try very hard to avoid having this turn a Anarchist VS Leninist debate?


"Nor should the business about religion come up for further discussion. The people have already delivered its final verdict on that issue. Nonetheless, a tendency aimed at re-opening the churches, has emerged. Implementation of the law of freedom of worship and celebration of masses lead us to the conclusion that those in Government have forgotten the days of the great burnings."


Could someone give a bit more background on this? Specifically the law mentioned and who was behind it.

I believe it's referring to Juan Negrin:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPnegrin.htm

Particularly his thirteen-point program for full civil and political rights and freedom of religion. And also his idea to gain the support of western governments by announcing his plan to decollectivize industry.


Their key points on winning the war against Franco are all correct as well, very much reminisecent of the Soviet organisation of the Red Army...

Unfortunately they weren't quite specific enough on what they meant by a junta, and I think we can both agree that without further information it is somewhat imprudent to jump to comparisons with the RKKA (the militarization of the militias was something Anarchists fanatically opposed).


BTW - I don't want to turn this into yet another Anarchist vs Leninist debate, as I feel that my points are more factual than critical and point out some of the errors of certain sections of the modern day "Anarchist" movement in comparance to a mass working-class anarchist movement such as one which the FoD were part of. It's also a very small part of the overall idea that I took from this pamphlet, thanks.

Indeed many anarchists would be surprised if they read this. Particularly the lifestylists, greens, and especially the pacifists. How many leftists (of any shade) even have fired a gun?

Compare and contrast this to the workers and militias of Spain 1936. Workers proudly wearing wearing their overalls (not that the proletariat is limited to blue collar work or anything), and every man and women with a rifle slung over his or her shoulder.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:10 am

Anarchists reject the idea of transition phases from bourgeois democracy to socialism or from socialism to communism.

Not sure if that's true of many anarchists on this board - a lot seem to have accepted the Menshevik/Stalinist "stages of revolution" concept by way of Redstar.

Collectivism?
I was referring basically to this concept (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/QCR27.html#s2) - that in countries where the objective conditions aren't totally ripe for communism, the "national bourgeoisie" should/will take the lead.

As the FOD correctly point out, even in a less-developed country like Spain "the only revolution that's possible" is a worker-led revolution. The bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 19th century will not be repeated.

I wasn't saying the stagist concept is widespread among anarchists generally, just that you do see it promoted by some self-described anarchists on this board, probably due in part to Redstar's ex-Maoist influence.

[rebelworker]

I'm not sure that the CNT was ever democratically organized; I'd guess it developed a bureaucracy like most unions. The FAI was an afterthought compared to the CNT, and probably one of the bureaucracy's instruments for maintaining control of the CNT.

The FAI was "tethered" to the CNT like a ball and chain to preserve anarchist principles; it obviously wasn't enough.

The CNT actually was democratcally organised, and still is to this day, the FAI was set up by rank n file members to maintain an anarchist directions and democracy within the organisation, som ething they did with varying degrees of sucess considering the size of the union and the decades of organising and fighting under horrible conditions that the union was built under leading up to the revolution.

The problem i think is that
1) there were problems within the FAI so it had become nothing more than a propaghanda organ by the time of the civil war.

2) the CNT although democratically organised was massive (2 million members by 1936) with uneven levels of political understanding among the membership. The burocracy was much more responsive than many, but they were incredibly slow moving and there existed many political divisions there aswell.






Most of them called themselves anarchists, but there attachment to anarchism was much more a liberal idealism, they saw anarchism as something not atainable in their lifetimes, it was a far off utopia.

What is your basis for this? From what I've read, the 4 ministers tendency for collaboration with the state and foreign governments was their primary concern.


I read this in a book by stewart Christy on the history of the FAI. mabey not true but the book is pretty good.





They had seen and understood the problem of a mass movement without a revolutionary leadership. Too late though to create a truly revolutionary tendency which could have united militant workers of all left political shades and pushed for the Fresh Revolution demanded in this pamphlet.

No Anarchist would deny the need for revolutionary organization, what we are contentious about is what form it takes. Furthermore, the communist party in the republic completely failed to take advantage of the revolutionary situation as well.


