The Failiure of the Left to combat Spanish Fascism

[Holden Caulfield]

i suppose we should kick this one off by first dicussing what we consider the left to be; such as the limits of it (anarchist, communsts, socialists, social democrats, etc) the unity (or lack of) and tactics of popular/united fronts and the role of the comintern/Stalinist policies.

thoughts?

[Melbourne Lefty]

What I want to know is how much of a role the spanish fash had.

I came across a falangist book from the 30s in my university library and they sounded far more radical and left leaning than the nazis.

Considering the regime that came about afterwards, how much influence did they really have?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Falangists in Spain had a considerable amount of influence in Spain. Before the war, they were a pretty radical force...they battled it out with leftists and Civil/Assault Guards on more than one occasion prior to the actual outbreak of war.

I dislike how many history texts mention the fight in Spain as strictly a battle between communism and fascism, though. I think that it's a bit simplistic...not only was the Republican side divided into factions, but the Nationalist side had it's own factions, as well: Falangists, Monarchists, Carlists, etc.

[jaffe]

I think the failure has a lot to do with comintern politics that denied weapons to anarchists and reversed collectivisations. I do think that CNT's leadership was also counterrevolutionairy.

[Tower of Bebel]

The people's front combines the interests of the workers with that of the capitalists. In a capitalist mode of production this only means the subordination of the working class to the bourgeoisie.

[Sprinkles]

i suppose we should kick this one off by first dicussing what we consider the left to be; such as the limits of it (anarchist, communsts, socialists, social democrats, etc) the unity (or lack of) and tactics of popular/united fronts and the role of the comintern/Stalinist policies.


The reformist unions and Social Democrats were reactionary and did not actively oppose fascism while Stalinism wasn't really relevant until the Soviet Union sold the military aid which the Republic came to depend on. If the anarchist unions had not openly opposed the initial fascist uprising and armed the workers it's likely that the Republican state would have been willing to negotiate and settle with the coup like it had done under the earlier dictatorship of Primo de Riviera.



thoughts?


I've quoted this interview in another thread before and think the Stalinist attitude to the Spanish Civil War is examplified in this interview, especially since it it's from the very year the Spanish Civil War erupted.



Stalin : If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

Stalin : You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society. But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm


During the period 1935 - 1939 the Soviet Union attempted a rapprochement and actively sought reconciliation with the democratic nations. Stalin goes out of his way to assure the bourgeoisie that he will not help the communists abroad who might try to overthrow them and that the bourgeoisie subsequently has nothing to fear from him. In order not to risk offending the Western bourgeoisie and endanger the possibility of an anti-fascist alliance with these democracies, the Stalinists claimed that in Spain there was only a civil war between democracy and fascism and that to work for a social revolution was "counter-revolutionary" since "the export of revolution is nonsense."



I think the failure has a lot to do with comintern politics that denied weapons to anarchists and reversed collectivisations.


Yeah, but even though Stalinist involvement in the Spanish Civil War would be extensive, it's noteworthy that the Spanish Republic only received the initial Soviet assistance once they had bought it at the cost of roughly 500 tons of gold (Oro de Moscú). But it was this costly military aid that provided the leverage that enabled Stalinism to become a major influence despite its initial numerical weakness. The subsequent hue and cry about the supposed violation of the "Non-Intervention Pact" by the Soviet Union was bourgeois hypocrisy since the fascists had a much better deal with the Axis and received far more support.



The people's front combines the interests of the workers with that of the capitalists. In a capitalist mode of production this only means the subordination of the working class to the bourgeoisie.


Yep, even the introduction of the International Brigades was an extension of the Popular Fronts, where communists defended the interests of the bourgeoisie. It is no surprise then that the Stalinists cynically manipulated what international revolutionary concern motivated these proletarian volunteers, to not only work together with Caballero and Negrín to rally to the bourgeoisie to protect the Republican State, but to actively supress any independent revolutiony groups like the POUM and the Catalonian and Aragón anarchists who might have threatened the hegemony of the Spanish bourgeoisie.

