The Xmas present from the SWP you've all been waiting for.

[Pilgrim]

Why, has anybody suggested that he was a saint of some kind?

I don't think there is a single anarchist on Earth that would suggest that there weren't some very serious mistakes made by the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. That's one of the great things about history, you get to learn from the mistakes of the past.

BTW, on the whole, collectivisation was voluntary, with a few awful exceptions.

I agree.

I was replying to RW's insinuation that Anarchists and Anarcho-Syndicalists think they are blameless if the collapse of Republican Spain. An insinuation made, if memory serves, in post 23.

I've offered to debate with RW, having copies of Orwell's 'Homage To Catalonia', Borkenau's 'The Spanish Cockpit' and Beevor's 'The Spanish Civil War' in front of me, but RW has seemingly found a pressing need to be elsewhere.

 

[mk12]

Did Durutti ever fully break with the CNT?

 

[Pilgrim]

Did Durutti ever fully break with the CNT?

Haven't found anything yet to suggest he did.

That said, there's nothing in 'Homage To Catalonia', I haven't read Borkenau's 'The Spanish Cockpit' yet and I'm only early on in Beevor.

It would help if someone had indexed Borkenau as well.

As far as I know, Durruti never fully broke with the CNT.

 

[Gavin Bl]

I know some of you have been waiting with bated breath for the Marxism 2005 MP3's , so I thought I would drop them in here as a belated Xmas present. Any views or criticisms would be welcome.

Frats Rmp3

Nice one, cheers Rmp3

 

[lewislewis]

I'd like to learn more about the Spanish Civil War, particularly in the context of the Basque and Catalan national or regional identities within Spain.
Can anybody perhaps recommend a book dealing with what the Basques did during the War? Or a good website? Or just offer some general points? Something I need to get round to doing.

 

[Good Intentions]

The Basque were largely uninvolved of their own accord in the Revolution - they neither supported nor fought against the anarchists. They didn't support Franco either, were attacked by him and joined the Republicans against Franco. That's pretty much the long and the short of it - the anarchists didn't force the point, large parts of Aragon joined their cause and the parts that didn't, didn't.

 

[mutley]

I'd like to learn more about the Spanish Civil War, particularly in the context of the Basque and Catalan national or regional identities within Spain.
Can anybody perhaps recommend a book dealing with what the Basques did during the War? Or a good website? Or just offer some general points? Something I need to get round to doing.

There is some stuff in Felix Morrows book 'revolution and counter revolution in spain' about the basques. Basque workers fought like lions, but the basque bourgeoisie were willing to see towns handed over to Franco intact rather than fight to the end if i remember correctly. Orwell mentions the same issue in passing as well.

Also, I think that the crucial issue with the anarchists is not whether some collectivisation was over hasty, but the fact that they were incapable of dealing with the counter revolution organised by the stalinists. The POUM didn't deal with it either, but whereas trots can argue that a new revolutionary seizure of power was necessary, I'm not sure what the anarchists can argue for whilst staying within the framework of anarchism.
Certainly the 'friends of durruti' group argued for a 'revolutionary junta' at the time of the may days in Barcelona - hardly a libertarian strategy, but along the right lines.

 

[audiotech]

The file titled: Frank Sinatra: When ‘Old Blue Eyes was a Red', is in fact a talk on the Russian Revolution.

 

[nwnm]

well there you are then - he really was a red

 

[Gavin Bl]

The file titled: Frank Sinatra: When ‘Old Blue Eyes was a Red', is in fact a talk on the Russian Revolution.

They always said Trotsky could sing, and I always found that ice pick story rather convenient. . .

 

[butchersapron]

Mutely's still peddling the rubbish put out by the occultist felix morrow i see. God knows how many times we've dealt with the fact that Junta simply means committee,

Frank Sinatrra actually did read Marx over an extended period of time.

 

[mk12]

I'd like to learn more about the Spanish Civil War, particularly in the context of the Basque and Catalan national or regional identities within Spain.
Can anybody perhaps recommend a book dealing with what the Basques did during the War? Or a good website? Or just offer some general points? Something I need to get round to doing.

IIRC, Broue's book deals with the Basques.

 

[silentNate]

The file titled: Frank Sinatra: When ‘Old Blue Eyes was a Red', is in fact a talk on the Russian Revolution.