Well i think this question is why I found reading this work so important, i think most North American Anarchist do not see the need for a revolutionary rganisation.

NEFAC is the only group of its kind on this continent, and although this is not true of anarchism in most of the rest of the world, the situation here is quite problematic.
For most anarchist a loose network is enought, many feel even that is unessesary.
The point is that despite the extreemly strong anarchsit movement in spain they were lacking in the right kind of organisation, the kind that would drive forward in a coordinated way at key points during the revolution. Many peoples fears of the failures of Bolshevism has lead to people having a general fear of strong organisation. The FoD were not bolsheviks in anarchist robes, but like the Workers Cause group a decade earlier they were trying to make anarchism more efficient workable. And that means serrious anarchist revolutionary organisations, unlike the networks and strictly propaganda collectives that make up the majority of anarchist organisation today.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Severian+February 26, 2007 12:08 am--> (Severian @ February 26, 2007 12:08 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 12:10 am

Anarchists reject the idea of transition phases from bourgeois democracy to socialism or from socialism to communism.

Not sure if that's true of many anarchists on this board - a lot seem to have accepted the Menshevik/Stalinist "stages of revolution" concept by way of Redstar.

Collectivism?
I was referring basically to this concept (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/QCR27.html#s2) - that in countries where the objective conditions aren't totally ripe for communism, the "national bourgeoisie" should/will take the lead.

As the FOD correctly point out, even in a less-developed country like Spain "the only revolution that's possible" is a worker-led revolution. The bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 19th century will not be repeated.

I wasn't saying the stagist concept is widespread among anarchists generally, just that you do see it promoted by some self-described anarchists on this board, probably due in part to Redstar's ex-Maoist influence. [/b]
I think they were only half right in a way.

Franco's alliance with the Catholic church and the aristocracy gave the fascist coup a distinctly feudalist character.

Capitalists even threw on overalls to disguise themselves until they could rise again.

To quote Orwell:



But there were several points that escaped general notice. To begin with,
Franco was not strictly comparable with Hitler or Mussolini. His rising was a
military mutiny backed up by the aristocracy and the Church, and in the main,
especially at the beginning, it was an attempt not so much to impose Fascism as
to restore feudalism. This meant that Franco had against him not only the
working class but also various sections of the liberal bourgeoisie--the very
people who are the supporters of Fascism when it appears in a more modern form.


Also I believed that things were as they appeared, that this was really a workers' State (sic) and that the entire bourgeoisie had either fled, been killed, or
voluntarily come over to the workers' side; I did not realize that great numbers
of well-to-do bourgeois were simply lying low and disguising themselves as
proletarians for the time being.


The working class believed in a revolution that had been begun but never
consolidated, and the bourgeoisie were scared and temporarily disguising
themselves as workers. In the first months of revolution there must have been
many thousands of people who deliberately put on overalls and shouted
revolutionary slogans as a way of saving their skins.

Of course however, this was never a feudalist "counterrevolution" in the strictest sense, but a reaction, and I'm getting the impression from Orwell that this was abandoned after the first several months.

However, as for capitalists trying to act like workers in order to save their skins, I think that may be something to watch out for in any future first world revolution.

[rebelworker]

So theres a good few people who expressed interest in the group who havnt piped up yet, just want to encourage people to put in their two cents, even if you consider yourself a bit of a beginner, heres the time to ask questions.

I specifically want to know what people thought about the "Our Position" section of the text.

[Severian]

Rebelworker, if you want to start discussion on the next section ("Our position"), maybe a new thread for that would be good? It'd call attention to it and there'd be no conflict if discussion on this section continued.


Originally posted by rebelworker+February 26, 2007 09:11 am--> (rebelworker @ February 26, 2007 09:11 am)The CNT actually was democratcally organised, and still is to this day, the FAI was set up by rank n file members to maintain an anarchist directions and democracy within the organisation[/b]
I gotta doubt that, since the leadership was able to sell out the ranks so dramatically and remain the leadership. As I pointed out earlier, it's not that the ranks agreed with the leaders' decisions - they stayed on the barricades for a couple days after - but the leaders won against the ranks eventually and the barricades were abandoned. Is that a democratic organization? (Morrow, linked earlier, gives other examples of conflicts between the CNT leaders and ranks.)