These reactionary actions are legitimized with the slogan "every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution." With this counter-revolutionary slogan Stalin makes the possibility of the revolution depend on the will and approval of the national bourgeoisie. This of course goes directly against Marxism since Marx himself had called for the workers of the world to unite and clearly pointed out that "the workers have no country."

Faced with the possible defeat of the Negrín regime which had been hailed by the Stalinists as the "Government of Victory" in 1938. As well as the failure of the emergence of an anti-fascist alliance with the Western bourgeoisie. Soviet foreign minister Litvinov told the British ambassador that a Franco regime was acceptable provided it did not become a German or Italian satellite and the Soviets began to abandon the Republic altogether.

As a last ditch effort to gain the support of the Western bourgeoisie; the Soviet representative on the Non-Intervention Commitee agreed to have a plan drawn up by which ordered the withdrawal of all foreign nationals from Spain and would grant belligerent rights to both sides, so they could both buy arms legally. Suffice to say the International Brigades were withdrawn even during the crucial battle of the Ebro while the fascists fighting for Franco's side remained. Within six months of Franco's victory, Stalin found a more sympathetic ear with Hitler.

Welp, guess that wraps up the Spanish Civil War for me. :D

[Red October]

I think a major factor, particularly in the collapse of the revolution, was the choice to make the fight against fascism into a conventional war instead of a mass revolution. There was no way the republican government, even with the assistance of the USSR, could defeat Franco's forces, backed up by Italian and German might, in a conventional war.

Along with that, the bureaucracy and opportunism of the CNT leadership really sunk the whole revolutionary process.

[Devrim]

I think that the important thing to remember is that the working class as a political force was destroyed by the Republic, and not by the fascists.

In this not only did the Communist Party play the counter revolutionary role that was expected of it, but also the CNT played its part.

Devrim

[redSHARP]

to stalin, it was politics as usual. he sent NKVD police and killed or exiled the FAI and CNT, plus the P.O.U.M (trotski). this in fighting ruined any cohesion

weapons were A+ but the tactics used were terrible. every major offensive action by the republic was a failure, while on defense it was fantastic.

next, the Nationalists out played the republican forces, politically and militarily.

it should be noted, that this is the one of the only wars were the losers were able to tell the story and have more sympathy.

[Random Precision]

Surprisingly enough I agree with Devrim and with Sprinkles. The only alternative to fascism in Spain was the social revolution, and this alternative was betrayed at one point or another by all those who claimed to lead or represent it: Largo Caballero, the "Spanish Lenin", the leadership of the CNT and POUM by buying into the bankrupt theory of the Popular Front.

[Melbourne Lefty]

The Falangists in Spain had a considerable amount of influence in Spain. Before the war, they were a pretty radical force...they battled it out with leftists and Civil/Assault Guards on more than one occasion prior to the actual outbreak of war.


Then what happened to them afterwards? Were they marginalised during the war the same sway some leftward factions were on the republican side?

[redSHARP]

the falangists were sidelined by Franco after the war; they kept being a thorn in his side

[Sprinkles]

Along with that, the bureaucracy and opportunism of the CNT leadership really sunk the whole revolutionary process.




In this not only did the Communist Party play the counter revolutionary role that was expected of it, but also the CNT played its part.


I'm curious what people think about the role the CNT played here.

Especially since the CNT's decision to take part in the Popular Front reflects the goal of anti-fascism to unite all opposition against fascism in a broad front of resistance. Even if this means the need to (temporarily) abandon the immediate goal of Social Revolution in order not to antagonize any possible allies, i.e. "First the war against Franco, then the Revolution."

Do most anti-fascists here approve of the CNT's Union Sacrée with the Spanish Republic since you think Franco's victory was due to a lack of unity caused by too much infighting?

Or do you share the criticism The Friends of Durruti put forth against the CNT? In which case, if the struggle against fascism can only be based on the realization of a proletarian revolution then why call it anti-fascism at all? Especially since the counter-revolutionary actions of the CNT were more of less the logical outcome of both anti-fascist ideology and unionism.



In the same way, the integration of Spanish anarchism into the state in 1936 is only surprising if one forgets its nature: the CNT was a union, an original union undoubtedly but a union nonetheless, and there is no such thing as an anti-union union. Function transforms the organ. Whatever its original ideals, every permanent organism for defending wage laborers as such becomes a mediator, and then a conciliator.