Yes I pointed this out in my comments on page one

 

[mutley]

Mutely's still peddling the rubbish put out by the occultist felix morrow i see. God knows how many times we've dealt with the fact that Junta simply means committee,

Frank Sinatrra actually did read Marx over an extended period of time.

Occultist eh? That's a new one.

However, while junta does indeed mean committee, the 'friends of durruti' argued that this committee should repress the counter-revolution, argued that 'anarchist comrades should not have ideological misgivings' about this as there was no room to 'pussyfoot around' (I can't find my battered copy of their statement so i'm paraphrasing from memory).

That ain't anarchism.

 

[cats hammers]

That ain't anarchism.

So, since you're more qualified to define what is and isn't anarchism than anarchists, does that mean that anarchos can unilaterally decide what is or isn't Trotskyism, without any reference to actual Trotskyist theory or practise, then?

 

[TremulousTetra]

100mb more mp3's and sinatra fixed.

Frats Rmp3

 

[TremulousTetra]

So, since you're more qualified to define what is and isn't anarchism than anarchists, does that mean that anarchos can unilaterally decide what is or isn't Trotskyism, without any reference to actual Trotskyist theory or practise, then?

They usually do!

 

[butchersapron]

Occultist eh? That's a new one.

However, while junta does indeed mean committee, the 'friends of durruti' argued that this committee should repress the counter-revolution, argued that 'anarchist comrades should not have ideological misgivings' about this as there was no room to 'pussyfoot around' (I can't find my battered copy of their statement so i'm paraphrasing from memory).

That ain't anarchism.

Yes, occultist,fantasist and consipraloon to boot.

No, that is precisely anarchism - what you actually mean is that it''s not the strawman anarchism of trot imagination that you've previously been presented with and attacked.

 

[silentNate]

100mb more mp3's and sinatra fixed.

Frats Rmp3

Excellent- Martin Smith is a great orator and this stood out as one of my favourite meetings of the weekend

 

[mutley]

Yes, occultist,fantasist and consipraloon to boot.

No, that is precisely anarchism - what you actually mean is that it''s not the strawman anarchism of trot imagination that you've previously been presented with and attacked.

So did he dance around fires on midsummers eve or what?

And more seriously, how would an anarchist committee repress a counter revolution intent on rebuilding a bourgeois state except by first attacking and dispersing that state but then (most importantly) replacing it with its own organs of power?

By the way my trajectory was away from anarchism which I was reading about and trying to come to terms with before i met any 'trots'. It was the fact that i couldn't find any anarchist accounts of Spain that could give a coherent account of what the strategy should have been in '36 which meant i started reading the likes of Morrow. Most anarchist stuff boils down to saying that '36 was great and loads of radical stuff happened (true) but the stalinists ruined it all (also true) without having any strategy for what should have happened that didn't.

 

[Pickman's model]

And more seriously, how would an anarchist committee repress a counter revolution intent on rebuilding a bourgeois state except by first attacking and dispersing that state but then (most importantly) replacing it with its own organs of power?

i don't know why you feel that this anarchist committee need fuss about attacking this state again, when your post makes quite clear that the state has already been successfully attacked - and dispersed.

 

[mutley]

i don't know why you feel that this anarchist committee need fuss about attacking this state again, when your post makes quite clear that the state has already been successfully attacked - and dispersed.

Obviously there's an implicit argument in what i said before, that some kind of proto-state would reform and would need to be dealt with one way or another.

Firstly - in the concrete conditions of Spain the civil war would still need to be prosecuted against Franco, and this would need a degree of coordination and, I would argue, centralisation. I don't think that you can successfully fight an adversary like Franco without any centralisation. eg you'd have to be able to concentrate forces for attacks, and you'd need to be able to mobilise forces to strengthen defences when attacked by Franco. How would such decisions be made? If you have a central body, however it is composed or controlled from below, which is able to control movements of military forces, then that is a state. 'If it looks like a duck' etc
(I'm aware that an anarchist would challenge the military argument above, and i'm sure you could resist Franco in a decentralised manner for some time, but I don't think you could beat him)

Secondly, if you refuse to countenance any centralised authority, then those who would wish to organise a counter revolution would start to regroup and probably through just saying that they are 'getting things done' would start to rebuild their power. Which is pretty much what happened in '36 immediately after July.