Additionally, there was little dissent in the CNT or FAI leadership from the course of support to the bourgeois government; dissent came from local organizations, the Libertarian Youth, and individuals who founded the FoDurruti. Since so much of this came from local organizations without central coordination, they were unable to put together a coherent push against the CNT leadership. And later the government was able to use its greater centralization against local anarchists to defeat them in detail (pick them off one area at a time.)

In contrast, after the February 1917 revolution, some leaders of the Bolshevik Party tried to sell out. Stalin and Kamenev specifically, imposed a policy of semi-support to the Provisional Government, despite dissent from below. But they weren't able to make it stick. It made a huge difference, of course, that Lenin and some other top leaders of the party were in tune with the ranks. But that's also part of having a relatively democratic organization, that leaders aren't totally at odds with what the ranks want and think. Its kinda interesting to note that more than once in 1917, Lenin threatened to resign from the Central Committe and take the fight openly to the ranks. If the Bolshevik party had been as undemocratic as the CNT, no October Revolution.

A lot of anarchist literature simply whitewashes the CNT and its role. And without evidence - it's just stated the organization is democratic, without looking at how it worked in practice. The FOD, in the heat of the struggle, couldn't content itself with that kind of whitewash. It describes how the ranks turned out to take control of Barcelona, how they sought to go beyond bourgeois limits: "In May the proletariat fought with what was self-evidently a class spirit. There could be no doubt that the working class wanted to radicalise the revolution." And how the CNT committees sabotaged the fight.

If you're gonna insist on describing an organization that acts that was as democratic, you gotta conclude that kind of democracy isn't enough to actually make the organization act as the ranks wish. There needs to be something more, to ensure the democratically made decisions are binding on its members and especially its leaders. Maybe this could be called....democratic.....um, something.....centralism?


JKP
I think they were only half right in a way.

Franco's alliance with the Catholic church and the aristocracy gave the fascist coup a distinctly feudalist character.

Even in countries where there's ten times as much feudalism,
that doesn't make the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie inclined to lead or support a revolution against it. Instead, they hid at first, and crept out to stab the workers in the back when they felt stronger. As Orwell describes.

****

One other interesting bit: the article insists that unions are "the only bodies that ought to survive a revolution headed by the workers." Now unions were the main mass organizations of the working class in Spain at the time; maybe there was the potential they could play the role of Soviets of Workers' Deputies, representing the working class as a whole and taking power out of the hands of the bosses. Maybe in some other situations as well.

But here's the thing: if they're the only organizations, necessarily they would have to take on a set of conflicting functions. You'll have the same problems as if a government takes on all of these functions.
1. The earliest function of unions, defending the immediate economic and workplace interests of the workers.
2. Owning and administering the means of production. Which creates a great temptation to neglect function #1 - would you want your manager to run your union?
3. General political representation. (Political, here, meaning overall and long-run interests, not just economic interests of a single workplace. ) Soviet-like functions.
4. Organization of armed force, war, repression of the internal counterrevolution. State-like functions.
5. Political education and propaganda; maintaining mass political involvement; discussing and making proposals on the big questions of overall political course. Party-like functions.

If all these functions are combined in one organization - no matter what its name or origin - you're going to have a lot of the same problems the USSR had due to the merging of party and state, and the subordination of the unions to both. The combined organization will grow a tremendous administrative apparatus, which will be very hard to combat with no other organization to check it.

Rather, it's necessary to separate at least some of these functions: party, state, unions - and allow more than one party. Some people on this board and elsewhere have also suggested that the means of production should not be run by the same organization that runs the means of repression. I can see their point - I don't like laying out blueprints of social organization in advance, but by the same token I don't have a blueprint that forbids that either.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Severian+March 01, 2007 07:54 pm--> (Severian @ March 01, 2007 07:54 pm)
[/b]
Severian, you make some very good points but I have a different take on a few things.