Even when it is in the hands of radicals, even when it is repressed, the institution is doomed to escape control of the base and to become a moderating instrument. Anarchist union though it may have been, the CNT was a union before it was anarchist. A world separated the rank-and-file from the leader seated at the bosses' table, but the CNT as an apparatus was little different from the UGT. Both of them worked to modernize and rationally manage the economy: in a word, to socialize capitalism.

A single thread connects the socialist vote for war credits in August 1914 to the participation in the government of the anarchist leaders, first in Catalonia (September 1936) and then in the Republic as a whole (November 1936). As early as 1914, Malatesta had called those of his comrades (including Kropotkin) who had accepted national defense "government anarchists".

From one compromise to the next, the CNT wound up renouncing the anti-statism which was its raison d'etre, even after the Republic and its Russian ally had shown their real faces and unleashed their fury on the radicals in May 1937, not to mention in everything that followed, in the jails and secret cellars. Then, like the POUM, the CNT was all the more effective in disarming proletarians, calling on them to give up their struggle against both the official and Stalinist police bent on finishing them off. Some of them even had the bitter surprise of being in a prison administered by an old anarchist comrade, stripped of any real power over what when on in his jail.

[Sprinkles]

Surprisingly enough I agree with Devrim and with Sprinkles. The only alternative to fascism in Spain was the social revolution, and this alternative was betrayed at one point or another by all those who claimed to lead or represent it: Largo Caballero, the "Spanish Lenin", the leadership of the CNT and POUM by buying into the bankrupt theory of the Popular Front.

Not that I don't appreciate it, but I'm a bit confused as to why you agree exactly. :D
What would you say the alternative to Social Revolution in Germany or Italy was?

I mean, what was the difference for example between the actions of the PSOE and the SPD? Both parties opposed and actively suppressed any revolutionary movements, the Social Democrats in Spain only opposed the fascist coup since they were forced into an active opposition against Franco by the armed uprising of the workers, while the Social Democrats in Germany on the other hand never opposed the fascists and even used their paramilitary organizations to crush the workers.

Why call for unity with the SPD who actively suppressed communists and the working class, but oppose an alliance with the PSOE who largely did the same but at least militarily opposed fascism?

[Random Precision]

I've been doing some thinking about this lately. I don't agree with the left communists on anti-fascism, but I'm coming to appreciate some of their points.

I think the difference lies in that Spain was a country that was on the verge of a mass popular revolution at the time when the civil war broke out. The policy of the CNT and POUM, of fighting fascism while simultaneously carrying out the revolution behind the front lines was the correct one, but they weren't willing to take it all the way.

Germany represented a different situation in that the working class was very much in retreat. I'm not saying that I fully endorse Trotsky's UF idea here, just that the situation required different tactics than in Spain. What those tactics might have been, I don't know.

As for Italy I'm inclined to say once again that the alternatives were fascism and the social revolution. Nevertheless I think that the CP d'I under Bordiga seriously underestimated the abilities of the fascists, and could have made them a main target at the same time as fighting for the revolution, a variant of what was later done in Spain. But I guess hindsight is 20/20; it would probably be best not to blame them for not entirely understanding what they were dealing with the first time fascism presented itself.

That's a kick-ass avatar, by the way.

[Junius]

Bilan article (http://cbg.110mb.com/Spain.pdf_11.pdf).

[Melbourne Lefty]

the falangists were sidelined by Franco after the war; they kept being a thorn in his side

Interesting.

So Francos regime was not really fascist/falangist, just right wing authoritarian?

Does that explain why he didnt join in during WW2? Or is it beside the point?

[Tower of Bebel]

Interesting.

So Francos regime was not really fascist/falangist, just right wing authoritarian?

Does that explain why he didnt join in during WW2? Or is it beside the point?
Spain wasn't much of a fully developed capitalist country. It didn't have a working class like Germany, France or Britain. So I believe Spain's "fascism" must have been more of a police state than a pure fascism.