Far better to recognise that there will be some body which controls those things that do need centralisation in the face of Franco, place that body under control and call a duck a duck, or in this case a workers state.

 

[mk12]

I think Durruti called for centralisation or co-ordination of the military anyway. He called for a central council IIRC.

 

[Random]

In Spain there was a centralised command of the military. Unfortunately it was set on a ridiculous strategy based on WW1-style infantry offensives. Beevor makes it quite clear that the Communist Party-led strategy brought the Republican forces to defeat.

The anarchist forces should not have participated in this centralised command, simply held their areas and extended the revolution, while waging guerilla warfare in the occupied zones. Until 1939 itself, the anti-fascist forces were always numerically superior, and could have held off Franco a lot longer it they'd not spent their energy in futile offensives, designed to win international prestige for the Comintern.

The idea that it was lack of 'direction' or insufficient centralisation is nonsense. Insufficient anarchism was the problem

 

[mutley]

In Spain there was a centralised command of the military. Unfortunately it was set on a ridiculous strategy based on WW1-style infantry offensives. Beevor makes it quite clear that the Communist Party-led strategy brought the Republican forces to defeat.

Many argue that this was a semi-deliberate strategy, at least from Stalins point of view, as he didn't want a republican victory that would destabilise Western Europe and frighten France and Britain away from an anti-fascist alliance. Hence the drip-feed of weaponry - enough to maintain resistance but not to win.

The anarchist forces should not have participated in this centralised command, simply held their areas and extended the revolution
how? Or do you mean extend it within their areas? In which case my argument that this is an essentially defensive strategy holds
, while waging guerilla warfare in the occupied zones. Until 1939 itself, the anti-fascist forces were always numerically superior, and could have held off Franco a lot longer it they'd not spent their energy in futile offensives, designed to win international prestige for the Comintern.

The idea that it was lack of 'direction' or insufficient centralisation is nonsense. Insufficient anarchism was the problem

So Matt if is right when he says Durrutti called for centralisation then that was wrong? As he (Durrutti not Matt..) was arguably the most significant military- revolutionary figure then, whose columns were the only ones to push back the fascists in the early stages, then if he did draw that conclusion it's pretty significant. (no idea about the facts of that issue myself.)

What there was was Stalinist centralisation. What was needed was revolutionary centralisation...

Oh and no need to stick ur tongue out, it doesn't add to your argument

 

[Pickman's model]

What was needed was revolutionary centralisation...

shurely "democratick centralism"?

 

[mk12]

to reorganization of the Army, we have no objection, for it ought to be remembered that we were the first to call for a single, common command (. . .) in the care of delegates from the various columns by way of ensuring homogeneity in the performance of them all. Let restructuring proceed, but let the people's Army not be in thrall to the Generalidad, nor to the Central Government. It must be under the Confederation's control."

http://www.spunk.org/library/places/spain/sp001780/chap4.html

 

[Random]

So Matt if is right when he says Durrutti called for centralisation then that was wrong? As he (Durrutti not Matt..) was arguably the most significant military- revolutionary figure then, whose columns were the only ones to push back the fascists in the early stages, then if he did draw that conclusion it's pretty significant. (no idea about the facts of that issue myself.)

Durutti died during the very early stages of the civil war, when the front was still in flux, and a unified assault by the militia might have been successful. IMO his opinions aren't of use when considering the course of the whole war. By 1937 the Franquistas had consolidated, Italian and German aid was pouring in, and the Republic was set on the long, slow, route to defeat.

The idea that there's some difference between 'stalinist centralisation' and 'revolutionary centralisation' is an interesting one. What is it based on, apart from the old Trot idea that the masses need the 'right' leadership?

I assume your comment about the was a joke. Otherwise you're impossibly po-faced

 

[mk12]

Stalinist centralisation vs centralisation elected from below.

As Mutley said:

How would such decisions be made? If you have a central body, ...it is composed or controlled from below

 

[Random]

IMO any 'central' body across the whole of the non-franco forces would have been prone to control by those best at power politics - i.e. the liberals, state-socialists and Communist Party. By 1938 the Republic's Communist Party had a massive following, swollen by an influx of farmers and other small landowners and capitalists.