[email protected] 26, 2007 09:11 am
The CNT actually was democratcally organised, and still is to this day, the FAI was set up by rank n file members to maintain an anarchist directions and democracy within the organisation
I gotta doubt that, since the leadership was able to sell out the ranks so dramatically and remain the leadership. As I pointed out earlier, it's not that the ranks agreed with the leaders' decisions - they stayed on the barricades for a couple days after - but the leaders won against the ranks eventually and the barricades were abandoned. Is that a democratic organization? (Morrow, linked earlier, gives other examples of conflicts between the CNT leaders and ranks.)

Additionally, there was little dissent in the CNT or FAI leadership from the course of support to the bourgeois government; dissent came from local organizations, the Libertarian Youth, and individuals who founded the FoDurruti. Since so much of this came from local organizations without central coordination, they were unable to put together a coherent push against the CNT leadership. And later the government was able to use its greater centralization against local anarchists to defeat them in detail (pick them off one area at a time.)

I would defenitly agree that the burocracy made influencing the direction of the union difficlut, and there were some other important factors that lead to the problem of leadership.

Firstly, and here in lies on of my main criticisms of pure anarchist syndicalism, the CNT was a union, not a revolutionary organisation. It was huge and unwieldy and had a very large variation of politicall awarness of the membership. When they recruited, they did so to build the union and the workplace struggles. This gave them the largest and most combabtative membership of any union in spain, it did not nessesarily give them a revolutionary membership.

Second, and this partially relates to the huge size of the organisation, the revolutionary elements which could have influenced the leadership were not well organised. Most of the most revolutionary minded memebrs went to the front to fight, this made it very hard for the to participate in any meaningfull way in the running of the revolution. The libertarian youth did well, but they made up just a tiny section of the membership. Now for reasons I ca not fully go into now (mostly cause Im not finished reading the book about it) aparently the FAI had become an intelectual society by the time of the revolution, not capable of uniting the revolutionary elements of the rank and file.

So to sum it up, the CNT was democratic for a union, it was set up to make the kind of desicions you need to run a union, it was not a revolutionry organisation and could not be substituted for one. It is ture that the CNT was not directly democratic, it had varying layers of elected representatives, this it should not have been set up as a new governing body. I would also expect a revolutionary organisation to be set up differently.




In contrast, after the February 1917 revolution, some leaders of the Bolshevik Party tried to sell out. Stalin and Kamenev specifically, imposed a policy of semi-support to the Provisional Government, despite dissent from below. But they weren't able to make it stick. It made a huge difference, of course, that Lenin and some other top leaders of the party were in tune with the ranks. But that's also part of having a relatively democratic organization, that leaders aren't totally at odds with what the ranks want and think. Its kinda interesting to note that more than once in 1917, Lenin threatened to resign from the Central Committe and take the fight openly to the ranks. If the Bolshevik party had been as undemocratic as the CNT, no October Revolution.

Heres were obviously we are going to have some major disagreements ;)

I would argue that the Bolshevik party was just as burocratic as the CNT, the difference being, as a purely revolutionary organisation, its leadership was more revolutionary minded.

Now I would have to go digging through The Bolsheviks and Workers Control (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html) to give you some sources( i dont have the time right now), but when the rank and file of the bolshevik party tried to change the direction of the revolution on several occasions they were stifled by the entranched burocracy on sveral levels.

As with the CNT in a large organisation, weither explicitly revolutionary or not, where the positions allow it, a non worker, and I would argue inherently non revolutionary class of burocrats will develop.

In Russia, the revolution happened to the extent that the provisional govt was overthrown, something which at the very least in Catalionia, Zaragosa and Aragon, the CNT should have done, but i would argue that true workers control, that is goverment set up including the Factory councils was supressed by the burocrats and intelectuals in the Bolshevik party for the same reason the leadership of the CNT didnt for example tke the govt gold, because they were not directly part of the revolutionary workeing class, they had become isolated as a new burocratic class with different class interests.