[Holden Caulfield]

Spain wasn't much of a fully developed capitalist country. It didn't have a working class like Germany, France or Britain. So I believe Spain's "fascism" must have been more of a police state than a pure fascism.
WW2 was an imperialist war more than it was an ideological war, during the First World War Spain had seen massive economic and industrial gains, perhaps Franco wanted to try and do this again by remaining neutral?

[Sasha]

and by staying neutral but sympathetic to the axis he made sure that whoever would win he would stay in power.
and do not forget that offcialy all the neighboring countrys were also not occupied but still fascist sympathetic (salazars portugal and vichy france) so he wasn't under much threat of being atacked by either the axis or the allies.

[Charles Xavier]

I think that the important thing to remember is that the working class as a political force was destroyed by the Republic, and not by the fascists.

In this not only did the Communist Party play the counter revolutionary role that was expected of it, but also the CNT played its part.

Devrim

Yeah the counter revolutionary, sending thousands of Internationalists across the world to fight fascism, sending military aid, and on top of that dying day after day at the hands of both the fascist butchers and some ultra-leftist winos who shoot up military parades of the republican forces.

The popular front suffered from disunity fanned by Agent Provocateurs payrolled by the Fascists who made the disunity violent. Using ultra-leftist groups who always are like "fuck everything" our way or no way.


But I don't think everything can be blamed on trotskyite provocatuers, you had a very well equiped fascist army.

[Junius]

Ultra-leftist winos.

Now that's a new one. :lol:

*Goes off to drink some Bacardi*

[Melbourne Lefty]

and by staying neutral but sympathetic to the axis he made sure that whoever would win he would stay in power.
and do not forget that offcialy all the neighboring countrys were also not occupied but still fascist sympathetic (salazars portugal and vichy france) so he wasn't under much threat of being atacked by either the axis or the allies.

Good points.



Spain wasn't much of a fully developed capitalist country. It didn't have a working class like Germany, France or Britain. So I believe Spain's "fascism" must have been more of a police state than a pure fascism.


If it wasnt much of a capitalist country why did it have such a well developed workers movement that could fight the army for years despite all the divisions and leadership issues?

[Sprinkles]

I've been doing some thinking about this lately. I don't agree with the left communists on anti-fascism, but I'm coming to appreciate some of their points.


Cool, that's fair enough.



I think the difference lies in that Spain was a country that was on the verge of a mass popular revolution at the time when the civil war broke out. The policy of the CNT and POUM, of fighting fascism while simultaneously carrying out the revolution behind the front lines was the correct one, but they weren't willing to take it all the way.


I don't really see the divide between the class struggle in the form of the social revolution and the actual fighting. But I'd say they weren't able to take it all the way since they failed to take on the state itself. I know I'm a bit heavy on the quoting but since I can't put the argument more concise myself:



There was the beginning of a revolution in Spain, but it turned into its opposite as soon as the proletarians, convinced that they had effective power, placed their trust in the state to fight against Franco. On that basis, the multiplicity of subversive initiatives and measures taken in production and in daily life were condemned to fail by the simple and terrible fact that they took place in the shadow of a perfectly intact state structure, which had initially been put on hold, and then reinvigorated by the necessities of the war against Franco, a paradox which remained opaque to most revolutionary groups at the time.




Germany represented a different situation in that the working class was very much in retreat. I'm not saying that I fully endorse Trotsky's UF idea here, just that the situation required different tactics than in Spain. What those tactics might have been, I don't know.


Fair enough, besides I think your characterization of this period in Germany is pretty much spot on. Despite there being a lot of conflicts and class-struggle in the thirties, it was more characteristic of the stalemate that the class-struggle found itself, rather than indicating that the proletariat was on some kind of supposed offensive. Which is why I think the more common Marxist interpretation of fascism as a weapon or last-resort of capitalism faced by a combative working class is flawed.

Instead I would say that historic fascism as the forceful tendency towards national re-unification, was the violent solution to break this stalemate. Something which not only the proletariat but also the traditional institutions of the bourgeois state was unable to overcome at the time. Which incidentally is also why various parts of the bourgeoisie were targetted by fascist repression, not because the bourgeois state in it's democratic form is inherently opposed to fascism.



