1934 Asturian rebellion

[Herman]

The worker's rebellion in Asturias was one of the best examples of how worker's from different trade unions, when united, can work together towards a common goal. It is also widely recognized that this was one of the best organized revolutions in Spain.

This particular revolution was a success, in that the worker's took power in Asturias and proclaimed the "Asturian Socialist Republic" and fought hard against reactionaries and landlords. Counter-revolution however took place and General Franco squashed the worker's revolution, killing around 1,500 worker's, also including rape, mutilation and torture to any captured worker or anyone related to what happened.

The question is, what do you think of this particular event? What lessons can we draw?

[Herman]

Sorry for the double post, but come on! No one knows anything about this? No opinions? Nothing?

[syndicat]

yeah, the CNT and UGT, anarchists, socialists, and communists, took control of the region thru a workers council for two weeks. it was part of what was supposed to be a national general strike. but for a variety of reasons, the general strike didn't come off in other areas, so they were isolated. it was sort of a prelude to the revolution of 1936. it was probably one of the main things that led the CNT, in May 1936 at their national congress, to call for a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. in that era the UGT and PSOE had a left wing that at least was rhetorically revolutionary, and the events of Oct 1934 showed that the rank and file in Asturias were willing to go that way.

this appears to be eons away from the reality of the PSOE and UGT in Spain today. the PSOE seems firmly in the grip of the pro-capitalist "Third Way" ideology, with its support for neo-liberalism, like a number of other social-democratic parties in Europe. and the UGT seems to act in many cases like a "company union" (as we say in the USA), virtually in the pocket of management. at the time of the recent layoffs at SEAT in Catalonia, there were union elections at SEAT, and i noticed that among the comments on kaosenlared, most of the commenters seemed to regard the UGT -- which is the largest union at SEAT -- as a management puppy dog.

but Spain isn't in a revolutionary period today as it was in the '30s.

[IronColumn]

The revolution in the Asturias represents the united front, not of organizations, but of working class organs of direct democracy. In this sense it is what should have happened in Spain in 1936, that is, the dissolution of the CNT/UGT and all the other parties into soviets or revolutionary juntas. It's also not coincidental that the extension of this movement would have been a revolutionary offensive by the working class, which was the step that the CNT, and indeed all the reformist organizations of workers, couldn't possibly take.

Mainly this event is important for understanding the reformism of all the organizations in Spain except the workers' councils.

[syndicat]

well, the CNT did in fact do this in Aragon. on the initiative of the CNT village unions and the CNT regional committee, they formed a federation of collectivized communities, held period congresses of delegates elected by the village assemblies, and elected a Regional Defense Council, which was the government of the region, in effect. This was formed in early Sept 1936 after the CNT, at its national plenary, decided on this strategy, to building worker congresses and defense juntas to replace the Republican state. In Aragon, they eventually got the UGT to go along, and join the Defense Council as a minority. The unions became, in effect, mass political caucuses within the mass democratic institutions.

If you read Abel Paz's biography of Durruti, there are excerpts from a letter by Durruti in which he viewed the formation of these structures in the regions where the CNT was dominant as a strategy for forcing the hand of the leftwing of the UGT/PSOE to go along throughout Spain.

According to Cesar Lorenzo, this program was adopted by the national CNT in early Sept 1936 due mainly to the pressure of the big unions in Catalonia. However, the CNT of Catalonia was apparently internally divided between the revolutionaries and the moderates ("reformists", I.C. would say). a few weeks later, on Sept 26, CNT of Catalonia flipflopped and joined the Generalitat government, completely undermining the strategy Durruti referred to.

The supporters of the worker congress/Defense Junta strategy didn't give up tho. The managing editor of Solidaridad Obrera, Liberto Callejas and a number of the paper's writers, including Jaime Balius, continued to beat the drum for the worker congress/defense council program, until Nov 1936 when the regional committee fired them. A few months later, Callejas and Balius helped organize Friends of Durruti to continue to push for the revolutionary program within the CNT.

to refer to the CNT as a "reformist organization" is simplistic but typical ultraleft one-dimensional thinking.

[Herman]

this appears to be eons away from the reality of the PSOE and UGT in Spain today. the PSOE seems firmly in the grip of the pro-capitalist "Third Way" ideology, with its support for neo-liberalism, like a number of other social-democratic parties in Europe.

This is correct, though within the party we have the most leftist and radical current called Izquierda Socialista, which is formed by democratic socialists and marxists (the same applies to many other social-democratic parties, but the difference is that in our party there are still many radicals from before Felipe Gonzalez).


and the UGT seems to act in many cases like a "company union" (as we say in the USA), virtually in the pocket of management. at the time of the recent layoffs at SEAT in Catalonia, there were union elections at SEAT, and i noticed that among the comments on kaosenlared, most of the commenters seemed to regard the UGT -- which is the largest union at SEAT -- as a management puppy dog.