A lot of anarchist literature simply whitewashes the CNT and its role. And without evidence - it's just stated the organization is democratic, without looking at how it worked in practice. The FOD, in the heat of the struggle, couldn't content itself with that kind of whitewash. It describes how the ranks turned out to take control of Barcelona, how they sought to go beyond bourgeois limits: "In May the proletariat fought with what was self-evidently a class spirit. There could be no doubt that the working class wanted to radicalise the revolution." And how the CNT committees sabotaged the fight.

I would agree, alot of Anarcho-syndicalists (and this is were i worry that people dont undrestantd the many important different camps within anarchism, as some dont understand the differences within marxism) have a pretty weak understanding on the role of organisation, and the failures of the CNT is major. As I said above, the CNT was a union, limited by the role and history of a union structure and culture, it was neither a revolutionary goverment, nor a revolutionary organisation (In my opinion, again many A-S, though not all, will disagree with me). In participating in the burocracy of the union, and the provisional Govt, much of the official leadership of the CNT had taken positions withing non revolutionary classes ( now i hope people are following what im getting at when i use the word class in this context).

Only a directly democratic workers govt, or a revolutionary organisation could have avoided the mistakes made by the CNT.


If you're gonna insist on describing an organization that acts that was as democratic, you gotta conclude that kind of democracy isn't enough to actually make the organization act as the ranks wish. There needs to be something more, to ensure the democratically made decisions are binding on its members and especially its leaders. Maybe this could be called....democratic.....um, something.....centralism?

This is were groups like the Friends of Durruti, the Workers Cause group (mostly formed around memebrs of the exiled Ukranian and Russian anarchist movements. the wrote Oragnisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists a decade before "towards a fresh revolution") and the modern Platformist and Especifist tendacies within anarchism shine through what I would say are some historical failings of anarchism.

We believe in a kind of organisation that matches alot of what the Bolsheviks were on about, but avoid the fundamental flaws of centralism of the party(which i think lead too much to repeat the problems of the current systems reliance on formal leadership as oposed to self activity) aswell as the practice of centralisation of power to the party (which leads to a non revolutionary class dictatorship).

[SPK]

In reading this section of TAFR, I’m tried to understand the specificity and particularity of the anarchist forces in Spain – the ones to which the FoD was responding. What was that anarchist political line? How was it applied in practice to the material, concrete, day-to-day questions and contradictions that arose during the revolution and during the struggle against Franco? Was that practice truly consistent with the principles and values underlying anarchism? What was its effectiveness in dealing with problems that arose? How was that practice actually different from the approaches being put forth by other ideological and organizational forces, such as the POUMistas, the Stalinists, the republicans, and so forth? My starting assumption – since I’m not that familiar with the Spanish civil war and have only recently begun studying it – is that there was some kind of positive specificity and particularity to those anarchist tendencies, given the degree to which groups like the CNT and FAI are upheld by contemporary anarchists and anti-authoritarians. What happened on the ground in Spain with anarchist groupings is more troubling than I had initially expected.

Anarchists oppose the state. Surely this is one of its most basic ideals, if not the central, defining one? Yet, anarchists became ministers in the republican government. Anarchists believe in the direct, democratic control of their organizations. Yet there was a profound contradiction between base and leadership in the anarchist movements. Anarchists support a prefigurative, transformative politics in the here-and-now: efforts to build the new, desired social, cultural, and economic structures must occur today, and not be endlessly deferred until a future, better world comes about. Yet this principle ultimately fell by the wayside during the thick of the battle against Franco.


Originally posted by Severian+February 24, 2007 09:59 pm--> (Severian @ February 24, 2007 09:59 pm)This kind of thing is pretty common in revolutionary situations, where militant workers are trying to push past a reformist misleadership. It's just that the reformist misleadership was much better organized, and more centrally organized. Which is inevitable if a revolutionary party isn't built up ahead of time.

I'm not sure that the CNT was ever democratically organized; I'd guess it developed a bureaucracy like most unions. The FAI was an afterthought compared to the CNT, and probably one of the bureaucracy's instruments for maintaining control of the CNT.