As for Italy I'm inclined to say once again that the alternatives were fascism and the social revolution. Nevertheless I think that the CP d'I under Bordiga seriously underestimated the abilities of the fascists, and could have made them a main target at the same time as fighting for the revolution, a variant of what was later done in Spain. But I guess hindsight is 20/20; it would probably be best not to blame them for not entirely understanding what they were dealing with the first time fascism presented itself.


They found themselves between a rock and a hard place and did the best they could. Still I think Bordiga summed it up best by stating that to struggle against capital is to struggle against fascism.



That's a kick-ass avatar, by the way.


Thanks.

[Tower of Bebel]

If it wasnt much of a capitalist country why did it have such a well developed workers movement that could fight the army for years despite all the divisions and leadership issues?Because Spain had a strong urban proletariat?

[Melbourne Lefty]

Because Spain had a strong urban proletariat?

Yes but you said that the fact that they were not a fully developed capitalist nation stopped them from being 'truely' fash.

I want to know why. Since the left could operate amongst the working class, why couldnt the fascists/falangists?

Judging from their propaganda they were further to the 'left' economically than mussolini or Hitler. So why so little impact on the after war regime?

[Sasha]

because they were also hard-line catholic?
the idea that the poor has to stay poor because them suffering makes them more christian was for ages one of the fundaments of the catholic church.
its just an (educated) guess...

[Tower of Bebel]

Yes but you said that the fact that they were not a fully developed capitalist nation stopped them from being 'truely' fash.

I want to know why. Since the left could operate amongst the working class, why couldnt the fascists/falangists?

Judging from their propaganda they were further to the 'left' economically than mussolini or Hitler. So why so little impact on the after war regime?
Fascism is counterrevolution against a threatening (i.e. ready to take power) workers' movement in the stage of imperialism (i.e. monopoly capitalism).

I don't think that Spain was ripe for a genuine socialist revolution (due to underdevelopment), e.g. it didn't have a fully developed proletariat (just like Russia), and that's why I don't think Franco's counterrevolution was fascist (just like Kornilov). It had fascist elements (due to the law of uneven development?), but it was not a siamese twin of Italian fascism or German nazism.

[Sasha]

and just like the oposing replublic side franco was the leader of an wide and sometimes shaky coalition of difrent groups. hardline facists but also monarchists, catholics etc etc.
in the early years he had to keep his coalition together, and by the time he was firmly in power the seccond worldwarwas over and being a fascist wasn't as popular as it used to be, so he didn't want to step on to many international toes so he tryd to keep the worst of the fascism hidden.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Fascism is counterrevolution against a threatening (i.e. ready to take power) workers' movement in the stage of imperialism (i.e. monopoly capitalism).


But in Italy and Germany fascism took power AFTER the revolution had been beaten back.

[Tower of Bebel]

But in Italy and Germany fascism took power AFTER the revolution had been beaten back.
Which doesn't mean that the workers were unable to take back the initiative. When Hitler took power the most powerful parties were (the NSDAP excluded) the SPD and the KPD. In Italy Mussolini took power when the international revolutionary wave was still going on. The revolutions were beaten, but it was a fascist counterrevolution that eventually destroyed the revolutionary potential of the workers' movement.

[Devrim]

The revolutions were beaten, but it was a fascist counterrevolution that eventually destroyed the revolutionary potential of the workers' movement.

But this isn't true. Yes, it was the fascists who crushed the working class, but that was after the social-democrats had defeated the revolutionary movement.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

But this isn't true. Yes, it was the fascists who crushed the working class, but that was after the social-democrats had defeated the revolutionary movement.

Devrim

indeed, this is why fascism is on the grow in Britian, since the 1970's the British working classes have been under constant attacks, not on the same scale but still it is attacks followed by betrayal on a large scale and economic crisis caused by capitalism that is pushing the British working classes into the hands of fascism.

[Devrim]

There wasn't a revolutionary movement in Britain in the 1970s. The working class was beaten, but not decisively defeated, and fascism is not a real danger in the UK today.

Other than that though it is a good comparison.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

Other than that though it is a good comparison.
(if this isnt sarcasm) thanks, i respectfully disagree with you still tho, its very hard to say what "could have been" a revolutionary movement, given the right circumstances and guidance