Very true, and a good example was when the airport worker's in Barcelona went on strike, while their trade union (I believe it was UGT, but it could be another one... it doesn't matter though) actually told the bureaucrats to not give in to the worker's demands.

But going back on-topic, I believe that Asturias shows that it is very possible to have a worker's union and alliance between different trade unions and even parties! All it needs is willingness (and this was especially true for the CNT in Asturias who were more willing to make pacts with other trade unions).

[IronColumn]

Keep in mind that the FAI/Durruti Column elements only did that (create a Council of Aragon) in the half-province area where it was pretty much in military control of. Putting the entire revolution in the hands of the workers, where there wouldn't be this guarantee of nominal CNT control, was something that the organization had already demonstrated it wouldn't do (in Asturias for example). I have read Paz's book, and Durruti had a number of great plans that never came off, like robbing the Madrid bank, that would have been revolutionary which were thwarted by his own organization.

You also note that our future Amigos de Durruti were expelled from the CNT newspaper offices. Why would a revolutionary organization expel the most serious and dedicated revolutionaries from its ranks? I don't think one would, but this presupposes a revolutionary CNT. The perspectives of the Amigos to recapture the CNT is one that is often encountered by those not wanting to leave an organization they have worked so hard to build: it's about the same as how Luxemburg and her friends spent years in the SPD after it voted for war credits.

Finally, Lister crushed these collectives. The people in Aragon were fighting, but the CNT-FAI couldn't even muster a sympathy strike in Barcelona, let alone an insurrection, to save them against clear Stalinist reaction? This does not strike me as moderate, this strikes me as reformism. And that is in the most basic sense of not wanting to defend or make a revolution, and instead fluttering off a few newspaper appeals and complaints to a capitalist government.

[syndicat]

IC, the problem with ultraleftism is that it is completely irrelevant in that it has no connection with human reality. It is based on abstract ideology, nothing more. Your "anarchism" isn't anything real but a set of abstract propositions in your head. without the CNT mass movement, there wouldn't have been a libertarian revolution in Spain. you've not suggested in what other way the revolution could have succeeded. to say that the revolutionaries in it were right but their organization didn't live up to what they wanted is useless. it's useless because the working class, for its liberation, does in fact require a mass movement on the order of magnitude of the CNT, and roughly organized in the way the CNT was, and there are not asbolute guarantees that they will succeed. Just saying, well, they should have been true to "anarchism" is woefully inadequate. for one thing, "anarchism" is a word that has no clear meaning. it's been used to mean too many contradictory things. it's just an empty buzzword.

[IronColumn]

The idea of "Anarchism" as I understand it is not in my head but in the really existing social conditions. The real material fact of workers' councils appearing throughout Spain, and their strangulation by the capitalist popular front, and the fact that a group was calling for "All power to the councils", were real events. It is also undeniably real that the CNT-FAI was not one of those calling for all power to these organs of direct class rule. If councils had never appeared in human history your criticism would be justified; however I think your position looks about as idealistic as mine, since there are none of these massive libertarian organizations you think are necessary in the world today and they have only been involved majorly in one revolution. Whereas councils have sprung up in every revolution as sources of worker power.

I think history shows that one need not have a massive organization to attempt a revolution. The Russians had no massive horizontal worker organizations like the CNT, neither did the Hungarians or East Germans in the 1950's, or the Portuguese or Iranians in the 1970's. In truth I think it's more likely to have a largely spontaneous revolution with workers' councils. I certainly don't see any of the CNT-AIT sections growing to one million people again, much as I would like it. I don't think the IWW will ever again reach 100,000. Do you?

I agree with your point about Anarchism being diffuse, however the basic meaning of "Anarchist" I think technically, is namely those that split from the IWMA and were affiliated with the Alliance for Socialist Democracy. They refused to vote, were quite adamant about smashing the State, etc. At any rate this was what I meant when I said that the term "Anarchist" in FAI had no continuity with anything that Anarchism had once represented.

Finally it just seems like you've extrapolated from one specific historical instance and applied it as a revolutionary template everywhere. You've explained its failure by extenuating circumstances, when really these are only the kind of events we can expect to happen in any revolution (international invasion, fake bourgeois allies, leninism, moderates, etc.). This is exactly like the Bolshevik supporters who mechanically apply the "lessons of October" to every revolution and who explain away the failure of that revolution through equally extenuating circumstances.