If there's some new revelation here, it's probably just that anarchist organizations have all the same problems as others. Declaring yourself anti-authoritarian, for grassroots democracy, etc., does not by itself resolve anything - there are no magic bullets that insure rank-and-file control. It's a constant struggle.[/b]
Severian has suggested that the split between a reformist misleadership and the base is common as well among other ideological trends, such as socialism or communism. That certainly seems to be the case, but if it is, then the specificity of the anarchist approach seems null and void. It would then be no more effective than the other strategies that have been tried out. The political line being followed is supposed to give guidance in overcoming precisely these types of contradictions (as well as other issues that have been mentioned, such as the most militant workers volunteering for the front lines and thereby being on the outside of the revolutionary process) – that’s what it is for, in the first place.


Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:59 pm

I really don’t get how anarchists in Spain so quickly and so effortlessly lapsed back into the old, standard political modes. One, is "lapsed back" accurate? That is, was the CNT a revolutionary organization that suddenly "lapsed" into reformism? I doubt it, and the Friends of Durruti don't really seem to think so either. As you quote: "What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory."
A truly democratic organization and decision-making process should also be key in overcoming those problems. The fact that there was not far more resistance by the CNT base to the commandism of its leadership – participation in the state apparatus, opposition to extending the gains of the 1936 revolutionary process, neutralizing the 1937 Barcelona rebellion, and so on – indicates to me that a healthy mass, democratic culture had not really been institutionalized in the CNT. The FoD in particular may have understood this, but they were a relatively small grouping, in the big picture. In the midst of the civil war, new attempts to build such a foundation would be almost impossible in the short-term, thus making central and hierarchical organization more likely – as JKP noted.


[email protected] 26, 2007 01:10 am
A distinction should be made between the CNT leadership and the Anarchist rank and file. As said in TAFR, the CNT never, I repeat never gave the order to collectivize the workplaces, nor did they give the order to attack the moored ships in the harbor and take their weapons so as to fight the fascists, and neither did they order the creation of workplace councils, or the militias, or the destruction of the churches; this all happened spontaneously, as apparently the working class perceived it to be in their class interest to do so. Furthermore, it also interesting that this Anarchist type of organization happened irrespective of initial ideology; none of the other unions and parties such as the POUM, UGT, and PCE gave out similar orders, yet this was still happening among their ranks.
If this is true, then – once again – what is the specificity and particularity of anarchist theory and practice? Why not just be a POUMista, a Stalinist, or a socialist? The effect, in all cases, was the same, in terms of supporting the seizure of workplaces, the destructions of churches, and so on.

[rebelworker]

In response, to start off Id have to say the main reason anarchists hold up the Spanih example is not for ideologial reasons, but for the simple fact that this was the example of the largest influence anarchism has ever exerted in one place.

As for the problems wit the spanish model, and the lack of debate about this within many parts of the anarchist movement, its clear that there is a real lack of political understanding and reflection among great numbers of people who consider themselves anarchists (though as someone who has spent time in both aarchist and Trotskyist camps, this is not something that is unique to anarchism, the rank and file and even some of the leadership of the trotskyist movement, is just as unclear, they just have more sofisticated dogma to fall back on).


Anarchists support a prefigurative, transformative politics in the here-and-now: efforts to build the new, desired social, cultural, and economic structures must occur today, and not be endlessly deferred until a future, better world comes about. Yet this principle ultimately fell by the wayside during the thick of the battle against Franco.

Well actually it didnt, huge parts of the countryside were run as collectives, this was done somewhat spontaniously by anarchist peasnants and their supporters in the small towns.

Same goes for the cities, 80% of the Barcelona working class were members of the CNT and they ran the economy accordingly, everything from large factories to small barbershops were run democratically by the workers.

Free non religeous schools were set up long before the revolution, these along with youth education and nature groups radically changed the way the childern of the working class were raised.

Nudism become a vogue among some steel workers (outside of work obviously), vegetarianism also became comon.

Hundreds of cultural journals and club were set up, bringing ideas from around the world to the previously illiterate poor.

Personal relationships were chlleneged, the Free women of Spain organised tens of thousands of working class women to engage in political and social debate, challenging their subserviant roles in highly patriarchal spain.

On the front line, the militias were run democratically with all officers elected, also women were alowed to participate, this was unique to the anarchist zones.

Spain saw the most immediate and radical social and political transformation the world has ever seen, anarchist ideas played a major role in this.


Anarchists believe in the direct, democratic control of their organizations. Yet there was a profound contradiction between base and leadership in the anarchist movements. sted that the split between a reformist misleadership and the base is common as well among other ideological trends, such as socialism or communism. That certainly seems to be the case, but if it is, then the specificity of the anarchist approach seems null and void. It would then be no more effective than the other strategies that have been tried out. The political line being followed is supposed to give guidance in overcoming precisely these types of contradictions (as well as other issues that have been mentioned, such as the most militant workers volunteering for the front lines and thereby being on the outside of the revolutionary process) – that’s what it is for, in the first place.

Yes there were major failures of ideology among the anarchist camp, specifically the capitulation of the CNT leadership to the govt. This, as recognised by the FoD, has alot to do with the limitations of Syndicalism and the union structure.

There were major differences between anarchist and bolshevik practice due to ideology.

Firstly, the Anarchist, although the majority, never tried to eliminte their oponenets.
This had the negative side effect that some of the leadership did not want to impose an anarchist dictatorship, the main difference between their position and that of the FoD and other modern anarchist communists.

The CNt could at any time have crushed the POUM or the Communist Party, they did not, although the Trotskyists and Stalinists had not allowed the anarchist the same courtousy just a few years earlier (ant the Spanish anarchist were aware of this).

I personally would have left to POUM alone as they were fellow working class militants and in no position to impose a party dictatorship over the spanish workers.

The Communist Party on the other hand I would have mopped up as they were clearly foreign agents of Stalins will, with the Spanish section of the party having by their own accounts a vast majority middle class and petty burgeoise membership.

Another major difference between Anrachist practice was the fact that the CNT leadership never tried to silence their own internal critics. Althugh near the end they were very critical of the FoD, the day to day political descisions of the revolution were left up to the rank and file of the Union, that is the working class themselves. Local democratic bodies were the center of the revolution leaving the initiative and the groeing pains to be figured out by the workers, as a revolution should be.



If this is true, then – once again – what is the specificity and particularity of anarchist theory and practice? Why not just be a POUMista, a Stalinist, or a socialist? The effect, in all cases, was the same, in terms of supporting the seizure of workplaces, the destructions of churches, and so on.

Again, the CNT militias were the onlyplace where women were alowed to participate in the war(outside of cooking and cleaning for the men or tending to their wounds).

Also as the rusian example showed, the Bolsevik model dose not allow the grassroots of the working class to run the transformation of society. Trotsky was a huge supporter of one man management in the economy, he literally wanted to impose a dictatorship in the factories. and in the few first years of the revolution Factory comitties in russia were totally subordinated to organs controled by the party, with independant political parties and organising banned. The anarchist allowed for a fully democratic revolution driven by the whole of the working class.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:42 am
In response, to start off Id have to say the main reason anarchists hold up the Spanih example is not for ideologial reasons, but for the simple fact that this was the example of the largest influence anarchism has ever exerted in one place.
I was going to say something similar. Of course this implies that most present-day anarchists would praise the CNT-FAI regardless of what they actually did.


(though as someone who has spent time in both aarchist and Trotskyist camps, this is not something that is unique to anarchism, the rank and file and even some of the leadership of the trotskyist movement, is just as unclear, they just have more sofisticated dogma to fall back on).

I take your point that dogma is also a substitute for thought. I'd comment that most of the old ideological labels tell you little about the political and class character of an organization or tendency today.


Well actually it didnt, huge parts of the countryside were run as collectives, this was done somewhat spontaniously by anarchist peasnants and their supporters in the small towns.

Yes, and Russian peasants seized the land, even while they continued to vote for Kerensky's party. This really doesn't contradict SPK's overall point about the lack of "specificity" of Spanish anarchism in the crisis. I.e. it acted a lot like other centrist tendencies.


On the front line, the militias were run democratically with all officers elected, also women were alowed to participate, this was unique to the anarchist zones.

Elected officers were certainly not unique. Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia on the POUM militia. I'd bet this also applies to militias set up by revolutionary-minded workers in the UGT and Socialist Party - see Morrow on the Asturian miners to get some overall picture.

The FoD comment that the UGT and "Socialism"in Catalonia was a pathetic thing of shopkeepers and whatnot - Orwell paints the same picture - but in the rest of Spain many revolutionary-minded workers belonged to it.


Spain saw the most immediate and radical social and political transformation the world has ever seen, anarchist ideas played a major role in this.

The most radical political transformation - while the capitalist class remained in power? I think you're still seeing things through rose-colored glasses.

The Friends of Durruti express a different opinion about what was unique about the Spanish revolution: "The demise of the July revolution has been rapid. None of the revolutions generally regarded as the archetypes of social revolution experienced such a giddy decline."


There were major differences between anarchist and bolshevik practice due to ideology.

It's misleading the way you keep holding up "Bolshevism" specifically as your antithesis, as if Marxism generally hadn't always opposed anarchism and its views on the state. In fact, Bolshevism introduced nothing new to Marxist ideology on the state, only on party organization.

Also, explaining differences in conduct simply as "due to ideology" is always kinda idealist. Note that I didn't try to explain the CNT's failures (starting in the first thread) as solely caused by anarchist ideology - its limitations were really a secondary cause.


Firstly, the Anarchist, although the majority, never tried to eliminte their oponenets.

Only the majority in Catalonia, not throughout Spain. To take power - which of course the CNT leadership didn't want to do - woulda taken an alliance with other revolutionary-minded workers, including in the POUM, the UGT, and the Socialist Party.


The CNt could at any time have crushed the POUM or the Communist Party, they did not, although the Trotskyists and Stalinists had not allowed the anarchist the same courtousy just a few years earlier (ant the Spanish anarchist were aware of this).

Odd you still feel the need to portray the CNT as morally superior. This is false for two reasons; one above, and two a misrepresentation of early Soviet actions. It's always claimed the Bolsheviks crushed anarchists indiscriminately - which ignores anarchists like Shatov and Zhuk who fought alongside the Bolsheviks in the Civil War. Only those who supported another side were suppressed.

Which is a good rule of thumb elsewhere as well. For example:

The Communist Party on the other hand I would have mopped up as they were clearly foreign agents of Stalins will,

An odd reason. And BTW, there was no "Communist Party" at the time, the Stalinists were a small faction within the Socialist Party.

Makes more sense to say: because they are Right Mensheviks who were actively engaging in an armed repression of the working class - their suppression woulda been simple self-defense.

Nobody with sense blames any government for putting down those who take up arms against it.


Another major difference between Anrachist practice was the fact that the CNT leadership never tried to silence their own internal critics.

True...this makes 'em more like left Social-Democrats than right. But it's just a division of labor: the left Social-Democrats paralyze the workers so the outright Noske and Scheidemann types can massacre 'em.


Althugh near the end they were very critical of the FoD, the day to day political descisions of the revolution were left up to the rank and file of the Union, that is the working class themselves. Local democratic bodies were the center of the revolution leaving the initiative and the groeing pains to be figured out by the workers, as a revolution should be.

Oh, come on. The anarchist ministers weren't making political decisions? The rank-and-file took a vote before the CNT committees told everyone to come off the barricades?

I'm sure the CNT leaders and their later whitewashers claim this - misleaders and bureaucrats always try to blame the rank and file for the consequences of their own betrayals.


Again, the CNT militias were the onlyplace where women were alowed to participate in the war(outside of cooking and cleaning for the men or tending to their wounds).

Again, I'd question that factually. In any case, the same was true of Stalin's Red Army, so by itself that's not very impressive.


Also as the rusian example showed, the Bolsevik model dose not allow the grassroots of the working class to run the transformation of society. Trotsky was a huge supporter of one man management in the economy, he literally wanted to impose a dictatorship in the factories. and in the few first years of the revolution Factory comitties in russia were totally subordinated to organs controled by the party, with independant political parties and organising banned. The anarchist allowed for a fully democratic revolution driven by the whole of the working class.

Yeah, if you get crushed rapidly, nobody has a chance to notice all your other faults or what you might have had to do to survive.

"Live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse."