~corti-nico/ubuntu/vivid/anarchism/fix1426015 : revision 5

1

<HTML>

2

<HEAD>

3

4

<TITLE>Marxists and Spanish Anarchism

5

</TITLE>

6

</HEAD>

7

<BODY>

8

9

<H1>Marxists and Spanish Anarchism</h1>

10

11

In this appendix of our FAQ we discuss and reply to various

12

analyses of Spanish anarchism put forward by Marxists, particularly

13

Marxist-Leninists of various shades. The history and politics of

14

Spanish Anarchism is not well known in many circles, particularly

15

Marxist ones, and the various misrepresentations and distortions

16

that Marxists have spread about that history and politics are many.

17

This appendix is an attempt to put the record straight with regards

18

the Spanish Anarchist movement and point out the errors associated

19

with the standard Marxist accounts of that movement, its politics

20

and its history.

21

22

Hopefully this appendix will go some way towards making Marxists

23

(and others) investigate the actual facts of anarchism and Spanish

24

anarchist history rather than depending on inaccurate secondary

25

material (usually written by their comrades).

26

27

Part of this essay is based on the article "Trotskyist Lies on

28

Anarchism" which appeared in Black Flag issue no. 211 and Tom

29

Wetzel's article Workers' Power and the Spanish Revolution.

30

31

<a name="app1"><H2>1. Were the Spanish Anarchists "Primitive Rebels"?

32

</h2>

33

34

The thesis that the Spanish Anarchists were "primitive rebels,"

35

with a primitive understanding of the nature of revolution is

36

a common one amongst Marxists. One of the main sources for this

37

kind of argument is Eric Hobsbawm's Primitive Rebels, who was

38

a member of the British Communist Party at the time. While the

39

obvious Stalinist nature of the author may be thought enough

40

to alert the intelligent of its political biases, its basic

41

thesis is repeated by many Marxists.

42

43

Before discussing Hobsbawm in more detail, it would be useful

44

to refute some of the more silly things so-called serious

45

historians have asserted about Spanish Anarchism. Indeed,

46

it would be hard to find another social or political movement

47

which has been more misrepresented or its ideas and activities

48

so distorted by historians whose attitudes seem more supported

49

by ideological conviction rather than history or investigation

50

of social life.

51

52

One of the most common descriptions of Spanish anarchism is that

53

it was "religious" or "millenarium" in nature. Hobsbawm himself

54

accepts this conceptualisation, along with historians and

55

commentators like Gerald Brenan and Franz Brokenau (who, in

56

fact, did state "Anarchism is a religious movement"). Such

57

use of religion was largely due to the influence of Juan Diaz

58

del Moral, a lawyer and historian who was also a landowner.

59

As Jerome R. Mintz points out, "according to Diaz del Moral,

60

the moral and passionate obreros conscientes [conscious

61

workers -- i.e. workers who considered themselves to be

62

anarchists] absorbed in their pamphlets and newspapers were

63

akin to frenzied believers in a new religion." [The Anarchists

64

of Casas Viejas, p. 5f] However, such a perspective was formed

65

by his class position and privileges which could not help

66

but reflect them:

67

68

"Diaz del Moral ascribed to the campesinos [of Andalusia] racial

69

and cultural stereotypes that were common saws of his class.

70

The sole cause for the waves of rural unrest, Diaz del Moral

71

asserted, could be found in the psychology of the campesinos

72

. . . He believed that the Andalusian field workers had

73

inherited a Moorish tendency toward ecstasy and millenarianism

74

that accounted for their attraction to anarchist teaching.

75

Diaz del Moral was mystified by expressions of animosity

76

directed toward him, but the workers considered him to be a

77

senorito, a landowner who does not labour . . . Although he

78

was both scholarly and sympathetic, Diaz del Moral could not

79

comprehend the hunger and the desperation of the campesinos

80

around him . . . To Diaz del Moral, campesino ignorance,

81

passion, ecstasy, illusion, and depression, not having a

82

legitimate basis in reality, could be found only in the

83

roots of their racial heritage." [Op. Cit., pp. 5-6]

84

</blockquote>

85

Hence the "religious" nature of anarchism -- it was one of

86

the ways an uncomprehending member of the middle-class could

87

explain working class discontent and rebellion. Unfortunately,

88

this "explanation" has become common place in history books

89

(partly reflected academics class interest too and lack of

90

understanding of working class interests, needs and hopes).

91

92

As Mintz argues, "at first glance the religious model seems to

93

make anarchism easier to understand, particularly in the absence

94

of detailed observation and intimate contact. The model was,

95

however, also used to serve the political ends of anarchism's

96

opponents. Here the use of the terms 'religious' and 'millenarium'

97

stamp anarchist goals as unrealistic and unattainable. Anarchism

98

is thus dismissed as a viable solution to social ills." He

99

continues by arguing that the "oversimplifications posited

100

became serious distortions of anarchist belief and practice"

101

(as we shall see). [Op. Cit., p. 5 and p. 6]

102

103

Temma Kaplan's critique of the "religious" view is also worth

104

mentioning. She argues that "the millenarium theory is too

105

mechanistic to explain the complex pattern of Andalusian

106

anarchist activity. The millenarian argument, in portraying

107

the Andalusian anarchists as fundamentally religious, overlooks

108

their clear comprehension of the social sources of their

109

oppression." She concludes that "the degree of organisation,

110

not the religiosity of workers and the community, accounts

111

for mass mobilisations carried on by the Andalusian

112

anarchists at the end of the nineteenth century." She also

113

notes that the "[i]n a secular age, the taint of religion

114

is the taint of irrationality." [Anarchists of Andalusia:

115

1868-1903, pp. 210-12 and p. 211] Thus, the Andalusian

116

anarchists had a clear idea who their enemies were, namely

117

the ruling class of the region. She also points out that,

118

for all their revolutionary elan, the anarchists developed

119

a rational strategy of revolution, channelling their

120

energies into organising a trade union movement that

121

could be used as a vehicle for social and economic change.

122

Moreover, as well as a clear idea of how to change society

123

they had a clear vision of what sort of society they desired

124

of workers' associations and communes.

125

126

Therefore the idea that anarchism can be explained in "religious"

127

terms is fundamentally flawed. It basically assumes that the

128

Spanish workers were fundamentally irrational, unable to

129

comprehend the sources of their unhappiness nor able to define

130

their own political goals and tactics and instead looked to

131

naive theories which reinforced their irrationalities. In

132

actuality, like most people, they were sensible, intelligent

133

human beings who believed in a better life and were willing

134

to apply their ideas in their everyday life. That historians

135

apply patronising attitudes towards them says more about the

136

historians than the campesinos.

137

138

This uncomprehending attitude to historians can be seen from

139

some of the more strange assertions they make against the

140

Spanish Anarchists. Gerald Brenan, Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond

141

Carr, for example, all maintained that there was a connection

142

between anarchist strikes and sexual practices. Carr's

143

description gives a flavour:

144

145

"Austere puritans, they sought to impose vegetarianism, sexual

146

abstinence, and atheism on one of the most backward peasantries

147

of Europe . . . Thus strikes were moments of exaltation as

148

well as demands for better conditions; spontaneous and often

149

disconnected they would bring, not only the abolition of

150

piece-work, but 'the day,' so near at hand that sexual

151

intercourse and alcohol were abandoned by enthusiasts till

152

it should dawn." [Spain: 1808-1975, p. 444]

153

</blockquote>

154

Mintz, an American anthropologist who actually stayed with

155

the campesino's for a number of years after 1965, actually

156

asked them about such claims. As he put it, the "level-headed

157

anarchists were astonished by such descriptions of supposed

158

Spanish puritanism by over-enthusiastic historians." [Op. Cit.,

159

p. 6] As one anarchist put it, "[o]f course, without any

160

work the husband couldn't provide any food at dinnertime,

161

and so they were angry at each other, and she wouldn't have

162

anything to do with him. In that sense, yes, there were no

163

sexual relations." [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 7]

164

165

Mintz traces the citations which allowed the historians to

166

arrive at such ridiculous views to a French social historian,

167

Angel Maraud, who observed that during the general strike of 1902

168

in Moron, marriages were postponed to after the promised division

169

of the lands. As Mintz points out, "as a Frenchman, Maraud

170

undoubtedly assumed that everyone knew a formal wedding ceremony

171

did not necessarily govern the sexual relations of courting

172

couples." [Op. Cit., p. 6f]

173

174

As for abstinence and puritanism, nothing could be further from

175

the truth. As Mintz argues, the anarchists considered alcoholism

176

as being "responsible for much of the social malaise among

177

many workers . . . Excessive drinking robbed the worker of

178

his senses and deprived his family of food. Anarchist

179

newspapers and pamphlets hammered out the evil of this vice."

180

However, "[p]roscriptions were not of a puritanical order"

181

(and so there was no desire to "impose" such things on people)

182

and quotes an anarchist who stated that "coffee and tobacco

183

were not prohibited, but one was advised against using them.

184

Men were warned against going to a brothel. It was not a

185

matter of morality but of hygiene." As for vegetarianism,

186

it "attracted few adherents, even among the obreros

187

conscientes." [Op. Cit., pp. 86-7 and p. 88]

188

189

Moreover, academic mockery of anarchist attempts to combat

190

alcoholism (and not alcohol as such) forgets the social

191

context. Being academics they may not have experienced wage

192

labour directly and so do not realise the misery it can cause.

193

People turn to drink simply because their jobs are so bad

194

and seek escape from the drudgery of their everyday lives.

195

As Bakunin argued, "confined in their life like a prisoner

196

in his prison, without horizon, without outlet . . . the

197

people would have the singularly narrow souls and blunted

198

instincts of the bourgeois if they did not feel a desire

199

to escape; but of escape there are but three methods --

200

two chimerical and a third real. The first two are the

201

dram-shop and the church, debauchery of the body or

202

debauchery of the mind; the third is social revolution."

203

[God and the State, p. 16] So to combat alcoholism was

204

particularly important as many workers turned to alcohol

205

as a means of escaping the misery of life under capitalism.

206

Thus Bookchin:

207

208

"[T]o abstain from smoking, to live by high moral standards,

209

and to especially adjure the consumption of alcohol was

210

very important at the time. Spain was going through her own

211

belated industrial revolution during the period of anarchist

212

ascendancy with all its demoralising features. The collapse

213

of morale among the proletariat, with rampant drunkenness,

214

venereal disease, and the collapse of sanitary facilities,

215

was the foremost problem which Spanish revolutionaries had

216

to deal with . . . On this score, the Spanish anarchists

217

were eminently successful. Few CNT workers, much less a

218

committed anarchist, would have dared show up drunk at

219

meetings or misbehave overtly with their comrades. If one

220

considers the terrible working and living conditions of

221

the period, alcoholism was not as serious a problem in

222

Spain as it was in England during the industrial revolution."

223

["Introductory Essay", The Anarchist Collectives, Sam

224

Dolgoff (ed.), pp. xix-xxf]

225

</blockquote>

226

Mintz sums up by stating "[c]ontrary to exaggerated accounts

227

of anarchist zeal, most thoughtful obreros conscientes

228

believed in moderation, not abstinence." [Op. Cit., p. 88]

229

Unfortunately Mintz's work, the product of years of living

230

with and talking to the people actually involved in the

231

movement, does not seem to have made much impact on the

232

historians. Unsurprising, really, as history is rarely

233

about the actions, ideas and hopes of working people.

234

235

As can be seen, historians seem to delight in misrepresenting the

236

ideas and actions of the Spanish Anarchists. Sometimes, as just seen,

237

the distortions are quite serious, extremely misleading and ensure

238

that anarchism cannot be understood or viewed as a serious political

239

theory (we can understand why Marxists historians would seek this).

240

Sometimes they can be subtle as when Ronald Fraser states that

241

at the CNT's Saragossa congress in 1936 "the proposal to create

242

a libertarian militia to crush a military uprising was rejected

243

almost scornfully, in the name of traditional anti-militarism."

244

[Blood of Spain, p. 101] Hugh Thomas makes the same claim,

245

stating at "there was no sign that anyone [at the congress]

246

realised that there was a danger of fascism; and no agreement,

247

in consequence, on the arming of militias, much less the

248

organisation of a revolutionary army as suggested by Juan Garcia

249

Oliver." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 181]

250

251

However, what Fraser and Thomas omit to tell the reader is that this motion

252

"was defeated by one favouring the idea of guerrilla warfare."

253

[Peter Marshal, Demanding the Impossible, p. 460] The Saragossa

254

resolution itself stated that a "permanent army constitutes the

255

greatest danger for the revolution . . . The armed people will be

256

the best guarantee against all attempts to restore the destroyed

257

regime by interior or exterior forces . . . Each Commune should

258

have its arms and elements of defence." [quoted by Robert Alexander,

259

The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 64]

260

261

Fraser's and Hugh's omission is extremely serious -- it gives a

262

radically false impression of anarchist politics. Their comments

263

could led a reader to think that anarchists, as Marxists claim,

264

do not believe in defending a revolution. As can be seen from

265

the actual resolutions of the Saragossa conference, this is not

266

the case. Indeed, given that the congress was explicitly discussing,

267

along with many other issues, the question of "defence of the

268

revolution" their omission seriously distorts the CNT's position

269

and anarchist theory. As seen, the congress supported the need

270

to arm the people and to keep those arms under the control of the

271

communes (as well as the role of "Confederal Defence Forces"

272

and the efficient organisation of forces on a national level). Given

273

that Thomas quotes extensively from the Saragossa resolution on

274

libertarian communism we can only surmise that he forgot to read

275

the section entitled "Defence of the Revolution."

276

277

Hugh and Thomas omissions, however, ensure that anarchism is

278

presented as an utopian and naive theory, unaware of the problems

279

facing society. In reality, the opposite is the case -- the Spanish

280

anarchists were well aware of the need to arm the people and resist

281

counter-revolution and fascism by force. Regardless of Thomas' claims,

282

it is clear that the CNT and FAI realised the danger of fascism existed

283

and passed appropriate resolutions outlining how to organise an

284

effective means of self-defence (indeed, as early as February 14

285

of that year, the CNT had issued a prophetic manifesto warning that

286

right-wing elements were ready to provoke a military coup [Murray

287

Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 273]). To state otherwise,

288

while quoting from the document that discusses the issue, must be

289

considered a deliberate lie.

290

291

However, to return to our main point -- Eric Hobsbawm's thesis

292

that the Spanish anarchists were an example of "pre-political"

293

groups -- the "primitive rebels" of his title.

294

295

Essentially, Hobsbawm describes the Spanish Anarchists --

296

particularly the Andalusian anarchists -- as modern-day

297

secular mystics who, like the millenarians of the Middle

298

Ages, were guided by the irrational belief that it was

299

possible to will profound social change. The actions of

300

the Spanish anarchist movement, therefore, can be explained

301

in terms of millenarian behaviour -- the belief that it

302

was able to jump start to utopia via an act of will.

303

304

The Spanish farm and industrial workers, it is argued, were

305

unable to grasp the complexities of the economic and political

306

structures that dominated their lives and so were attracted

307

to anarchism. According to Hobsbawm, anarchism is marked by

308

"theoretical primitivism" and a primitive understanding of

309

revolution and this explained why anarchism was popular with

310

Spanish workers, particularly farm workers. According to

311

Hobsbawm, anarchism told the workers that by spontaneously

312

rising up together they could overthrow the forces of

313

repression and create the new millennium.

314

315

Obviously, we cannot refute Hobsbawm's claims of anarchism's

316

"theoretical primitivism" in this appendix, the reader is

317

invited to consult the main FAQ. Moreover, we cannot stress

318

more that Hobsbawm's assertion that anarchists believe in

319

spontaneous, overnight uprisings is false. Rather, we see

320

revolution as a process in which day-to-day struggle and

321

organisation play a key role -- it is not seen as occurring

322

independently of the on-going class struggle or social

323

evolution. While we discuss in depth the nature of an

324

anarchist social revolution in <a href="secJ7.html">

325

section J.7</a>, we can present

326

a few quotes by Bakunin to refute Hobsbawm's claim:

327

328

"Revolutions are not improvised. They are not made at will

329

by individuals. They come about through the force of

330

circumstances and are independent of any deliberate ill

331

or conspiracy." [quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The

332

Philosophy of Freedom, p. 139]

333

334

"It is impossible to rouse people by artificial means. Popular

335

revolutions are born by the actual force of events . . . It

336

is impossible to bring about such a revolution artificially.

337

It is not even possible to speed it up at all significantly

338

. . . There are some periods in history when revolutions are

339

quite simply impossible; there are other periods when they

340

are inevitable." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,

341

p. 183]

342

</blockquote>

343

As Brian Morris correctly argues, "Bakunin denies that a social

344

revolution could be made by the will of individuals, independent

345

of social and economic circumstances. He was much less a

346

voluntarist than his Marxist critics make out . . . he was

347

. . . aware that the social revolution would be a long process

348

that may take many years for its realisation." [Bakunin: The

349

Philosophy of Freedom, pp. 138-9] To aid the process of social

350

revolution, Bakunin supported the need for "pioneering groups

351

or associations of advanced workers who were willing to initiate

352

this great movement of self-emancipation." However, more is

353

needed -- namely popular working class organisations -- "what

354

is the organisation of the masses? . . . It is the organisation

355

by professions and trades . . . The organisation of the trade

356

sections . . . bear in themselves the living seed of the new

357

society which is to replace the old world. They are creating

358

not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself."

359

[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 252 and p. 255]

360

361

Therefore, Bakunin saw revolution as a process which starts

362

with day-to-day struggle and creation of labour unions to

363

organise that struggle. As he put it himself:

364

365

"What policy should the International [Workers' Association]

366

follow during th[e] somewhat extended time period that

367

separates us from this terrible social revolution . . .

368

the International will give labour unrest in all countries

369

an essentially economic character, with the aim of

370

reducing working hours and increasing salary, by means of

371

the association of the working masses . . . It will [also]

372

propagandise its principles . . . Lastly, the International

373

will expand and organise across frontiers of all countries,

374

so that when the revolution -- brought about by the force

375

of circumstances -- breaks out, the International will be

376

a real force and will know what it has to do. Then it will

377

be able to take the revolution into its own hands and

378

give it a direction that will benefit the people: an earnest

379

international organisation of workers' associations from

380

all countries, capable of replacing this departing world

381

of States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 109-10]

382

</blockquote>

383

However, while quoting Bakunin refutes part of his thesis,

384

Hobsbawm does base his case on some actual events of Spanish

385

Anarchist history. Therefore we need to look at these cases

386

and show how he gets these wrong. Without an empirical basis,

387

his case obviously falls even without quotes by Bakunin. Luckily

388

the important examples he uses have been analysed by people without

389

the ideological blinkers inherent in Leninism.

390

391

While we shall concentrate on just two cases -- Casa Viejas

392

in 1933 and the Jerez rising of 1892 -- a few general points

393

should be mentioned. As Jerome Mintz notes, Hobsbawms' "account

394

is based primarily on a preconceived evolutionary model of

395

political development rather than on data gathered in field

396

research. The model scales labour movements in accord with

397

their progress toward mass parties and central authority. In

398

short, he explains how anarchosyndicalists were presumed to

399

act rather than what actually took place, and the uprising

400

at Casa Viejas was used to prove an already established point

401

of view. Unfortunately, his evolutionary model misled him

402

on virtually every point." [Op. Cit., p. 271] We should also

403

note his "model" is essentially Marxist ideology -- namely,

404

Marx's assertion that his aim for mass political parties

405

expressed the interests of the working class and all other

406

visions were the products of sectarians. Mintz also points

407

out that Hobsbawm does not live up to his own model:

408

409

"While Hobsbawm's theoretical model is evolutionary, in

410

his own treatment anarchism is often regarded as unchanging

411

from one decade to the other. In his text, attitudes and

412

beliefs of 1903-5, 1918-20, 1933, and 1936 are lumped

413

together or considered interchangeable. Of course during

414

these decades the anarchosyndicalists had developed their

415

programs and the individuals involved had become more

416

experienced." [Op. Cit., p. 271f]

417

</blockquote>

418

Hobsbawm believed that Casas Viejas was the classic "anarchist"

419

uprising -- "utopian, millenarian, apocalyptic, as all

420

witnesses agree it to have been." [Primitive Rebels, p. 90]

421

As Mintz states, "the facts prove otherwise. Casas Viejas

422

rose not in a frenzy of blind millenarianism but in response

423

to a call for a nation-wide revolutionary strike. The

424

insurrection of January 1933 was hatched by faistas

425

[members of the FAI] in Barcelona and was to be fought

426

primarily there and in other urban centres. The uprisings

427

in the countryside would be diversionary and designed to

428

keep the civil guard from shifting reinforcements. The

429

faista plot was then fed by intensive newspaper propaganda,

430

by travelling orators, and by actions undertaken by the

431

[CNT] defence committees. Representatives of the defence

432

committees from Casas Viejas and Medina had received

433

instructions at a regional meeting held days before. On

434

January 11, the anarchosyndicalists of Casas Viejas

435

believed that they were joining their companeros who

436

had already been at the barricades since January 8."

437

[Op. Cit., p. 272]

438

439

Hobsbawm argued that the uprising occurred in accordance

440

with an established economic pattern:

441

442

"Economic conditions naturally determined the timing and

443

periodicity of the revolutionary outbreaks -- for instance,

444

social movements tended to reach a peak intensity during the

445

worse months of the year -- January to March, when farm

446

labourers have least work (the march on Jerez in 1892 and

447

the rising of Casas Viejas in 1933 both occurred early in

448

January), March-July, when the proceeding harvest has been

449

exhausted and times are lean." [Op. Cit., p. 79]

450

</blockquote>

451

Mintz states the obvious:

452

453

"In reality, most agricultural strikes took place in May

454

and June, the period of the harvest and the only time of

455

the year when the campesinos had any leverage against the

456

landowners. The uprising at Casas Viejas occurred in January

457

precisely because it was not an agricultural strike. The

458

timing of the insurrection, hurriedly called to coincide

459

with a planned railway strike that would make it difficult

460

for the government to shift its forces, was determined by

461

strategic rather than economic considerations." [Op. Cit.,

462

p. 273]

463

</blockquote>

464

As for the revolt itself, Hobsbawm asserts that:

465

466

"Secure from the outside world, [the men] put up the red and

467

black flag of anarchy and set about dividing the land. They

468

made no attempt to spread the movement or kill anyone."

469

[Op. Cit., p. 274]

470

471

</blockquote>

472

Which, as Mintz clearly shows, was nonsense:

473

474

"As is already evident, rather than securing themselves from

475

the rest of world, the uprising at Casas Viejas was a pathetic

476

attempt to join in an ill-fated national insurrection. With

477

regard to his second point, there was neither the time nor

478

the opportunity to 'set about dividing the land.' The men

479

were scattered in various locations guarding roads and paths

480

leading to the town. There were no meetings or discussions

481

during this brief period of control. Only a few hours

482

separated the shooting at the barracks and the entrance of

483

the small [government] rescue force from Alcala. Contrary

484

to Hobsbawm's description of peaceful enterprise, at the

485

outset the anarchists surrounding the barracks had fired

486

on the civil guards, mortally wounding two men." [Op. Cit.,

487

p. 274]

488

</blockquote>

489

As can be seen, Hobsbawm was totally wrong about the uprising

490

itself and so it cannot be used as evidence for his thesis.

491

On other, less key issues, he was equally wrong. Mintz gives

492

an excellent summary:

493

494

"Since kinship is a key feature in 'primitive' societies,

495

according to Hobsbawm, it was a major factor in the

496

leadership of the sindicato [union] in Casas Viejas.

497

498

"There is no evidence that kinship had anything to do with

499

leadership in the anarchist movement in Casa Viejas or

500

anywhere else. The reverse would be closer to the truth.

501

Since the anarchists expressed belief in universal brotherhood,

502

kinship ties were often undermined. In times of strike or

503

in carrying out any decision of the collective membership,

504

obreros conscientes sometimes had to act counter to their

505

kinship demands in order to keep faith with the movement

506

and with their companeros.

507

508

"Hobsbawm's specific examples are unfortunately based in

509

part on errors of fact. . .

510

511

"Hobsbawm's model [also] requires a charismatic leader.

512

Accordingly, the inspired leader of the uprising is said

513

to be 'old Curro Cruz ('Six Fingers') who issued the call

514

for revolution . . . '

515

516

[. . .]

517

518

"This celebration of Seisdedo's role ['Six Fingers'], however,

519

ignores the unanimous view of townspeople of every class and

520

political persuasion, who assert that the old man was apolitical

521

and had nothing to do with the uprising . . . every observer

522

and participant in the uprising agrees that Seisdedos was not

523

the leader and was never anything other than a virtuous

524

charcoal burner with but a slight interest in anarchosyndicalism.

525

526

[. . .]

527

528

"Should the role of charismatic leader be given to someone else

529

in the town? This was not a case of mistaken identity. No single

530

person in Casas Viejas could lay clam to dominating the hearts

531

and minds of the men. . .The sindicato was governed by a junta.

532

Among the cast of characters there is no sign of charismatic

533

leadership . . ." [Op. Cit., pp. 274-6]

534

</blockquote>

535

Mintz sums up by stating "Hobsbawm's adherence to a model,

536

and the accumulation of misinformation, led him away from

537

the essential conflicts underlying the tragedy and from the

538

reality of the people who participated in it." [Op. Cit.,

539

p. 276]

540

541

The Jerez uprising of 1892 also fails to provide Hobsbawm with

542

any empirical evidence to support his claims. Indeed, as in

543

Casas Viejas, the evidence actually works against him. The

544

actual events of the uprising are as follows. Just before

545

midnight of 8th January 1892, several hundred workers entered

546

the town of Jerez crying "Long live the revolution! Long live

547

Anarchy!" Armed with only rocks, sticks, scythes and other

548

farm equipment, they marched toward the city jail with the

549

evident intention of releasing its prisoners -- who included

550

many political prisoners, victims of the government's recent

551

anti-anarchist campaign. A few people were killed and the

552

uprising dispersed by a regiment of mounted troops.

553

554

Hobsbawm claims this revolt as evidence for his "primitive

555

rebels" thesis. As historian George R. Esenwein argues:

556

557

"[T]he Jerez incident cannot be explained in terms of this

558

model. What the millenarian view fails to do in this instance

559

is to credit the workers with the ability to define their

560

own political goals. This is not to deny that there were

561

millenarian aspects of the rising, for the mob action of

562

the workers on the night of 8 January indicates a degree

563

of irrationalism that is consistent with millenarian

564

behaviour. But . . . the agitators seem to have had a

565

clear motive in mind when they rose: they sought to

566

release their comrades from the local jail and thereby

567

demonstrate their defiance of the government's incessant

568

persecution of the International [Workers' Association]

569

movement. However clumsily and crudely they expressed

570

their grievance, the workers were patently aiming to

571

achieve this objective and not to overthrow the local

572

government in order to inaugurate the birth of a

573

libertarian society." [Anarchist Ideology and the

574

Working Class Movement in Spain: 1868-1898, p. 184]

575

</blockquote>

576

Similarly, many Marxists (and liberal historians) point to the

577

"cycle of insurrections"

578

that occurred during the 1930s. They usually portray these

579

revolts as isolated insurrections organised by the FAI who

580

appeared in villages and proclaimed libertarian communism.

581

The picture is one of disorganisation, millenarianism and

582

a believe in spontaneous revolution inspired by a few militants

583

and their daring actions. Nothing could be further from the

584

truth. The "cycle of insurrections" was far more complex

585

that this, as Juan Gomez Casas makes clear:

586

587

"Between 1932 and 1934 . . . the Spanish anarchists tried

588

to destroy the existing social order through a series of

589

increasingly violent strikes and insurrections, which

590

were at first spontaneous, later co-ordinated." [Anarchist

591

Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 135]

592

</blockquote>

593

Stuart Christie stresses this point when he wrote "[i]t has

594

been widely assumed that the cycle of insurrections which began

595

in . . . January 1933 were organised and instigated by the

596

FAI . . . In fact the rising had nothing to do with the FAI.

597

It began as an entirely spontaneous local affair directed

598

against a local employer, but quickly mushroomed into a

599

popular movement which threatened to engulf the whole of

600

Catalonia and the rest of Spain . . . [CNT militant] Arturo

601

Parera later confirmed that the FAI had not participated in

602

the aborted movement 'as an organisation.'" [We, the

603

Anarchists, p. 66] While the initial revolts, such as those

604

of the miners of Alto Llobregat in January 1932, were spontaneous

605

acts which caught the CNT and FAI by surprise, the following

606

insurrections became increasingly organised and co-ordinated

607

by those organisations. The January 1933 revolt, as noted

608

above, was based around a planned strike by the CNT railway

609

workers union. The revolt of December 1933 was organised by

610

a National Revolutionary Committee. Both revolts aimed at

611

uprisings all across Spain, based on the existing organisations

612

of the CNT -- the unions and their "Defence committees". Such

613

a degree of planning belies any claims that Spanish Anarchists

614

were "primitive rebels" or did not understand the complexities

615

of modern society or what was required to change it.

616

617

Ultimately, Hobsbawm's thesis and its underlying model

618

represents Marxist arrogance and sectarianism. His model

619

assumes the validity of the Marxist claim that true working

620

class movements are based on mass political parties based on

621

hierarchical, centralised, leadership and those who reject

622

this model and political action (electioneering) are sects

623

and sectarians. It was for this reason that Marx, faced with

624

the increased influence of Bakunin, overturned the First

625

International's original basis of free discussion with his

626

own concept of what a real workers' movement should be.

627

628

Originally, because the various sections of the International

629

worked under different circumstances and had attained

630

different degrees of development, the theoretical ideals

631

which reflected the real movement would also diverge. The

632

International, therefore, was open to all socialist and

633

working class tendencies. The general policies of the

634

International would be, by necessity, based on conference

635

decisions that reflected the free political development

636

that flowed from local needs. These decisions would be

637

determined by free discussion within and between sections

638

of all economic, social and political ideas. Marx, however,

639

replaced this policy with a common program of "political

640

action" (i.e. electioneering) by mass political parties via

641

the fixed Hague conference of 1872. Rather than having this

642

position agreed by the normal exchange of ideas and theoretical

643

discussion in the sections guided by the needs of the practical

644

struggle, Marx imposed what he considered as the future of

645

the workers movement onto the International -- and denounced

646

those who disagreed with him as sectarians. The notion that

647

what Marx considered as necessary might be another sectarian

648

position imposed on the workers' movement did not enter his

649

head nor that of his followers -- as can be seen, Hobsbawm

650

(mis)interpreted anarchism and its history thanks to this

651

Marxist model and vision.

652

653

However, once we look at the anarchist movement without the

654

blinkers created by Marxism, we see that rather than being

655

a movement of "primitive rebels" Spanish Anarchism was a

656

movement of working class people using valid tactics to

657

meet their own social, economic and political goals -- tactics

658

and goals which evolved to meet changing circumstances. Seeing

659

the rise of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism as the political

660

expression of the class struggle, guided by the needs of the

661

practical struggle they faced naturally follows when we

662

recognise the Marxist model for what it is -- just one

663

possible interpretation of the future of the workers'

664

movement rather than the future of that movement. Moreover,

665

as the history of Social Democracy indicates, the predictions

666

of Bakunin and the anarchists within the First International

667

were proved correct. Therefore, rather than being "primitive

668

rebels" or sectarian politics forced upon the working class,

669

anarchism reflected the politics required to built a

670

revolutionary workers' movement rather than a reformist

671

mass party.

672

673

<a name="app2"><H2>2. How accurate is Felix Morrow's book on the Spanish Revolution?</h2>

674

675

It is fair to say that most Marxists in Britain base their criticisms

676

of the Spanish Anarchism, particularly the revolution of 1936, on

677

the work of Trotskyist Felix Morrow. Morrow's book Revolution and

678

Counter-Revolution in Spain, first published in 1938, actually is

679

not that bad -- for some kinds of information. However, it is

680

basically written as Trotskyist propaganda. All too often Morrow

681

is inaccurate, and over-eager to bend reality to fit the party line.

682

This is particularly the case when discussing the actions and ideas

683

of the CNT and FAI and when discussing the activities of his

684

fellow Trotskyists in Spain, the Bolshevik-Leninists. We discuss

685

the first set of inaccuracies in the following sections, here

686

we mention the second, Morrow's comments on the Spanish Trotskyists.

687

688

The Bolshevik-Leninists, for example, an obscure sect who perhaps

689

numbered 20 members at most, are, according to Morrow, transformed

690

into the only ones who could save the Spanish Revolution -- because

691

they alone were members of the Fourth International, Morrow's own

692

organisation. As he put it:

693

694

"Only the small forces of the Bolshevik-Leninists. . . clearly

695

pointed the road for the workers." [Felix Morrow, Revolution and

696

Counter-Revolution in Spain, p. 191]

697

698

"Could that party [the party needed to lead the revolution] be any

699

but a party standing on the platform of the Fourth International?"

700

[Op. Cit., p. 248]

701

</blockquote>

702

And so on. As we will make clear in the following discussion,

703

Morrow was as wrong about this as he was about anarchism.

704

705

The POUM -- a more significant Marxist party in Spain, though still

706

tiny compared to the anarchists -- is also written up as far more

707

important than it was, and slagged off for failing to lead the

708

masses to victory (or listening to the Bolshevik-Leninists). The

709

Fourth Internationalists "offered the POUM the rarest and most

710

precious form of aid: a consistent Marxist analysis" [Op. Cit.,

711

p. 105] (never mind Spanish workers needing guns and solidarity!).

712

But when such a programme -- prepared in advance -- was offered to

713

the POUM by the Fourth International representative -- only two hours

714

after arriving in Spain, and a quarter of an hour after meeting the

715

POUM [Op. Cit., p. 139] -- the POUM were not interested. The POUM

716

have been both attacked (and claimed as their own) by Trotskyists

717

ever since.

718

719

It is Morrow's attacks on anarchism, though, that have most readily

720

entered leftist folklore -- even among Marxists who reject Leninism.

721

Some of Morrow's criticisms are fair enough -- but these were voiced

722

by anarchists long before Morrow put pen to paper. Morrow, in fact,

723

quotes and accepts the analyses of anarchists like Camillo Berneri

724

("Berneri had been right" etc. [Op. Cit., p. 153]), and praises

725

anarchists like Durruti ("the greatest military figure produced by

726

the war" [Op. Cit., p. 224]) -- then sticks the boot into anarchism.

727

Indeed, Durruti's analysis is praised but he is transformed into "no

728

theoretician, but an activist leader of masses. . . his words

729

express the revolutionary outlook of the class-conscious workers."

730

[Op. Cit., p. 250] Of course, his words, activity and "outlook"

731

(i.e. political analysis) did not spring out of thin air but

732

rather, to state the obvious, were informed by and reflected

733

his anarchist politics, history, activity and vision (which in

734

turn reflected his experiences and needs as a member of the

735

working class). Morrow obviously wanted to have his cake

736

and eat it.

737

738

Typically for today's left, perhaps, the most quoted sections of

739

Morrow's book are the most inaccurate. In the next eight sections

740

we discuss some of the most inaccurate claims. After that we point

741

out that Morrow's analysis of the militias is deeply ironic given

742

Trotsky's actions as leader of the Red Army. Then we discuss some

743

of Morrow's inaccurate assertions about anarchism in general.

744

745

Of course, some of the errors we highlight in Morrow's work

746

are the product of the conditions in which it was written --

747

thousands of miles from Spain in America, dependent on papers

748

produced by Spanish Marxists, Anarchists and others. We cannot

749

blame him for such mistakes (although we can blame the Trotskyist

750

publisher who reprints his account without indicating his factual

751

errors and the Marxist writers who repeat his claims without

752

checking their accuracy). We do, however, blame Morrow for his

753

errors and misrepresentations of the activities and politics of

754

the Spanish Anarchists and anarchism in general. These errors

755

derive from his politics and inability to understand anarchism

756

or provide an honest account of it.

757

758

By the end of our discussion we hope to show why anarchists argue

759

that Morrow's book is deeply flawed and its objectively skewed by

760

the authors politics and so cannot be taken at face value. Morrow's

761

book may bring comfort to those Marxists who look for ready-made

762

answers and are prepared to accept the works of hacks at face-value.

763

Those who want to learn from the past -- instead of re-writing it --

764

will have to look elsewhere.

765

766

<a name="app3"><H2>3. Did a "highly centralised" FAI control

767

the CNT?</h2>

768

769

According to Morrow, "Spanish Anarchism had in the FAI a highly

770

centralised party apparatus through which it maintained control

771

of the CNT" [Op. Cit., p. 100]

772

773

In reality, the FAI -- the Iberian Anarchist Federation --

774

was founded, in 1927, as a confederation of regional federations

775

(including the Portuguese Anarchist Union). These regional

776

federations, in turn, co-ordinated local and district

777

federations of highly autonomous anarchist affinity groups.

778

In the words of Murray Bookchin:

779

780

"Like the CNT, the FAI was structured along confederal

781

lines: the affinity groups were linked together in a

782

Local Federation and the Local Federation in District

783

and Regional Federations. A Local Federation was

784

administered by an ongoing secretariat, usually of

785

three persons, and a committee composed of one mandated

786

delegate from each affinity group. This body comprised

787

a sort of local executive committee. To allow for a full

788

expression of rank-and-file views, the Local Federation

789

was obliged to convene assemblies of all the faistas

790

in its area. The District and Regional Federations,

791

in turn, were simply the Local federation writ large,

792

replicating the structure of the lower body. All the

793

Local Districts and Regional Federations were linked

794

together by a Peninsular Committee whose tasks, at

795

least theoretically, were administrative. . . [A

796

FAI secretary] admits that the FAI 'exhibited a tendency

797

towards centralism' . . . Yet it must also be emphasised

798

that the affinity groups were far more independent than

799

any comparable bodies in the Socialist Party, much less

800

the Communist. . . the FAI was not an internally repressive

801

organisation . . . Almost as a matter of second nature,

802

dissidents were permitted a considerable amount of freedom

803

in voicing and publishing material against the leadership

804

and established policies." [The Spanish Anarchists,

805

pp. 197-8]

806

</blockquote>

807

And:

808

809

"Most writers on the Spanish labour movement seem to

810

concur in the view that, with the departure of the

811

moderates, the CNT was to fall under the complete

812

domination of the FAI . . . But is this appraisal

813

correct? The FAI . . . was more loosely jointed as

814

an organisation than many of its admirers and critics

815

seem to recognise. It has no bureaucratic apparatus,

816

no membership cards or dues, and no headquarters

817

with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . .

818

They jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity

819

groups from the authority of higher organisational

820

bodies -- a state of mind hardly conducive to the

821

development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation.

822

823

"The FAI, moreover, was not a politically homogeneous

824

organisation which followed a fixed 'line' like the

825

Communists and many Socialists. It had no official

826

program by which all faistas could mechanically

827

guide their actions." [Op. Cit., p. 224]

828

</blockquote>

829

So, while the FAI may have had centralising tendencies,

830

a "highly centralised" political party it was not. Further,

831

many anarcho-syndicalists and affinity groups were not in

832

the FAI (though most seem to have supported it), and many

833

FAI members put loyalty to the CNT (the anarcho-syndicalist

834

union confederation) first. For instance, according to the

835

minutes of the FAI national plenum of January-February 1936:

836

837

"The Regional Committee [of Aragon, Rioja, and Navarra] is

838

completely neglected by the majority of the militants because

839

they are absorbed in the larger activities of the CNT"

840

</blockquote>

841

And:

842

843

"One of the reasons for the poor condition of the FAI was the

844

fact that almost all the comrades were active in the defence

845

groups of the CNT" (report from the Regional Federation of the

846

North). </blockquote>

847

848

These are internal documents and so unlikely to be lies. [Juan

849

Gomez Casas, Anarchist Organisation: the History of the FAI,

850

p. 165 and p. 168]

851

852

Anarchists were obviously the main influence in the CNT. Indeed,

853

the CNT was anarcho-syndicalist long before the FAI was founded --

854

from its creation in 1910 the CNT had been anarcho-syndicalist

855

and remained so for 17 years before the FAI existed. However,

856

Morrow was not the only person to assert "FAI control" of the

857

CNT. In fact, the claim of "FAI control" was an invention of

858

a reformist minority within the organisation -- people like Angel

859

Pestana, ex-CNT National Secretary, who wanted to turn the CNT

860

into a politically "neutral" union movement. Pestana later showed

861

what he meant by forming the Syndicalist Party and standing for

862

Parliament (the Cortes). Obviously, in the struggle against the

863

reformists, anarcho-syndicalists -- inside the FAI or not -- voted

864

for people they trusted to run CNT committees. The reformists

865

(called Treinistas) lost, split from the CNT (taking about

866

10% of the membership with them), and the myth of "FAI dictatorship"

867

was born. Rather than accept that the membership no longer supported

868

them, the Treinistas consoled themselves with tales that a minority,

869

the FAI, had taken control of the CNT.

870

871

In fact, due to its decentralised and federal structure, the FAI

872

could not have had the sort of dominance over the CNT that is often

873

attributed to it. At union congresses, where policies and the

874

program for the movement were argued out:

875

876

"[D]elegates, whether or not they were members of the FAI, were

877

presenting resolutions adopted by their unions at open membership

878

meetings. Actions taken at the congress had to be reported back to

879

their unions at open meetings, and given the degree of union

880

education among the members, it was impossible for delegates

881

to support personal, non-representative positions." [Juan Gomez

882

Casas, Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 121]

883

</blockquote>

884

The union committees were typically rotated out of office

885

frequently and committeemen continued to work as wage-earners.

886

In a movement so closely based on the shop floor, the FAI could

887

not maintain influence for long if they ignored the concerns

888

and opinions of co-workers. Moreover, only a minority of the

889

anarcho-syndicalist activists in the CNT belonged to the FAI

890

and, as Juan Gomez Casas points out in his history of the

891

FAI, FAI militants frequently had a prior loyalty to the CNT.

892

Thus his summation seems correct:

893

894

"As a minority organisation, the FAI could not possibly have

895

had the kind of control attributed to it . . . in 1931 . . .

896

there were fifty CNT members for each member of a FAI group.

897

The FAI was strongly federalist, with its groups at the base

898

freely associated. It could not dominate an organisation like

899

the CNT, which had fifty times as many members and was also

900

opposed to hierarchy and centralism. We know that FAI militants

901

were also CNT militants, and frequently they were loyal first

902

to the CNT. Their influence was limited to the base of the

903

organisation through participation in the plenums of militants

904

or unions meetings." [Op. Cit., p. 133]

905

</blockquote>

906

He sums up by arguing:

907

908

"The myth of the FAI as conqueror and ruler of the CNT was

909

created basically by the Treinistas" [Op. Cit., p. 134]

910

</blockquote>

911

Therefore, Morrow is re-cycling an argument which was produced

912

by the reformist wing of the CNT after it had lost influence

913

in the union rank-and-file. Perhaps he judges the FAI by his

914

own standards? After all, the aim of Leninists is for the

915

vanguard party to control the labour unions in their countries.

916

Anarchists reject such a vision and believe in union autonomy

917

in as much as they influence the rank-and-file who control

918

the union. Rather than aim to control the CNT, the FAI worked

919

to influence its membership. In the words of Francisco Ascaso

920

(friend of Durruti and an influential anarchist militant in the

921

CNT and FAI in his own right):

922

923

"There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes

924

in union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person.

925

I pay my dues to the workers' union and when I intervene at

926

union meetings I do it as someone who us exploited, and with

927

the right which is granted me by the card in my possession, as

928

do the other militants, whether they belong to the FAI or not."

929

[cited by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 137]

930

</blockquote>

931

In other words, the FAI "controlled" the CNT only to the extent

932

it influenced the membership -- who, in fact, controlled the

933

organisation. We must also note that Ascaso's comment echoes

934

Bakunin's that the "purpose of the Alliance [i.e. anarchist

935

federation] is to promote the Revolution . . . it will combat

936

all ambition to dominate the revolutionary movement of the people,

937

either by cliques or individuals. The Alliance will promote the

938

Revolution only through the NATURAL BUT NEVER OFFICIAL INFLUENCE

939

of all members of the Alliance." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 387]

940

941

Regardless of Morrow's claims, the FAI was a federation of

942

autonomous affinity groups in which, as one member put it,

943

"[e]ach FAI group thought and acted as it deemed fit, without

944

bothering about what the others might be thinking or deciding

945

. . . they had no . . . opportunity or jurisdiction . . . to

946

foist a party line upon the grass-roots." [Francisco Carrasquer,

947

quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!, p. 28] There

948

was co-ordination in a federal structure, of course, but that

949

did not create a "highly centralised" party-like organisation.

950

Morrow judged the FAI according to his own standards, squeezing

951

it into his ideological vision of the world rather than reporting

952

the reality of the situation (see Stuart Christie's work for

953

a more detailed refutation of the usual Marxist and Liberal

954

inventions of the activities and nature of the FAI).

955

956

In addition, Morrow's picture of the FAI implicitly paints the CNT

957

as a mere "transmission belt" for that organisation (and so a

958

re-production of the Bolshevik position on the relationship of

959

the labour unions and the revolutionary party). Such a picture,

960

however, ignores the CNT's character as a non-hierarchical,

961

democratic (self-managed) mass movement which had many tendencies

962

within it. It also fails to understand the way anarchists seek to

963

influence mass organisations -- not by assuming positions of power

964

but by convincing their fellow workers' of the validity of their

965

ideas in policy making mass assemblies (see

966

<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a> for more

967

details).

968

969

In other words, Morrow's claims are simply false and express a

970

total lack of understanding of the nature of the CNT, the FAI

971

and their relationship.

972

973

<a name="app4"><H2>4. What is the history of the CNT and the Communist International?</h2>

974

975

Morrow states that the "tide of the October Revolution had, for

976

a short time, overtaken the CNT. It had sent a delegate to the

977

Comintern [Communist International] Congress in 1921. The

978

anarchists had then resorted to organised fraction work and

979

recaptured it." [Op. Cit., p. 100] He links this to the FAI by

980

stating "[t]henceforward . . . the FAI . . . maintained control

981

of the CNT." Given that the FAI was formed in 1927 and the CNT

982

disassociated itself with the Comintern in 1922, five years

983

before the FAI was created, "thenceforward" does not do

984

the FAI's ability to control the CNT before it was created

985

justice!

986

987

Partly it is the inability of the Communist Party and its Trotskyist

988

off-shoots to dominate the CNT which explains Morrow's comments.

989

Seeing anarchism as "petty bourgeois" it is hard to combine this

990

with the obvious truth that a mass, revolutionary, workers' union

991

could be so heavily influenced by anarchism rather than Marxism.

992

Hence the need for FAI (or anarchist) "control" of the CNT. It

993

allows Trotskyists ignore dangerous ideological questions. As

994

J. Romero Maura notes, the question why anarchism influenced

995

the CNT "in fact raises the problem why the reformist social

996

democratic, or alternatively the communist conceptions, did not

997

impose themselves on the CNT as they managed to in most of the

998

rest of Europe. This question . . . is based on the false

999

assumption that the anarcho-syndicalist conception of the

1000

workers' struggle in pre-revolutionary society was completely

1001

at odds with what the real social process signified (hence

1002

the constant reference to religious', 'messianic', models

1003

as explanations)." He argues that the "explanation of Spanish

1004

anarcho-syndicalist success in organising a mass movement with

1005

a sustained revolutionary elan should initially be sought in

1006

the very nature of the anarchist concept of society and of how

1007

to achieve revolution." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish Case", in

1008

Anarchism Today, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 78 and p. 65]

1009

Once we do that, we can see the weakness of Morrow's (and others)

1010

"Myth of the FAI" -- having dismissed the obvious reason for

1011

anarchist influence, namely its practicality and valid politics,

1012

there can only be "control by the FAI."

1013

1014

However, the question of affiliation of the CNT to the Comintern

1015

is worth discussing as it indicates the differences between

1016

anarchists and Leninists. As will be seen, the truth of this

1017

matter is somewhat different to Morrow's claims and indicates

1018

well his distorted vision.

1019

1020

Firstly to correct a factual error. The CNT in fact sent two

1021

delegations to the Comintern. At its 1919 national congress,

1022

the CNT discussed the Russian Revolution and accepted a

1023

proposition that stated it "declares itself a staunch

1024

defender of the principles upheld by Bakunin in the First

1025

International. It declares further that it affiliates

1026

provisionally to the Third International on account of its

1027

predominantly revolutionary character, pending the holding

1028

of the International Congress in Spain, which must establish

1029

the foundations which are to govern the true workers'

1030

International." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 220-1]

1031

1032

In June 1920, Angel Pestana arrived in Moscow and represented

1033

the CNT at the Second Congress of the Communist International.

1034

He was arrested when he arrived back in Spain and so could not

1035

give his eye-witness account of the strangulation of the revolution

1036

and the deeply dishonest manipulation of the congress by the

1037

Communist Party. A later delegation arrived in April 1921,

1038

headed by Andres Nin and Joaquin Maurin professing to represent

1039

the CNT. Actually, Nin and Maurin represented virtually no one

1040

but the Lerida local federation (their stronghold). Their actions

1041

and clams were disavowed by a plenum of the CNT the following

1042

August.

1043

1044

How did Nin and Maurin manage to get into a position to be sent

1045

to Russia? Simply because of the repression the CNT was under

1046

at the time. This was the period when Catalan bosses hired

1047

gun men to assassinate CNT militants and members and the police

1048

exercised the notorious practice known as ley de fugas (shot

1049

while trying to escape). In such a situation, the normal

1050

workings of the CNT came under must stress and "with the

1051

best known libertarian militants imprisoned, deported,

1052

exiled, if not murdered outright, Nin and his group managed

1053

to hoist themselves on to the National Committee . . . Pestana's

1054

report not being available, it was decided that a further

1055

delegation should be sent . . . in response to Moscow's

1056

invitation to the CNT to take part in the foundation of

1057

the Red International of Labour Unions." [Ignaio de Llorens,

1058

The CNT and the Russian Revolution, p. 8] Juan Gomez Casas

1059

confirms this account:

1060

1061

"At a plenum held in Lerida in 1921, while the CNT was in

1062

disarray [due to repression] in Catalonia, a group of

1063

Bolsheviks was designated to represent the Spanish CNT in

1064

Russia . . . The restoration of constitutional guarantees

1065

by the Spanish government in April 1922, permitted the

1066

anarcho-syndicalists to meet in Saragossa in June 11 . . .

1067

[where they] confirmed the withdrawal of the CNT from the

1068

Third International and the entrance on principle into the

1069

new [revolutionary syndicalist] International Working Men's

1070

Association." [Anarchist Organisation: History of the FAI,

1071

p. 61]

1072

</blockquote>

1073

We should note that along with pro-Bolshevik Nin and Maurin was

1074

anarchist Gaston Leval. Leval quickly got in touch with Russian

1075

and other anarchists, helping some imprisoned Russia anarchists

1076

get deported after bringing news of their hunger strike to the

1077

assembled international delegates. By embarrassing Lenin and

1078

Trotsky, Leval helped save his comrades from the prison camp

1079

and so saved their lives.

1080

1081

By the time Leval arrived back in Spain, Pestana's account

1082

of his experiences had been published -- along with accounts

1083

of the Bolshevik repression of workers, the Kronstadt revolt,

1084

the anarchist movement and other socialist parties. These

1085

accounts made it clear that the Russian Revolution had become

1086

dominated by the Communist Party and the "dictatorship of

1087

the proletariat" little more that dictatorship by the central

1088

committee of that party.

1089

1090

Moreover, the way the two internationals operated violated

1091

basic libertarian principles. Firstly, the "Red Labour

1092

International completely subordinated trade unions to the

1093

Communist Party." [Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish

1094

Revolution, p. 38] This completely violated the CNT principle

1095

of unions being controlled by their members (via self-management

1096

from the bottom up). Secondly, the congresses' methodology

1097

in its debates and decision-making were alien to the CNT

1098

tradition. In that organisation self-management was its

1099

pride and glory and its gatherings and congresses reflected

1100

this. Pestana could not fathom the fierce struggle surrounding

1101

the make-up of the chairmanship of the Comintern congress:

1102

1103

"Pestana says that he was particularly intrigued by the

1104

struggle for the chairmanship. He soon realised that the

1105

chair was the congress, and that the Congress was a

1106

farce. The chairman made the rules, presided over deliberations,

1107

modified proposals at will, changed the agenda, and presented

1108

proposals of his own. For a start, the way the chair handled

1109

the gavel was very inequitable. For example, Zinoviev gave

1110

a speech which lasted one and one-half hours, although each

1111

speaker was supposedly limited to ten minutes. Pestana tried

1112

to rebut the speech, but was cut off by the chairman, watch

1113

in hand. Pestana himself was rebutted by Trotsky who spoke

1114

for three-quarters of an hour, and when Pestana wanted to

1115

answer Trotsky's attack on him, the chairman declared the

1116

debate over." [Op. Cit., pp. 37-8]

1117

</blockquote>

1118

In addition, "[i]n theory, every delegate was free to table

1119

a motion, but the chair itself selected the ones that were

1120

'interesting.' Proportional voting [by delegation or delegate]

1121

had been provided for, but was not implemented. The Russian

1122

Communist Party ensured that it enjoyed a comfortable majority."

1123

Peirats continues by noting that "[t]o top it all, certain

1124

important decisions were not even made in the congress hall,

1125

but were made begin the scenes." That was how the resolution

1126

that "[i]n forthcoming world congresses of the Third International,

1127

the national trade union organisations affiliated to it are

1128

to be represented by delegates from each country's Communist

1129

Party" was adopted. He also noted that "[o]bjections to this

1130

decision were quite simply ignored." [No Gods, No Masters,

1131

vol. 2, p. 224]

1132

1133

Many of the syndicalist delegates to this "pantomime" congress

1134

later meet in Berlin and founded the anarcho-syndicalist

1135

International Workers Association based on union autonomy,

1136

self-management and federalism. Unsurprisingly, once Pestana

1137

and Leval reported back to their organisation, the CNT rejected

1138

the Bolshevik Myth and re-affirmed the libertarian principles

1139

it had proclaimed at its 1919 congress. At a plenum of the CNT

1140

in 1922, the organisation withdrew its provisional affiliation

1141

and voted to join the syndicalist International formed in Berlin.

1142

1143

Therefore, rather than the anarchists conducting "fraction work"

1144

to "recapture" the CNT, the facts are the pro-Bolshevik National

1145

Committee of 1921 came about due to the extreme repression the

1146

CNT was suffering at the time. Militants were being assassinated

1147

in the streets, including committee members. In this context it

1148

is easy to see how an unrepresentative minority could temporarily

1149

gain influence in the National Committee. Moreover, it was CNT

1150

plenary session which revoked the organisations provisional

1151

affiliation to the Comintern -- that is, a regular meeting

1152

of mandated and accountable delegates. In other words, by the

1153

membership itself who had been informed of what had actually

1154

been happening under the Bolsheviks. In addition, it was this

1155

plenum which agreed affiliation to the anarcho-syndicalist

1156

International Workers Association founded in Berlin during

1157

1922 by syndicalists and anarchists horrified by the Bolshevik

1158

dictatorship, having seen it at first hand.

1159

1160

Thus the decision of the CNT in 1922 (and the process by which

1161

this decision was made) follow exactly the decisions and processes

1162

of 1919. That congress agreed to provisionally affiliate to the

1163

Comintern until such time as a real workers' International

1164

inspired by the ideas of Bakunin was created. The only difference

1165

was that this International was formed in Germany, not Spain.

1166

Given this, it is impossible to argue that the anarchists

1167

"recaptured" the CNT.

1168

1169

As can be seen, Morrow's comment presents radically false image of

1170

what happened during this period. Rather than resort to "fraction

1171

work" to "recapture" the CNT, the policies of the CNT in 1919 and

1172

1922 were identical. Moreover, the decision to disaffiliate from

1173

the Comintern was made by a confederal meeting of mandated delegates

1174

representing the rank-and-file as was the original. The anarchists

1175

did not "capture" the CNT, rather they continued to influence the

1176

membership of the organisation as they had always done. Lastly,

1177

the concept of "capture" displays no real understanding of how

1178

the CNT worked -- each syndicate was autonomous and self-managed.

1179

There was no real officialdom to take over, just administrative

1180

posts which were unpaid and conducted after working hours. To

1181

"capture" the CNT was impossible as each syndicate would ignore

1182

any unrepresentative minority which tried to do so.

1183

1184

However, Morrow's comments allow us to indicate some of the key

1185

differences between anarchists and Leninists -- the CNT rejected

1186

the Comintern because it violated its principles of self-management,

1187

union autonomy and equality and built party domination of the union

1188

movement in its place.

1189

1190

<a name="app5"><H2>5. Why did the CNT not join the Workers' Alliance?</h2>

1191

1192

Morrow in his discussion of the struggles of the 1930s implies

1193

that the CNT was at fault in not joining the Socialist UGT's

1194

"Workers' Alliance" (Alianza Obrera). These were first

1195

put forward by the Marxist-Leninists of the BOC (Workers and

1196

Peasants Bloc -- later to form the POUM) after their attempts

1197

to turn the CNT into a Bolshevik vanguard failed [Paul Preston,

1198

The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 154]. Socialist Party

1199

and UGT interest began only after their election defeat in 1933.

1200

By 1934, however, there existed quite a few alliances, including

1201

one in Asturias in which the CNT participated. Nationally, however,

1202

the CNT refused to join with the UGT and this, he implies, lead to

1203

the defeat of the October 1934 uprising (see

1204

<a href="append32.html#app6">next section</a> for a

1205

discussion of this rebellion).

1206

1207

However, Morrow fails to provide any relevant historical background

1208

to understand the CNT's decision. Moreover, their reasons why

1209

they did not join have a striking similarity to Morrow's own

1210

arguments against the "Workers' Alliance" (which may explain why

1211

Morrow does not mention them). In effect, the CNT is dammed for

1212

having policies similar to Morrow's but having principles enough

1213

to stick to them.

1214

1215

First, we must discuss the history of UGT and CNT relationships

1216

in order to understand the context within which the anarchists

1217

made their decision. Unless we do this, Morrow's claims may

1218

seem more reasonable than they actually are. Once we have done

1219

this we will discuss the politics of that decision.

1220

1221

From 1931 (the birth of the Second Spanish Republic) to 1933 the

1222

Socialists, in coalition with Republicans, had attacked the CNT

1223

(a repeat, in many ways, of the UGT's collaboration with the

1224

quasi-fascist Primo de Rivera dictatorship of 1923-30). Laws

1225

were passed, with Socialist help, making lightening strikes

1226

illegal and state arbitration compulsory. Anarchist-organised

1227

strikes were violently repressed, and the UGT provided scabs --

1228

as against the CNT Telephone Company strike of 1931. This strike

1229

gives in indication of the role of the socialists during its time

1230

as part of the government (Socialist Largo Caballero was the

1231

Minister of Labour, for example):

1232

1233

"The UGT . . . had its own bone to pick with the CNT. The

1234

telephone syndicate, which the CNT had established in 1918,

1235

was a constant challenge to the Socialists' grip on the

1236

Madrid labour movement. Like the construction workers'

1237

syndicate, it was a CNT enclave in a solidly UGT centre.

1238

Accordingly, the government and the Socialist Party found

1239

no difficulty in forming a common front to break the strike

1240

and weaken CNT influence.

1241

1242

"The Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal and

1243

the Ministry of the Interior called out the Civil Guard

1244

to intimidate the strikers . . . Shedding all pretence

1245

of labour solidarity, the UGT provided the Compania

1246

Telefonica with scabs while El Socialista, the

1247

Socialist Party organ, accused the CNT of being run by

1248

pistoleros. Those tactics were successful in Madrid,

1249

where the defeated strikers were obliged to enrol in the

1250

UGT to retain their jobs. So far as the Socialists were

1251

concerned, the CNT's appeals for solidarity had fallen on

1252

deaf ears. . .

1253

1254

"In Seville, however, the strike began to take on very

1255

serious dimensions. . . on July 20, a general strike broke

1256

out in Seville and serious fighting erupted in the streets.

1257

This strike . . . stemmed from the walkout of the telephone

1258

workers . . . pitched battles took place in the countryside

1259

around the city between the Civil Guard and the agricultural

1260

workers. Maura, as minister of interior, decided to crush the

1261

'insurrection' ruthlessly. Martial law was declared and the

1262

CNT's headquarters was reduced to shambles by artillery fire.

1263

After nine days, during which heavily armed police detachments

1264

patrolled the streets, the Seville general strike came to an

1265

end. The struggle in the Andalusian capital left 40 dead and

1266

some 200 wounded." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists,

1267

pp. 221-2]

1268

</blockquote>

1269

Elsewhere, "[d]uring a Barcelona building strike CNT workers

1270

barricaded themselves in and said they would only surrender

1271

to regular troops. The army arrived and then machine-gunned

1272

them as soon as they surrendered." [Antony Beevor, The Spanish

1273

Civil War, p. 33] In other words, the republican-socialist

1274

government repressed the CNT with violence as well as using

1275

the law to undermine CNT activities and strikes.

1276

1277

Morrow fails to discuss this history of violence against the

1278

CNT. He mentions in passing that the republican-socialist coalition

1279

government "[i]n crushing the CNT, the troops broadened the

1280

repression to the whole working class." He states that

1281

"[u]nder the cover of putting down an anarchist putsch in

1282

January 1933, the Civil Guard 'mopped up' various groups of

1283

trouble makers. And encounter with peasants at Casas Viejas,

1284

early in January 1933, became a cause celebre which shook

1285

the government to its foundations." However, his account

1286

of the Casas Viejas massacre is totally inaccurate. He states

1287

that "the little village . . ., after two years of patient

1288

waiting for the Institute of Agrarian Reform to divide the

1289

neighbouring Duke's estate, the peasants had moved in and

1290

begun to till the soil for themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 22]

1291

1292

Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, we must note

1293

that the land workers (who were not, in the main, peasants) were

1294

members of the CNT. Secondly, as we pointed in

1295

<a href="append32.html#app1">section 1</a>, the

1296

uprising had nothing to do with land reform. The CNT members

1297

did not "till the soil", rather they rose in insurrection as

1298

part of a planned CNT-FAI uprising based on an expected rail

1299

workers strike (the "anarchist putsch" Morrow mentions). The

1300

workers were too busy fighting the Civil and Assault Guards to

1301

till anything. He is correct in terms of the repression, of

1302

course, but his account of the events leading up to it is not

1303

only wrong, it is misleading (indeed, it appears to be an

1304

invention based on Trotskyist ideology rather than having any

1305

basis in reality). Rather than being part of a "broadened

1306

. . . repression [against] the whole working class," it was

1307

actually part of the "putting down" of the anarchist revolt.

1308

CNT members were killed -- along with a dozen politically

1309

neutral workers who were selected at random and murdered.

1310

Thus Morrow downplays the role of the Socialists in repressing

1311

the CNT and FAI -- he presents it as general repression rather

1312

than a massacre resulting from repressing a CNT revolt.

1313

1314

He even quotes a communist paper stating that 9 000 political

1315

prisoners were in jail in June 1933. Morrow states that they

1316

were "mostly workers." [p. 23] Yes, they were mostly workers,

1317

CNT members in fact -- "[i]n mid-April [1933]. . . the CNT

1318

launched a massive campaign to release imprisoned CNT-FAI

1319

militants whose numbers had now soared to about 9 000."

1320

[Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 231-2]

1321

1322

Moreover, during and after CNT insurrections in Catalonia in

1323

1932, and the much wider insurrections of January 1933 (9 000

1324

CNT members jailed) and December 1933 (16 000 jailed) Socialist

1325

solidarity was nil. Indeed, the 1932 and January 1933 revolts

1326

had been repressed by the government which the Socialist Party

1327

was a member of.

1328

1329

In other words, and to state the obvious, the socialists had

1330

been part of a government which repressed CNT revolts and

1331

syndicates, imprisoned and killed their members, passed laws

1332

b'to restrict their ability to strike and use direct action'

1333

and provided scabs during strikes. Little wonder that Peirats

1334

states "[i]t was difficult for the CNT and the FAI to get used

1335

to the idea of an alliance with their Socialist oppressors."

1336

[Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 94]

1337

1338

It is only in this context can we understand the events of

1339

1934 and the refusal of the CNT to run into the UGT's alliance.

1340

Morrow, needless to say, does not present this essential

1341

context and so the reader cannot understand why the CNT acted

1342

as it did in response to Socialist appeals for "unity." Instead,

1343

Morrow implies that CNT-FAI opposition to "workers alliances"

1344

were due to them believing "all governments were equally bad."

1345

[p. 29] Perhaps if Morrow had presented an honest account of the

1346

repression the republican-socialist government had inflicted on

1347

the CNT then the reader could make an informed judgement on why

1348

anarchist opposition to the socialist proposals existed. Rather

1349

than being sectarian or against labour unity, they had been

1350

at receiving end of extensive socialist scabbing and state

1351

repression.

1352

1353

Moreover, as well as the recent history of socialist repression

1354

and scabbing, there was also the experience of a similar alliance

1355

between the CNT and UGT that had occurred in 1917. The first

1356

test of the alliance came with a miners strike in Andalusia,

1357

and a "CNT proposal for a joint general strike, to be initiated

1358

by UGT miners and railway workers, had been rejected by the

1359

Madrid Socialists . . . the miners, after striking for four

1360

months, returned to work in defeat." Little wonder that "the

1361

pact was in shreds. It was to be eliminated completely when

1362

a general strike broke out in Barcelona over the arrests of

1363

the CNT leaders and the assassination of Layret. Once again

1364

the CNT called upon the UGT for support. Not only was aid

1365

refused but it was denied with an arrogance that clearly

1366

indicated the Socialists had lost all interest in future

1367

collaboration. . . The strike in Catalonia collapsed and,

1368

with it, any prospect of collaboration between the two

1369

unions for years to come." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 175-6]

1370

1371

Of course, such historical context would confuse readers

1372

with facts and so goes unmentioned by Morrow.

1373

1374

In addition, there was another reason for opposing the "workers'

1375

alliances" -- particularly an alliance between the UGT and CNT.

1376

Given the history of UGT and CNT pacts plus the actions of

1377

the UGT and socialists in the previous government it was

1378

completely sensible and politically principled. This reason

1379

was political and flowed from the CNT's libertarian vision.

1380

As Durruti argued in 1934:

1381

1382

"The alliance, to be revolutionary, must be genuinely working

1383

class. It must be the result of an agreement between the

1384

workers' organisation, and those alone. No party, however,

1385

socialist it may be, can belong to a workers' alliance,

1386

which should be built from its foundations, in the

1387

enterprises where the workers struggle. Its representative

1388

bodies must be the workers' committee chosen in the shops,

1389

the factories, the mines and the villages. We must reject

1390

any agreement on a national level, between National

1391

Committees, but rather favour an alliance carried out

1392

at the base by the workers themselves. Then and only

1393

then, can the revolutionary drive come to life, develop

1394

and take root." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People

1395

Armed, p. 154]

1396

</blockquote>

1397

In the Central Region, Orobon Fernandez argued along

1398

similar lines in Madrid's La Tierra:

1399

1400

"Revolutionary proletarian democracy is direct management

1401

of society by the workers, a certain bulwark against

1402

party dictatorships and a guarantee of the development

1403

of the revolution's forces and undertakings. . .

1404

what matters must is that general guidelines are laid

1405

down so that these may serve as a platform of the

1406

alliance and furnish a combative and constructive norm

1407

for the united forces . . . [These include:] acceptance

1408

of revolutionary proletarian democracy, which is to say,

1409

the will of the majority of the proletariat, as the common

1410

denominator and determining factor of the new order

1411

of things. . . immediate socialisation of the means

1412

of production, transportation, exchange, accommodation

1413

and finance . . . federated according to their area of

1414

interest and confederated at national level, the municipal

1415

and industrial organisations will maintain the principle of

1416

unity in the economic structure." [quoted by Jose Peirats,

1417

The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 74-5]

1418

</blockquote>

1419

The May 1936 Saragossa congress of the CNT passed a

1420

resolution concerning revolutionary alliances which

1421

was obviously based on these arguments. It stated

1422

that in order "to make the social revolution an effective reality,

1423

the social and political system regulating the life of the

1424

country has to be utterly destroyed" and that the "new

1425

revolutionary order will be determined by the free choice

1426

of the working class." [quoted by Jose Peirats, Op. Cit.,

1427

p. 100]

1428

1429

Only such an alliance, from the bottom up and based on workers'

1430

self-management could be a revolutionary one. Indeed, any pact

1431

not based on this but rather conducted between organisations

1432

would be a pact the CNT and the bureaucracy of the UGT -- and

1433

remove any possibility of creating genuine bodies of working

1434

class self-management (as the history of the Civil War proved).

1435

Indeed, Morrow seems to agree:

1436

1437

"The broad character of the proletarian insurrection was

1438

explained by the Communist Left (Trotskyist). It devoted

1439

itself to efforts to build the indispensable instrument of

1440

the insurrection: workers' councils constituted by delegates

1441

representing all the labour parties and unions, the shops and

1442

streets; to be created in every locality and joined together

1443

nationally . . . Unfortunately, the socialists failed to

1444

understand the profound need of these Workers' Alliances. The

1445

bureaucratic traditions were not to be so easily overcome . . .

1446

the socialist leaders thought that the Workers' Alliances

1447

meant they would have merely to share leadership with the

1448

Communist Left and other dissident communist groups . . .

1449

actually in most cases they [Workers' Alliances] were merely

1450

'top' committees, without elected or lower-rank delegates,

1451

that is, little more than liaison committees between the

1452

leadership of the organisations involved." [Op. Cit.,

1453

pp. 27-8]

1454

</blockquote>

1455

As can be seen, this closely follows Durruti's arguments.

1456

Bar the reference of "labour parties," Morrow's "indispensable

1457

instrument" is identical to Durruti's and other anarchist's

1458

arguments against taking part in the "Workers' Alliances"

1459

created by the UGT and the creation of genuine alliances

1460

from the bottom-up. Thus Morrow faults the CNT for trying to

1461

force the UGT to form a real workers' alliance by not taking

1462

part in what Morrow himself admits were "little more than liaison

1463

committees between the leadership"! Also, Morrow argues that

1464

"[w]ithout developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it

1465

was inevitable that even the anarchists and the POUM would

1466

drift into governmental collaboration with the bourgeoisie"

1467

and he asks "[h]ow could party agreements be the substitute

1468

for the necessary vast network of workers' councils?" [Op. Cit.,

1469

p. 89 and p. 114] Which was, of course, the CNT-FAI's argument.

1470

It seems strange that Morrow faults the CNT for trying to

1471

create real workers' councils, the "indispensable instrument"

1472

of the revolution, by not taking part in a "party agreements"

1473

urged by the UGT which would undermine real attempts at

1474

rank-and-file unity from below.

1475

1476

Of course, Morrow's statement that "labour parties and unions"

1477

should be represented by delegates as well as "the shop and

1478

street" contradicts claims it would be democratic. After all,

1479

that it would mean that some workers would have multiple votes

1480

(one from their shop, their union and their party). Moreover,

1481

it would mean that parties would have an influence greater

1482

than their actual support in the working class -- something

1483

a minuscule group like the Spanish Trotskyists would obviously

1484

favour as would the bureaucrats of the Socialist and Communist

1485

Parties. Little wonder the anarchists urged a workers' alliance

1486

made up of actual workers rather than an organisation which

1487

would allow bureaucrats, politicians and sects more influence

1488

than they actually had or deserved.

1489

1490

In addition, the "Workers' Alliances" were not seen by the UGT

1491

and Socialist Party as an organisation of equals. Rather, in

1492

words of historian Paul Preston, "from the first it seemed that

1493

the Socialists saw the Alianza Obrera was a possible means of

1494

dominating the workers movement in areas where the PSOE and

1495

UGT were relatively weak." [Op. Cit., p. 154] The Socialist

1496

Party only allowed regional branches of the Alianza Obrera

1497

to be formed only if they could guarantee Party control

1498

would never be lost. [Adrian Schubert "The Epic Failure: The

1499

Asturian Revolution of October 1934", in Revolution and War

1500

in Spain, Paul Preston (ed.), p. 127] Raymond Carr argues

1501

that the Socialists, "in spite of professions to the contrary,

1502

wished to keep socialist domination of the Alianza Obrera"

1503

[Spain: 1808-1975, pp. 634-5f] And only one month after the

1504

first alliance was set up, one of its founder members -- the

1505

Catalan Socialist Union -- left in protest over PSOE

1506

domination. [Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil

1507

War, p. 157] In Madrid, the Alianza was "dominated by

1508

the Socialists, who imposed their own policy." [Op. Cit.,

1509

p. 154] Indeed, as Jose Peirats notes, in Asturias where the

1510

CNT had joined the Alliance, "despite the provisions of the

1511

terms of the alliance to which the CNT had subscribed, the

1512

order for the uprising was issued by the socialists. In Oviedo

1513

a specifically socialist, revolutionary committee was secretly

1514

at work in Oviedo, which contained no CNT representatives."

1515

[The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 78] Largo

1516

Caballero's desire for trade union unity in 1936 was from a

1517

similar mould -- "[t]he clear implication was that proletarian

1518

unification meant Socialist take-over." Little wonder Preston

1519

states that "[i]f the use that he [Caballero] made of the

1520

Alianza Obreras in 1934 had revealed anything, it was that

1521

the domination of the working class movement by the UGT meant

1522

far more to Largo Caballero than any future prospect of

1523

revolution." [Preston, Op. Cit., p. 270]

1524

1525

As can be seen, the CNT's position seemed a sensible one given

1526

the nature and activities of the "Workers' Alliance" in practice.

1527

Also it seems strange that, if unity was the UGT's aims, that

1528

a CNT call, made by the national plenary in February 1934, for

1529

information and for the UGT to clearly and publicly state its

1530

revolutionary objectives, met with no reply. [Peirats, Op. Cit.,

1531

p. 75] In addition, the Catalan Workers' Alliance called a

1532

general strike in March 1934 the day after the CNT's --

1533

hardly an example of workers' unity. [Norman Jones,

1534

"Regionalism and Revolution in Catalonia", Revolution and

1535

War in Spain, Paul Preston (ed.), p. 102]

1536

1537

Thus, the reasons why the CNT did not join in the UGT's "Workers'

1538

Alliance" are clear. As well as the natural distrust towards

1539

organisations that had repressed them and provided scabs to

1540

break their strikes just one year previously, there were political

1541

reasons for opposing such an alliance. Rather than being a

1542

force to ensure revolutionary organisations springing from

1543

the workplace, the "Workers' Alliance" was little more than

1544

pacts between the bureaucrats of the UGT and various Marxist

1545

Parties. This was Morrow's own argument, which also provided

1546

the explanation why such an alliance would weaken any real

1547

revolutionary movement. To requote Morrow, "[w]ithout developing

1548

soviets -- workers' councils -- it was inevitable that even the

1549

anarchists and the POUM would drift into governmental collaboration

1550

with the bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., p. 89]

1551

1552

That is exactly what happened in July, 1936, when the CNT did

1553

forsake its anarchist politics and joined in a "Workers'

1554

Alliance" type organisation with other anti-fascist parties

1555

and unions to set up the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist

1556

Militias" (see <a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a>).

1557

Thus Morrow himself provides the

1558

explanation of the CNT's political rationale for being wary

1559

of the UGT's "Workers' Alliance" while, of course, refusing

1560

to provide the historical context the decision was made.

1561

1562

However, while the CNT's refusal to join the "Workers' Alliance"

1563

outside of Asturias may have been principled (and sensible), it

1564

may be argued that they were the only organisation with

1565

revolutionary potential (indeed, this would be the only

1566

argument Trotskyists could put forward to explain their

1567

hypocrisy). Such an argument would be false for two reason.

1568

1569

Firstly, such Alliances may have potentially created a

1570

revolutionary situation but they would have hindered the

1571

formation of working class organs of self-management such

1572

as workers' councils (soviets). This was the experience of

1573

the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias and of the

1574

Asturias revolt -- in spite of massive revolutionary upheaval

1575

such councils based on delegates from workplace and community

1576

assembles were not formed.

1577

1578

Secondly, the CNT policy of "Unity, yes, but by the rank-and-file"

1579

was a valid method of "from the bottom up solidarity." This can

1580

be seen from just two examples -- Aragon in 1934 and Madrid in

1581

1936. In Aragon, there was a "general strike that had totally

1582

paralysed the Aragonese capital throughout April 1935, ending

1583

. . . on 10 May. . . the Zaragoza general strike had been a

1584

powerful advertisement of the value of a united working-class

1585

front . . . [However,] no formal agreement . . . had been

1586

reached in Zaragoza. The pact there has been created on a

1587

purely circumstantial basis with a unity of trade-union action

1588

achieved in quite specific circumstances and generated to a

1589

considerable extent by the workers themselves." [Graham Kelsey,

1590

Anarchism in Aragon, p. 72] In Madrid, April 1936 (in the

1591

words of Morrow himself) "the CNT declared a general strike in

1592

Madrid . . . The UGT had not been asked to join the strike, and

1593

at first had denounced it . . . But the workers came out of

1594

all the shops and factories and public services . . . because

1595

they wanted to fight, and only the anarchists were calling

1596

them to struggle." [Op. Cit., p. 41]

1597

1598

Thus Morrow's comments against the CNT refusing to join the

1599

Workers' Alliance do not provide the reader with the historical

1600

context required to make an informed judgement of the CNT's

1601

decision. Moreover, they seem hypocritical as the CNT's reasons

1602

for refusing to join is similar to Morrow's own arguments

1603

against the Workers' Alliance. In addition, the CNT's practical

1604

counter-proposal of solidarity from below had more revolutionary

1605

potential as it was far more likely to promote rank-and-file

1606

unity plus the creation of self-managed organisations such as

1607

workers' councils. The Workers' Alliance system would have

1608

hindered such developments.

1609

1610

<a name="app6"><H2>6. Was the October 1934 revolt sabotaged

1611

by the CNT?</h2>

1612

1613

Again, following Morrow, Marxists have often alleged that the

1614

Socialist and Workers Alliance strike wave, of October 1934,

1615

was sabotaged by the CNT. To understand this allegation, you

1616

have to understand the background to October 1934, and the split

1617

in the workers' movement between the CNT and the UGT (unions

1618

controlled by the reformist Socialist Party, the PSOE).

1619

1620

Socialist conversion to "revolution" occurred only after the

1621

elections of November 1933. In the face of massive and bloody

1622

repression (see <a href="append32.html#app5">last section</a>),

1623

the CNT-FAI had agitated for a

1624

mass abstention at the polling booth. Faced with this campaign,

1625

the republicans and socialists lost and all the laws they had

1626

passed against the CNT were used against themselves. When cabinet

1627

seats were offered to the non-republican (fascist or quasi-fascist)

1628

right, in October 1934, the PSOE/UGT called for a general strike.

1629

If the CNT, nationally, failed to take part in this -- a mistake

1630

recognised by many anarchist writers -- this was not (as reading

1631

Morrow suggests) because the CNT thought "all governments were

1632

equally bad" [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 29], but because of well-founded,

1633

as it turned out, mistrust of Socialist aims.

1634

1635

A CNT call, on the 13th of February 1934, for the UGT to clearly

1636

and publicly state its revolutionary objectives, had met with no

1637

reply. As Peirats argues, "[t]hat the absence of the CNT did not

1638

bother them [the UGT and Socialist Party] is clear from their

1639

silence in regards to the [CNT's] National Plenary's request."

1640

[Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 96] Rhetoric

1641

aside, the Socialist Party's main aim in October seems to have been

1642

to force new elections, so they could again form a (mildly reformist)

1643

coalition with the Republicans (their programme for the revolt was

1644

written by right-wing socialist Indalecio Prieto and seemed more like

1645

an election manifesto prepared by the Liberal Republicans than a

1646

program for revolutionary change). This was the viewpoint of the CNT,

1647

for example. Thus, the CNT, in effect, was to be used as cannon-fodder

1648

to help produce another government that would attack the CNT.

1649

1650

As we discussed in the <a href="append32.html#app5">last section</a>,

1651

the UGT backed "Workers

1652

Alliances" were little better. To repeat our comments again,

1653

the Socialist Party (PSOE) saw the alliances as a means of

1654

dominating the workers movement in areas where the UGT was weak.

1655

The Socialist "Liaison Committee", for instance, set up to prepare

1656

for insurrection, only allowed regional branches to take part

1657

in the alliances if they could guarantee Party control (see

1658

<a href="append32.html#app5">last section</a>). Raymond Carr argues that the Socialists, "in

1659

spite of professions to the contrary, wished to keep socialist

1660

domination of the Alianza Obrera." [Spain: 1808-1975,

1661

pp. 634-5f] Only one month after the first alliance was set up,

1662

one of its founder members -- the Socialist Union of Catalonia

1663

1664

During October the only real centre of resistance was in Asturias

1665

(on the Spanish north coast). However, before discussing that

1666

area, we must mention Madrid and Barcelona. According to Morrow,

1667

Catalonia "should have been the fortress of the uprising" and

1668

that "[t]erribly discredited for their refusal to join the

1669

October revolt, the anarchists sought to apologise by pointing

1670

to the repression they were undergoing at the time from Companys."

1671

[Op. Cit., p. 30 and p. 32] Morrow fails, however and yet again,

1672

to mention a few important facts.

1673

1674

Firstly, the uprising in Catalonia was pushed for and lead by

1675

Estat Catala which had "temporary ascendancy over the other

1676

groups in the Esquerra" (the Catalan Nationalist Party which

1677

was the Catalan government). "Companys felt obliged to yield

1678

to Dencas' [the leader of Estat Catala] demand that Catalonia

1679

should take this opportunity for breaking with Madrid."

1680

[Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, pp. 282-3] Estat

1681

Catala "was a Youth movement . . . and composed mostly of

1682

workmen and adventurers -- men drawn from the same soil as

1683

the sindicatos libres [boss created anti-CNT yellow unions]

1684

of a dozen years before -- with a violent antagonism to

1685

the Anarcho-Syndicalists. It had a small military organisation,

1686

the escamots, who wore green uniforms. It represented Catalan

1687

Nationalism in its most intransigent form: it was in fact

1688

Catalan Fascism." [Op. Cit., p. 282] Gabriel Jackson calls

1689

Estat Catala a "quasi-fascist movement within the younger

1690

ranks of the Esquerra." [The Spanish Republic and the Civil

1691

War: 1931-1939, p. 150] Ronald Fraser terms it "the extreme

1692

nationalist and proto-fascist" wing of the party. [Blood of

1693

Spain, p. 535] Hugh Thomas notes "the fascist colouring of

1694

Dencas ideas." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 135]

1695

1696

In other words, Morrow attacks the CNT for not participating

1697

in a revolt organised and led by Catalan Fascists (or, at

1698

best, near fascists)!

1699

1700

Secondly, far from being apologetics, the repression the

1701

CNT was suffering from Dencas police forces was very real

1702

and was occurring right up to the moment of the revolt. In

1703

the words of historian Paul Preston:

1704

1705

"[T]he Anarchists bitterly resented the way in which the

1706

Generalitat had followed a repressive policy against them

1707

in the previous months. This had been the work of the

1708

Generalitat's counsellor for public order, Josep Dencas,

1709

leader of the quasi-fascist, ultra-nationalist party

1710

Estat Catala." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War,

1711

p. 176]

1712

</blockquote>

1713

This is confirmed by anarchist accounts of the rising.

1714

As Peirats points out:

1715

1716

"On the eve of the rebellion the Catalan police jailed as

1717

many anarchists as they could put their hands on . . . The

1718

union offices had been shut for some time. The press censor

1719

had completely blacked out the October 6th issue of

1720

Solidaridad Obrera . . . When the woodworkers began to

1721

open their offices, they were attacked by the police, and

1722

a furious gunfight ensured. The official radio . . . reported

1723

. . . that the fight had already began against the FAI

1724

fascists . . . In the afternoon large numbers of police

1725

and escamots turned out to attack and shut down the

1726

editorial offices of Solidaridad Obrera." [Peirats,

1727

Op. Cit., pp. 98-9]

1728

</blockquote>

1729

In other words, the first shots fired in the Catalan revolt

1730

were against the CNT by those in revolt against the central

1731

government!

1732

1733

Why were the first shots of the revolt directed at the

1734

members of the CNT? Simply because they were trying to take

1735

part in the revolt in an organised and coherent manner as

1736

urged by the CNT's Regional Committee itself. In spite of

1737

the mass arrests of anarchists and CNT militants the night

1738

before by the Catalan rebels, the CNT's Catalan Regional

1739

Committee issued a clandestine leaflet that stated that

1740

the CNT "must enter the battle in a manner consistent with

1741

its revolutionary anarchist principles . . . The revolt

1742

which broke out this morning must acquire the characteristics

1743

of a popular act through the actions of the proletariat . . .

1744

We demand the right to intervene in this struggle and we

1745

will take this." A leaflet had to be issued as Solidaridad

1746

Obrera was several hours late in appearing due censorship

1747

by the Catalan state. The workers had tried to open their

1748

union halls (all CNT union buildings had been closed by the

1749

Catalan government since the CNT revolt of December 1933)

1750

because the CNT's leaflet had called for the "[i]mmediate

1751

opening of our union buildings and the concentration of the

1752

workers on those premises." [quoted by Peirats, The CNT

1753

in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 85] The participation

1754

of the CNT in the revolt as an organised force was something

1755

the Catalan rebels refused to allow and so they fired on

1756

workers trying to open their union buildings. Indeed, after

1757

shutting down Solidaridad Obrera, the police then tried to

1758

break up the CNT's regional plenum that was then in session,

1759

but fortunately it was meeting on different premises and so

1760

they failed. [Peirats, Op. Cit., pp. 85-6]

1761

1762

Juan Gomez Casas argues that:

1763

1764

"The situation [in October 1934] was especially difficult

1765

in Catalonia. The Workers' Alliance . . . declared a

1766

general strike. Luis Companys, president of the Catalan

1767

Parliament, proclaimed the Catalan State within the Spanish

1768

Federal Republic . . . But at the same time, militants of

1769

the CNT and the FAI were arrested . . . Solidaridad Obrera

1770

was censored. The Catalan libertarians understood that the

1771

Catalan nationalists had two objectives in mind: to oppose

1772

the central government and to destroy the CNT. Jose Dencas,

1773

Counsellor of Defence, issued a strict order: 'Watch out

1774

for the FAI' . . . Luis Companys broadcast a message on

1775

October 5 to all 'citizens regardless of ideology.' However,

1776

many anarchosyndicalist militants were held by his deputy,

1777

Dencas, in the underground cells of police headquarters."

1778

[Op. Cit., pp. 151-2]

1779

</blockquote>

1780

Hence the paradoxical situation in which the anarchists,

1781

anarcho-syndicalists and FAI members found themselves in

1782

during this time. The uprising was organised by Catalan

1783

fascists who continued to direct their blows against the

1784

CNT. As Abel Paz argues, "[f]or the rank and file Catalan

1785

worker . . . the insurgents . . . were actually orienting

1786

their action in order to destroy the CNT. After that, how

1787

could they collaborate with the reactionary movement which

1788

was directing its blows against the working class? Here

1789

was the paradox of the Catalan uprising of October 6,

1790

1934." [Durruti: The People Armed, p. 158]

1791

1792

In other words, during the Catalan revolt, "the CNT had a

1793

difficult time because the insurgents were its worst enemies."

1794

[Peirats, The Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 98]

1795

However, the complexity of the actual situation does not bother

1796

the reader of Morrow's work as it is not reported. Little

1797

wonder, as Peirats argues, the "absurd contention according

1798

to which the confederal proletariat of Catalonia betrayed

1799

their brethren in Asturias melts away in the face of a

1800

truthful narration of the facts." [The CNT in the Spanish

1801

Revolution, vol. 1, p. 86]

1802

1803

In summary, therefore, Morrow expected the membership of the

1804

Catalan CNT and FAI to join in a struggle started and directed

1805

by Catalan fascists, whose leaders in the government were arresting

1806

and shooting their members, censoring their press, closing

1807

their union offices and refusing them a role in the revolt as

1808

self-organised forces. We think that sums up the validity of

1809

Trotskyism as a revolutionary theory quite well.

1810

1811

In Madrid, the revolt was slightly less farcical. Here the CNT

1812

joined the general strike. However, the UGT gave the government

1813

24 hours notice of the general strike, allowing the state to

1814

round up the Socialist "leaders," seize arm depots and repress

1815

the insurrection before it got started [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 30].

1816

As Bookchin argues, the "massive strike in Madrid, which was

1817

supported by the entire left, foundered for want of arms and

1818

a revolutionary sense of direction." [Op. Cit., p. 245] He

1819

continues:

1820

1821

"As usual, the Socialists emerged as unreliable allies of the

1822

Anarchists. A revolutionary committee, established by the CNT

1823

and FAI to co-ordinate their own operations, was denied direly

1824

needed weapons by the UGT. The arms, as it turned out, had

1825

been conveniently intercepted by government troops. But even

1826

if they had been available, it is almost certain that the

1827

Socialists would not have shared them with the Anarchists.

1828

Indeed, relationships between the two major sectors of the

1829

labour movement had already been poisoned by the failure of

1830

the Socialist Youth and the UGT to keep the CNT adequately

1831

informed of their plans or confer with Anarchosyndicalist

1832

delegates. Despite heavy fighting in Madrid, the CNT and FAI

1833

were obliged to function largely on their own. When, at

1834

length, a UGT delegate informed the revolutionary committee

1835

that Largo Caballero was not interested in common action

1836

with the CNT, the committee disbanded." [Op. Cit., p. 246]

1837

</blockquote>

1838

Bookchin correctly states that "Abad de Santillan was to

1839

observe with ample justification that Socialist attempts to

1840

blame the failure of the October Insurrection on Anarchist

1841

abstention was a shabby falsehood" and quotes Santillan:

1842

1843

"Can there be talk of abstention of the CNT and censure of it

1844

by those who go on strike without warning our organisation

1845

about it, who refuse to meet with the delegates of the

1846

National Committee [of the CNT], who consent to let the

1847

Lerrous-Gil Robles Government take possession of the arms

1848

deposits and let them go unused before handing them over

1849

to the Confederation and the FAI?" [Ibid.]

1850

</blockquote>

1851

Historian Paul Preston confirms that in Madrid "Socialists and

1852

Anarchists went on strike . . ." and that "the Socialists

1853

actually rejected the participation of Anarchist and Trotskyist

1854

groups who offered to help make a revolutionary coup in Madrid."

1855

[The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 174] Moreover, "when

1856

delegates travelled secretly to Madrid to try to co-ordinate

1857

support for the revolutionary Asturian miners, they were

1858

rebuffed by the UGT leadership." [Graham Kelsey, Anarchism

1859

in Aragon, p. 73]

1860

1861

Therefore, in two of the three centres of the revolt, the uprising

1862

was badly organised. In Catalonia, the revolt was led by fascist

1863

Catalan Nationalists who arrested and shot at CNT militants. In

1864

Madrid, the CNT backed the strike and was ignored by the Socialists.

1865

The revolt itself was badly organised and quickly repressed (thanks,

1866

in part, to the actions of the Socialists themselves). Little

1867

wonder Peirats asks:

1868

1869

"Although it seems absurd, one constantly has to ask whether

1870

the Socialists meant to start a true revolution [in October

1871

1934] in Spain. If the answer is affirmative, the questions

1872

keep coming: Why did they not make the action a national one?

1873

Why did they try to do it without the powerful national CNT?

1874

Is a peaceful general strike revolutionary? Was what happened

1875

in Asturias expected, or were orders exceeded? Did they mean

1876

only to scare the Radical-CEDA government with their action?"

1877

[The Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, pp 95-6]

1878

</blockquote>

1879

The only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the Spanish

1880

north coast). Here, the CNT had joined the Socialists and Communists

1881

in a "Workers Alliance". But, against the alliance's terms, the

1882

Socialists alone gave the order for the uprising -- and the

1883

Socialist-controlled Provincial Committee starved the CNT of

1884

arms. This despite the CNT having over 22 000 affiliates in

1885

the area (to the UGT's 40 000). We discuss the activities of

1886

the CNT during the revolt in Asturias later (in

1887

<a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a>) and

1888

so will do so here.

1889

1890

Morrow states that the "backbone of the struggle was broken . . .

1891

when the refusal of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the

1892

government to transport goods and troops." [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 30]

1893

Yet in Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation was

1894

needed) the main government attack was from a sea borne landing of

1895

Foreign Legion and Moroccan troops - against the port and CNT

1896

stronghold (15 000 affiliates) of Gijon (and, we must stress,

1897

the Socialists and Communists refused to provide the anarchists

1898

of these ports with weapons to resist the troop landings). Hence his

1899

claim seems somewhat at odds with the actual events of the October

1900

uprising.

1901

1902

Moreover, he seems alone in this claim. No other historian (for

1903

example, Hugh Thomas in The Spanish Civil War, Raymond Carr in

1904

Spain: 1808-1975, Paul Preston in The Coming of the Spanish

1905

Civil War, Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, Gabriel

1906

Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939)

1907

makes this claim. But, of course, these are not Trotskyists and

1908

so can be ignored. However, for objective readers such an omission

1909

might be significant.

1910

1911

Indeed, when these other historians do discuss the crushing

1912

of the Asturias they all stress the fact that the troops

1913

came from the sea. For example, Paul Preston notes that

1914

"[w]ith CEDA approval, Franco . . . insisted on the use

1915

of troops from Africa . . . they shipped Moorish mercenaries

1916

to Asturias." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 177]

1917

Gabriel Jackson argues that the government "feared to send in

1918

the regular Army because of the strong possibility that the

1919

Spanish conscripts would refuse to fire on the revolutionaries

1920

the advice of Generals Franco and Goded, sent in contingents

1921

of the Morrish regulares and of the Foreign Legions." These

1922

troops arrived "at the ports of Aviles and Gijon." [The

1923

Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939, p. 157]

1924

1925

Richard A. H. Robinson argues that it "was soon decided that

1926

the [Asturias] rebellion could only be crushed by experienced,

1927

professional troops. The other areas of Spain could not be

1928

denuded of their garrisons in case there were other

1929

revolutionary outbreaks. Franco therefore called upon

1930

Colonel Yague to lead a force of Moorish regulars to help

1931

re-conquer the province from the rebels." [The Origins

1932

of Franco's Spain, pp. 190-1] Stanley G. Payne gives a

1933

more detailed account of the state's attack:

1934

1935

"Army reinforcements were soon being rushed toward the

1936

region . . . Eduardo Lopez Ochoa . . . head[ed] the

1937

main relief column . . . he began to make his way

1938

eastward [from Galicia] with a modest force of some

1939

360 troops in trucks, half of whom had to be detached

1940

on the way to hold the route open. Meanwhile . . . in

1941

the main Asturian coastal city of Gijon . . .

1942

reinforcements first arrived by sea on the seventh,

1943

followed by larger units from the Moroccan Protectorate

1944

on the tenth." [Spain's First Democracy, p. 219]

1945

</blockquote>

1946

No mention of trains in these accounts, so indicating that

1947

Morrow's assertions are false. The main attack on Asturias,

1948

and so the transportation of troops and goods, was by

1949

sea,

1950

not by trains.

1951

1952

In addition, these historians point to other reasons for

1953

the defeat of the revolt -- the amazingly bad organisation of

1954

it by the Socialist Party. Raymond Carr sums up the overwhelming

1955

opinion of the historians when he says that "[a]s a national

1956

movement the revolution was a fiasco." [Op. Cit., p. 633] Hugh

1957

Thomas states that the revolt in Catalonia was "crushed nearly

1958

as quickly as the general strike had been in Madrid." [The

1959

Spanish Civil War, p. 136] Brenan correctly argues that "[f]rom

1960

the moment that Barcelona capitulated and the rising in Madrid

1961

fizzled out, the miners were of course doomed." [Op. Cit.,

1962

p. 286] The failure of both these revolts was directly

1963

attributable to the policies and actions of the Socialists

1964

who controlled the "Workers' Alliances" in both areas. Hence

1965

historian Paul Heywood:

1966

1967

"[A]n important factor which contributed to the strikes'

1968

collapse and made the state's task easier was the underlying

1969

attitude of the Socialists. For all the talk of united action

1970

by the Left, the Socialists still wished to dominate any

1971

combined moves. Unwilling to cede its traditional hegemony,

1972

the PSOE rendered the Alianze obrera necessarily ineffective

1973

. . .

1974

1975

"Thus, there was little genuine unity on the Spanish Left.

1976

Moreover, the strike was very poorly planned. Differences

1977

within the PSOE meant that there was no agreement even as

1978

to the programme of the strike. For the . . . leftists,

1979

it represented the initiation of a full-scale Socialist

1980

revolution; for . . . the centrists in the party, the

1981

aim of the strike was to force Alcala-Zamora to reconsider

1982

and invite the Socialists back into a coalition government

1983

with the Republicans." [Marxism and the Failure of

1984

Organised Socialism in Spain 1879-1936 pp. 144-5]

1985

</blockquote>

1986

Significantly, Heywood argues that "[o]ne thing, however,

1987

did emerge from the October strike. The example of Asturias

1988

provided a pointed lesson for the Left: crucially, the key

1989

to the relative success of the insurrection there was the

1990

participation of the CNT in an effective Alianza obrera.

1991

Without the CNT, the Asturian rising would have been as

1992

short-lived and as easily defeated as those in Madrid and

1993

Barcelona." [Op. Cit., p. 145]

1994

1995

Having discussed both Madrid and Barcelona above, we leave it

1996

to the reader to conclude whether Morrow's comments are correct

1997

or whether a more likely alternative explanation for the revolt's

1998

failure is possible.

1999

2000

However, even assuming Morrow's claims that the failure of the

2001

CNT rail workers' union to continue striking in the face of a

2002

completely farcical "revolt" played a key role in its defeat

2003

were true, it does not explain many facts. Firstly, the

2004

government had declared martial law -- placing the railway

2005

workers in a dangerous position. Secondly, as Jerome R. Mintz

2006

points out, railway workers "were represented by two competing

2007

unions -- the Sindicato Nacional Ferroviario of the UGT . . .

2008

and the CNT-affiliated FNIFF . . . The UGT . . . controlled

2009

the large majority of the workers. [In 1933] Trifon Gomez,

2010

secretary of the UGT union, did not believe it possible

2011

to mobilise the workers, few of whom had revolutionary

2012

aspirations." [The Anarchists of Casa Viejas, p. 178]

2013

Outside of Catalonia, the majority of the railway workers

2014

belonged to the UGT [Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives,

2015

p. 90f] Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation

2016

was needed) does not border Catalonia -- apparently the army

2017

managed to cross Spain on a rail network manned by a minority

2018

of its workers.

2019

2020

However, these points are of little import when compared to

2021

the fact that Asturias the main government attack was, as

2022

we mentioned above, from a sea borne landing of Foreign

2023

Legion and Moroccan troops. Troops from Morocco who land

2024

by sea do not need trains. Indeed, The ports of Aviles and

2025

Gijon were the principle military bases for launching the

2026

repression against the uprising.

2027

2028

The real failure of the Asturias revolt did not lie with the

2029

CNT, it lay (unsurprisingly enough) with the Socialists and

2030

Communists. Despite CNT pleas the Socialists refused arms,

2031

Gjon fell after a bloody struggle and became the main base

2032

for the crushing of the entire region ("Arriving at the

2033

ports of Aviles and Gijon on October 8, these troops were

2034

able to overcome the resistance of the local fishermen and

2035

stevedores. The revolutionary committees here were Anarchist

2036

dominated. Though they had joined the rising and accepted

2037

the slogan UHP [Unity, Proletarian Brothers], the Socialists

2038

and Communists of Oviedo clearly distrusted them and had

2039

refused arms to their delegate the day before." [Gabriel

2040

Jackson, Op. Cit., p. 157]).

2041

2042

This Socialist and Communist sabotage of Anarchist resistance

2043

was repeated in the Civil War, less than two years later.

2044

2045

As can be seen, Morrow's account of the October Insurrection

2046

of 1934 leaves a lot to be desired. The claim that the CNT

2047

was responsible for its failure cannot withstand a close

2048

examination of the events. Indeed, by providing the facts which

2049

Morrow does not provide we can safely say that the failure

2050

of the revolt across Spain rested squarely with the PSOE

2051

and UGT. It was badly organised, they failed to co-operate

2052

or even communicate with CNT when aid was offered, they relied

2053

upon the enemies of the CNT in Catalonia and refused arms to

2054

the CNT in both Madrid and Asturias (so allowing the government

2055

force, the main force of which landed by sea, easy access to

2056

Asturias). All in all, even if the minority of railway workers

2057

in the CNT had joined the strike it would have, in all probability,

2058

resulted in the same outcome.

2059

2060

Unfortunately, Morrow's assertions have become commonplace

2061

in the ranks of the Left and have become even more distorted

2062

in the hands of his Trotskyist readers. For example, we find

2063

Nick Wrack arguing that the "Socialist Party called a general

2064

strike and there were insurrectionary movements in Asturias

2065

and Catalonia, In Madrid and Catalonia the anarchist CNT

2066

stood to one side, arguing that this was a 'struggle between

2067

politicians' and did not concern the workers even though

2068

this was a strike against a move to incorporate fascism

2069

into the government." He continues, "[i]n Asturias the

2070

anarchist militants participated under the pressure of

2071

the masses and because of the traditions of unity in

2072

that area. However, because of their abstentionist

2073

stupidity, the anarchists elsewhere continued to work,

2074

even working trains which brought the Moorish troops

2075

under Franco to suppress the Asturias insurrection."

2076

["Marxism, Anarchism and the State", pp. 31-7, Militant

2077

International Review, no. 46, p. 34]

2078

2079

Its hard to work out where to start in this travesty of

2080

history. We will start with the simple errors. The CNT

2081

did take part in the struggle in Madrid. As Paul Preston

2082

notes, in Madrid the "Socialists and Anarchists went on

2083

strike" [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 174]

2084

In Catalonia, as indicated above, the "insurrectionary

2085

movement" in Catalonia was organised and lead by Catalan

2086

Fascists, who shot upon CNT members when they tried to

2087

open their union halls and who arrested CNT and FAI

2088

militants the night before the uprising. Moreover, the

2089

people organising the revolt had been repressing the

2090

CNT for months previously. Obviously attempts by Catalan

2091

Fascists to become a government should be supported by

2092

socialists, including Trotskyists. Moreover, the UGT and

2093

PSOE had worked with the quasi-fascist Primo do Rivera

2094

dictatorship during the 1920s. The hypocrisy is clear.

2095

So much for the CNT standing "to one side, arguing that

2096

this was a 'struggle between politicians' and did not

2097

concern the workers even though this was a strike against

2098

a move to incorporate fascism into the government."

2099

2100

His comments that "the anarchists . . . work[ed] trains which

2101

brought the Moorish troops under Franco to suppress the Asturias

2102

insurrection" is just plain silly. It was not anarchists who

2103

ran the trains, it was railway workers -- under martial law --

2104

some of whom were in the CNT and some of whom were anarchists.

2105

Moreover, as noted above the Moorish troops under Franco arrived

2106

by sea and not by train. And, of course, no mention of the fact

2107

that the CNT-FAI in the strategically key port of Gijon was denied

2108

arms by the Socialists and Communists, which allowed the Moorish

2109

troops to disembark without real resistance.

2110

2111

Morrow has a lot to answer for.

2112

2113

<a name="app7"><H2>7. Were the Friends of Durruti Marxists?</h2>

2114

2115

It is sometimes claimed that the Friends of Durruti Group

2116

which formed during the Spanish Revolution were Marxists

2117

or represented a "break" with anarchism and a move towards

2118

Marxism. Both these assertions are false. We discuss whether

2119

the Friends of Durruti (FoD) represented a "break" with

2120

anarchism in the

2121

<a href="append32.html#app8">following section</a>. Here we indicate that

2122

claims of the FoD being Marxists are false.

2123

2124

The Friends of Durruti were formed, in March 1937, by anarchist

2125

militants who had refused to submit to Communist-controlled

2126

"militarisation" of the workers' militias. During the Maydays --

2127

the government attack against the revolution two months later --

2128

the Friends of Durruti were notable for their calls to stand

2129

firm and crush the counter-revolution. During and after the

2130

May Days, the leaders of the CNT asserted that the FoD were

2131

Marxists (which was quite ironic as it was the CNT leaders

2132

who were acting as Marxists in Spain usually did by joining

2133

with bourgeois governments). This was a slander, pure and

2134

simple.

2135

2136

The best source to refute claims that the FoD were Marxists

2137

(or becoming Marxist) or that they were influenced by,

2138

or moved towards, the Bolshevik-Leninists is Agustin

2139

Guillamon's book The Friends of Durruti Group: 1937-1939.

2140

Guillamon is a Marxist (of the "left-communist" kind) and

2141

no anarchist (indeed he states that the "Spanish Revolution

2142

was the tomb of anarchism as a revolutionary theory of the

2143

proletariat." [p. 108]). That indicates that his account can

2144

be considered objective and not anarchist wishful thinking.

2145

Here we use his work to refute the claims that the FoD

2146

were Marxists. <a href="append32.html#app9">Section 9</a> discusses their links (or lack

2147

of them) with the Spanish Trotskyists.

2148

2149

So were the FoD Marxists? Guillamon makes it clear -- no,

2150

they were not. In his words, "[t]here is nothing in the

2151

Group's theoretical tenets, much less in the columns of

2152

El Amigo del Pueblo [their newspaper], or in their

2153

various manifestos and handbills to merit the description

2154

'marxist' being applied to the Group [by the CNT leadership].

2155

They were simply an opposition to the CNT's leadership's

2156

collaborationist policy, making their stand within the

2157

organisation and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology." [p. 61]

2158

He stresses this in his conclusion:

2159

2160

"The Friends of Durruti was an affinity group, like many

2161

another existing in anarcho-syndicalist quarters. It was

2162

not influenced to any extent by the Trotskyists, nor by

2163

the POUM. Its ideology and watchwords were quintessentially

2164

in the CNT idiom: it cannot be said that they displayed

2165

a marxist ideology at any time . . . They were against

2166

the abandonment of revolutionary objectives and of anarchism's

2167

fundamental and quintessential ideological principles, which

2168

the CNT-FAI leaders had thrown over in favour of anti-fascist

2169

unity and the need to adapt to circumstances." [p. 107]

2170

</blockquote>

2171

In other words, they wanted to return the CNT "to its class

2172

struggle roots." [Ibid.] Indeed, Balius (a leading member

2173

of the group and writer of its 1938 pamphlet Towards a

2174

Fresh Revolution) was moved to challenge the charges of

2175

"marxist" levelled at him:

2176

2177

"I will not repay defamatory comment in kind. But what I cannot

2178

keep mum about is that a legend of marxism has been woven about

2179

my person and I should like the record put straight . . . It

2180

grieves me that at the present time there is somebody who dares

2181

call me a Marxist when I could refute with unanswerable arguments

2182

those who hang such an unjustified label on me. As one who attends

2183

our union assemblies and specific gatherings, I might speak of the

2184

loss of class sensibility which I have observed on a number of

2185

occasions. I have heard it said that we should be making politics

2186

no one protested. And I, who have been aghast at countless such

2187

instances, am dubbed a marxist just because I feel, myself to be

2188

a one hundred percent revolutionary . . . On returning from exile

2189

in France in the days of Primo de Rivera . . . I have been a defender

2190

of the CNT and the FAI ever since. In spite of my paralysis, I have

2191

done time in prison and been taken in manacles to Madrid for my

2192

fervent and steadfast championship of our organisations and for

2193

fighting those who once were friends of mine Is that not enough?

2194

. . . So where is this marxism of mine? Is it because my roots are

2195

not in the factory? . . . The time has come to clarify my position.

2196

It is not good enough to say that the matter has already been agreed.

2197

The truth must shine through. As far as I am concerned, I call upon

2198

all the comrades who have used the press to hang this label upon me

2199

to spell out what makes me a marxist." [El Amigo del Pueblo, no. 4,

2200

p. 3]

2201

</blockquote>

2202

As can be seen, the FoD were not Marxists. Two more questions arise.

2203

Were they a "break" with anarchism (i.e. moving towards Marxism)

2204

and were they influenced by the Spanish Trotskyists. We turn to these

2205

questions in the next two sections.

2206

2207

<a name="app8"><H2>8. Did the Friends of Durruti "break with"

2208

anarchism?</h2>

2209

2210

Morrow claims that the Friends of Durruti (FoD) "represented a

2211

conscious break with the anti-statism of traditional anarchism.

2212

They explicitly declared the need for democratic organs of

2213

power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of capitalism."

2214

[Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 247] The truth of the matter is somewhat

2215

different.

2216

2217

Before discussing his assertion in more detail a few comments

2218

are required. Typically, in Morrow's topsy-turvy world, all

2219

anarchists like the Friends of Durruti (Morrow also includes

2220

the Libertarian Youth, the "politically awakened" CNT rank

2221

and file, local FAI groups, etc.) who remained true to

2222

anarchism and stuck to their guns (often literally) --

2223

represented a break with anarchism and a move towards Marxism,

2224

the revolutionary vanguard party (no doubt part of the 4th

2225

International), and a fight for the "workers state." Those

2226

anarchists, on the other hand, who compromised for "anti-fascist

2227

unity" (but mainly to try and get weapons to fight Franco) are

2228

the real anarchists because "class collaboration . . . lies

2229

concealed in the heart of anarchist philosophy." [Op. Cit.,

2230

p. 101]

2231

2232

Morrow, of course, would have had a fit if anarchists pointed

2233

to the example of the Social Democrat's who crushed the German

2234

Revolution or Stalin's Russia as examples that "rule by an

2235

elite lies concealed in the heart of Marxist philosophy."

2236

It does not spring into Morrow's mind that those anarchists

2237

he praises are the ones who show the revolutionary heart of

2238

anarchism. This can best be seen from his comments on the

2239

Friends of Durruti, who we argue were not evolving towards

2240

"Marxism" but rather were trying to push the CNT and FAI

2241

back to its pre-Civil War politics and strategy. Moreover,

2242

as we argue in <a href="append32.html#app12">section 12</a>,

2243

anarchism has always argued for

2244

self-managed working class organisations to carry out and

2245

defend a revolution. The FoD were simply following in the

2246

tradition founded by Bakunin.

2247

2248

In other words, we will show that they did not "break with"

2249

anarchism -- rather they refused to compromise their anarchism

2250

in the face of "comrades" who thought winning the war meant

2251

entering the government. This is clear from their leaflets,

2252

paper and manifesto. Moreover, as will become obvious, their

2253

"break" with anarchism actually just restates pre-war CNT

2254

policy and organisation.

2255

2256

For example, their leaflets, in April 1937, called for the unions

2257

and municipalities to "replace the state" and for no retreat:

2258

2259

"We have the organs that must supplant a State in ruins. The

2260

Trade Unions and Municipalities must take charge of economic

2261

and social life." [quoted by Agustin Guillamon, Op. Cit.,

2262

p. 38]

2263

</blockquote>

2264

This clearly is within the CNT and anarcho-syndicalist tradition.

2265

Their manifesto, in 1938, repeated this call ("the state cannot

2266

be retained in the face of the unions"), and made three demands

2267

as part of their programme. It is worth quoting these at length:

2268

2269

"I - Establishment of a Revolutionary Junta or National Defence

2270

Council.

2271

2272

"This body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary

2273

Junta will be elected by democratic vote in the union organisations.

2274

Account is to be taken of the number of comrades away at the front

2275

. . . The Junta will steer clear of economic affairs, which are the

2276

exclusive preserve of the unions.

2277

2278

"The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows:

2279

<ol>

2280

"a) The management of the war

2281

"b) The supervision of revolutionary order

2282

"c) International affairs

2283

"d) Revolutionary propaganda.

2284

</ol>

2285

"Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent anyone

2286

growing attached to them. And the trade union assemblies will exercise

2287

control over the Junta's activities.

2288

2289

"II - All economic power to the syndicates.

2290

2291

"Since July the unions have supplied evidence of the great capacity for

2292

constructive labour. . . It will be the unions that structure the

2293

proletarian economy.

2294

2295

"An Economic Council may also be set up, taking into consideration

2296

the natures of the Industrial Unions and Industrial federations, to

2297

improve on the co-ordination of economic activities.

2298

2299

"III - Free municipality.

2300

2301

[...]

2302

2303

"The Municipality shall take charge of those functions of society

2304

that fall outside the preserve of the unions. And since the society

2305

we are going to build shall be composed exclusively of producers,

2306

it will be the unions, no less, that will provide sustenance for

2307

the municipalities. . .

2308

2309

"The Municipalities will be organised at the level of local, comarcal

2310

and peninsula federations. Unions and municipalities will maintain

2311

liaison at local, comarcal and national levels." [Towards a Fresh

2312

Revolution]

2313

</blockquote>

2314

This programme basically mimics the pre-war CNT policy and organisation

2315

and so cannot be considered as a "break" with anarchist or CNT politics

2316

or tradition.

2317

2318

Firstly, we should note that the "municipality" was a common CNT

2319

expression to describe a "commune" which was considered as "all

2320

the residents of a village or hamlet meeting in assembly (council)

2321

with full powers to administer and order local affairs, primarily

2322

production and distribution." In the cities and town the equivalent

2323

organisation was "the union" which "brings individuals together,

2324

grouping them according to the nature of their work . . . First,

2325

it groups the workers of a factory, workshop or firm together,

2326

this being the smallest cell enjoying autonomy with regard to

2327

whatever concerns it alone . . . The local unions federate with

2328

one another, forming a local federation, composed of the committee

2329

elected by the unions, and of the general assembly that, in the

2330

last analysis, holds supreme sovereignty." [Issac Puente,

2331

Libertarian Communism, p. 25 and p. 24]

2332

2333

In addition, the "national federations [of unions] will hold as

2334

common property the roads, railways, buildings, equipment, machinery

2335

and workshops" and the "free municipality will federate with its

2336

counterparts in other localities and with the national industrial

2337

federations." [Op. Cit., p. 29 and p. 26] Thus Puente's classic

2338

pre-war pamphlet is almost identical to points two and three of

2339

the FoD Programme.

2340

2341

Moreover, the "Economic Council" urged by the FoD in point two

2342

of their programme is obviously inspired by the work of Abad Diego

2343

de Santillan, particularly his book After the Revolution (El

2344

Organismo Economico de la Revolucion). Discussing the role of the

2345

"Federal Council of Economy", de Santillan says that it "receives

2346

its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the

2347

resolutions of the regional and national assemblies." [p. 86] Just

2348

as the CNT Congresses were the supreme policy-making body in the

2349

CNT itself, they envisioned a similar body emanating from the

2350

rank-and-file assemblies to make the guiding decisions for a

2351

socialised economy.

2352

2353

This leaves point one of their programme, the call for a

2354

"Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council." It is here

2355

that Morrow and a host of other Marxists claim the FoD broke

2356

with anarchism towards Marxism. Nothing could be further from

2357

the truth.

2358

2359

Firstly, anarchists have long supported the idea of workers'

2360

councils (or soviets) as an expression of working class power

2361

to control their own lives (and so society) -- indeed, far

2362

longer than Marxists. Thus we find Bakunin arguing that the

2363

"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom

2364

up, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly

2365

in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and

2366

finally in a great federation, international and universal."

2367

Anarchists "attain this goal . . . by the development and

2368

organisation, not of the political but of the social (and,

2369

by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses."

2370

[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206 and p. 198]

2371

These councils of workers' delegates (workers' councils) would

2372

be the basis of the commune and defence of the revolution:

2373

2374

"the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . .

2375

constitute the Commune . . .. Commune will be organised by the

2376

standing federation of the Barricades. . . [T]he federation of

2377

insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [would]

2378

organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction

2379

. . . it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation

2380

of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the

2381

insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the

2382

revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 170-1]

2383

</blockquote>

2384

This perspective can be seen in the words of the German

2385

anarcho-syndicalist H. Ruediger (member of the IWA's

2386

secretariat in 1937) when he argued that for anarchists

2387

"social re-organisation, like the defence of the revolution,

2388

should be concentrated in the hands of working class

2389

organisations -- whether labour unions or new organs of

2390

spontaneous creation, such as free councils, etc., which,

2391

as an expression of the will of the workers themselves,

2392

from below up, should construct the revolutionary social

2393

community." [quoted in The May Days in Barcelona, Vernon

2394

Richards (ed.), p. 71]

2395

2396

Camillo Berneri sums up the anarchist perspective clearly

2397

when he wrote:

2398

2399

"The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of the

2400

State as a consequence of the destruction of classes by the

2401

means of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' that is to say

2402

State Socialism, whereas the Anarchists desire the destruction

2403

of the classes by means of a social revolution which eliminates,

2404

with the classes, the State. The Marxists, moreover, do not

2405

propose the armed conquest of the Commune by the whole proletariat,

2406

but the propose the conquest of the State by the party which

2407

imagines that it represents the proletariat. The Anarchists allow

2408

the use of direct power by the proletariat, but they understand

2409

by the organ of this power to be formed by the entire corpus of

2410

systems of communist administration -- corporate organisations

2411

[i.e. industrial unions], communal institutions, both regional

2412

and national -- freely constituted outside and in opposition to

2413

all political monopoly by parties and endeavouring to a minimum

2414

administrational centralisation." ["Dictatorship of the

2415

Proletariat and State Socialism", Cienfuegos Press Anarchist

2416

Review, no. 4, p. 52]

2417

</blockquote>

2418

In other words, anarchists do support democratic organs of

2419

power when they are directly democratic (i.e. self-managed).

2420

"The basic idea of Anarchism is simple," argued Voline,

2421

"no party . . . placed above or outside the labouring masses

2422

. . . ever succeeds in emancipating them . . . Effective

2423

emancipation can only be achieved by the direct, widespread,

2424

and independent action of those concerned, of the workers

2425

themselves, grouped, not under the banner of a political

2426

party . . . but in their own class organisations (productive

2427

workers' unions, factory committees, co-operatives, et cetra)

2428

on the basis of concrete action and self-government." [The

2429

Unknown Revolution, p, 197]

2430

2431

Anarchists oppose representative organs of power as these

2432

are governments and so based on minority power and subject

2433

to bureaucratic deformations which ensure un-accountablity

2434

from below. Anarchists argue "that, by its very nature,

2435

political power could not be exercised except by a very

2436

restricted group of men at the centre. Therefore this power

2437

would actually be in the hands of the party." [Voline,

2438

Op. Cit., p. 213]

2439

2440

Thus Morrow's argument is flawed on the basic point that he

2441

does not understand anarchist theory or the nature of an

2442

anarchist revolution (also see <a href="append32.html#app12">

2443

section 12</a>).

2444

2445

Secondly, and more importantly given the Spanish context, the

2446

FoD's vision has a marked similarity to pre-Civil War CNT

2447

organisation, policy and vision. This means that the idea of

2448

a National Defence Council was not the radical break with the

2449

CNT that some claim. Before the civil war the CNT had long has

2450

its defence groups, federated at regional and national level.

2451

Historian Jerome Mintz provides a good summary:

2452

2453

"The policies and actions of the CNT were conducted primarily

2454

by administrative juntas, beginning with the sindicato, whose

2455

junta consisted of a president, secretary, treasurer, and

2456

council members. At each step in the confederation, a

2457

representative [sic! -- delegate] was sent to participate

2458

at the next organisational level -- from sindicato to the

2459

district to the regional confederation, then to the national

2460

confederation. In addition to the juntas, however, there

2461

were two major committee systems established as adjuncts

2462

to the juntas that had developed some autonomy: the

2463

comites pro presos, or committees for political

2464

prisoners, which worked for the release of prisoners and

2465

raised money for the relief of their families; and the

2466

comites de defensa, or defence committees, whose task

2467

was to stockpile weapons for the coming battle and to

2468

organise the shock troops who would bear the brunt of

2469

the fighting." [The Anarchists of Casas Viejas, p. 141]

2470

</blockquote>

2471

Thus we see that the CNT had its "juntas" (which means council

2472

or committee and so does not imply any authoritarianism) as well

2473

as "defence committees" which were elected by democratic vote in

2474

the union organisations decades before the FoD existed. The

2475

Defence Committees (or councils) were a CNT insurgent agency in

2476

existence well before July 1936 and had, in fact, played a key

2477

role in many insurrections and strikes, including the events of

2478

July 1936. In other words, the "break" with anarchism Morrow

2479

presents was, in fact, an exact reproduction of the way the CNT

2480

had traditionally operated and acted -- it is the same program of

2481

a "workers defence council" and "union management of the economy"

2482

that the CNT had advocated prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.

2483

The only "break" that did occur post 19th of July was that of

2484

the CNT and FAI ignoring its politics and history in favour of

2485

"anti-fascist unity" and a UGT "Workers' Alliance" with all

2486

anti-fascist unions and parties (see

2487

<a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a>).

2488

2489

Moreover, the CNT insurrection of December 1933 had been

2490

co-ordinated by a National Revolutionary Committee [No Gods,

2491

No Masters, vol. 2, p. 235]. D.A. Santillan argued that the

2492

"local Council of Economy will assume the mission of defence

2493

and raise voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be,

2494

for combat" in the "cases of emergency or danger of a

2495

counter-revolution." [After the Revolution, p. 80] During

2496

the war itself a CNT national plenum of regions, in September

2497

1936, called for a National Defence Council, with majority

2498

union representation and based on Regional Defence Councils.

2499

The Defence Council of Aragon, set up soon after, was based

2500

on these ideas. The need for co-ordinated revolutionary defence

2501

and attack is just common sense -- and had been reflected in

2502

CNT theory, policy and structure for decades.

2503

2504

An understanding of the basic ideas of anarchist theory on

2505

revolution combined with the awareness of the CNT's juntas

2506

(administrative councils or committees) had "defence committees"

2507

associated with them makes it extremely clear that rather than

2508

being a "conscious break with the anti-statism of traditional

2509

anarchism" the FoD's programme was, in fact, a conscious return

2510

to the anti-statism of traditional anarchism and the revolutionary

2511

program and vision of the pre-Civil War CNT.

2512

2513

This is confirmed if we look at the activities of the CNT in Aragon

2514

where they formed the "Defence Council of Aragon" in September 1936.

2515

In the words of historian Antony Beevor, "[i]n late September delegates

2516

from the Aragonese collectives attended a conference at Bujaraloz,

2517

near where Durruti's column was based. They decided to establish a

2518

Defence Council of Aragon, and elected as president Joaquin Ascaso."

2519

[Op. Cit., p. 96] In February 1937, the first congress of the regional

2520

federation of collectives was held at Caspe to co-ordinate the

2521

activities of the collectives -- an obvious example of a regional

2522

economic council desired by the FoD. Morrow does mention the Council

2523

of Aragon -- "the anarchist-controlled Council for the Defence of

2524

Aragon" [Op. Cit., p. 111] -- however, he strangely fails to relate

2525

this fact to anarchist politics. After all, in Aragon the CNT-FAI

2526

remained true to anarchism, created a defence council and a

2527

federation of collectives. If Morrow had discussed the events in

2528

Aragon he would have had to draw the conclusion that the FoD

2529

were not a "conscious break with the traditional anti-statism

2530

of anarchism" but rather were an expression of it.

2531

2532

This can be seen from the comments made after the end of the war by

2533

the Franco-Spanish Group of The Friends of Durruti. They

2534

clearly argued for

2535

a return to the principles of anarchism and the pre-war CNT. They

2536

argued not only for workers' self-organisation and self-management

2537

as the basis of the revolution but also to the pre-war CNT idea of

2538

a workers' alliance from the bottom up rather than a UGT-style one

2539

at the top (see <a href="append32.html#app5">section 5</a>). In their words:

2540

2541

"A revolution requires the absolute domination of the workers'

2542

organisations as was the case in July, 1936, when the CNT-FAI were

2543

masters . . . We incline to the view that it is necessary to form a

2544

Revolutionary Alliance; a Workers' Front; where no one would be allowed

2545

to enter and take their place except on a revolutionary basis . . . "

2546

[The Friends of Durruti Accuse]

2547

</blockquote>

2548

As can be seen, rather than a "revolutionary government" the FoD were

2549

consistently arguing for a federation of workers' associations as the

2550

basis of the revolution. In this they were loyally following Bakunin's

2551

basic arguments and the ideas of anarchism. Rather than the FoD breaking

2552

with anarchism, it is clear that it was the leading committees of the

2553

CNT and FAI which actually broke with the politics of anarchism and

2554

the tactics, ideas and ideals of the CNT.

2555

2556

Lastly there are the words of Jaime Balius, one of the FoD's main

2557

activists, who states in 1976 that:

2558

2559

"We did not support the formation of Soviets; there were no

2560

grounds in Spain for calling for such. We stood for 'all power

2561

to the trade unions'. In no way were we politically orientated

2562

. . . Ours was solely an attempt to save the revolution; at

2563

the historical level it can be compared to Kronstadt because

2564

if there the sailors and workers called for 'all power to

2565

the Soviets', we were calling for all power to the unions."

2566

[quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 381]

2567

</blockquote>

2568

"Political" here meaning "state-political" -- a common anarchist

2569

use of the word. According to Fraser, the "proposed revolutionary

2570

junta was to be composed of combatants from the barricades." [Ibid.]

2571

This echoes Bakunin's comment that the "Commune will be organised

2572

by the standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation

2573

of a Revolutionary Communal Council composed of one or two

2574

delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but

2575

accountable and removable mandates." [Op. Cit., pp. 170-1]

2576

2577

As can be seen, rather than calling for power to a party or

2578

looking to form a government (i.e. being "politically orientated")

2579

the FoD were calling for "all power to the unions." This meant,

2580

in the context of the CNT, all power to the union assemblies

2581

in the workplace. Decision making would flow from the bottom

2582

upwards rather than being delegated to a "revolutionary"

2583

government as in Trotskyism. To stress the point, the FoD

2584

did not represent a "break" with anarchism or the CNT tradition.

2585

To claim otherwise means to misunderstand anarchist politics

2586

and CNT history.

2587

2588

Our analysis, we must note, also makes a mockery of Guillamon's

2589

claim that because the FoD thought that libertarian communism

2590

had to be "impose[d]" and "defended by force of arms" their

2591

position represented an "evolution within anarchist thought

2592

processes." [Op. Cit., p. 95] As has been made clear above,

2593

from Bakunin onwards revolutionary anarchism has been aware

2594

of the need for an insurrection to create an anarchist society

2595

by destroying both the state and capitalism (i.e. to "impose"

2596

a free society upon those who wish hierarchy to continue and

2597

are in a position of power) and for that revolution to be

2598

defended against attempts to defeat it. Similarly, his claim

2599

that the FoD's "revolutionary junta" was the equivalent of

2600

what "others call the vanguard or the revolutionary party"

2601

cannot be defended given our discussion above -- it is clear

2602

that the junta was not seen as a form of delegated power

2603

by rather as a means of defending the revolution like the

2604

CNT's defence committees and under the direct control of

2605

the union assemblies.

2606

2607

It may be argued that the FoD did not actually mean this

2608

sort of structure. Indeed, their manifesto states that

2609

they are "introducing a slight variation in anarchism into

2610

our program. The establishment of a Revolutionary Junta."

2611

Surely this implies that they saw themselves as having moved

2612

away from anarchism and CNT policy? As can be seen from Balius'

2613

comments during and after the revolution, the FoD were

2614

arguing for "all power to the unions" and stating that

2615

"apolitical anarchism had failed." However, "apolitical"

2616

anarchism came about post-July 19th when the CNT-FAI (ignoring

2617

anarchist theory and CNT policy and history) ignored the

2618

state machine rather than destroying it and supplanting it

2619

with libertarian organs of self-management. The social

2620

revolution that spontaneously occurred after July 19th was

2621

essentially economic and social (i.e. "apolitical") and not

2622

"anti-political" (i.e. the destruction of the state machine).

2623

Such a revolution would soon come to grief on the shores

2624

of the (revitalised) state machine -- as the FoD correctly

2625

argued had happened.

2626

2627

To state that they had introduced a variation into their

2628

anarchism makes sense post-July 1936. The "apolitical" line

2629

of the CNT-FAI had obviously failed and a new departure was

2630

required. While it is clear that the FoD's "new" position was

2631

nothing of the kind, it was elemental anarchist principles,

2632

it was "new" in respect to the policy the CNT ("anarchism")

2633

had conducted during the Civil War -- a policy they justified

2634

by selective use of anarchist theory and principles. In the

2635

face of this, the FoD could claim they were presenting a new

2636

variation in spite of its obvious similarities to pre-war CNT

2637

policies and anarchist theory. Thus the claim that the FoD saw

2638

their ideas as some sort of departure from traditional anarchism

2639

cannot be maintained, given the obvious links this "new" idea had

2640

with the past policies and structure of the CNT. As Guillamon

2641

makes it clear, the FoD made "their stand within the organisation

2642

and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology" and "[a]t all times

2643

the Group articulated an anarcho-syndicalist ideology,

2644

although it also voiced radical criticism of the CNT and

2645

FAI leadership. But it is a huge leap from that to claiming

2646

that the Group espoused marxist positions." [Op. Cit., p. 61

2647

and p. 95]

2648

2649

One last comment. Morrow states that the "CNT leadership . . .

2650

expelled the Friends of Durruti" [Op. Cit., p. 189] This is not

2651

true. The CNT leadership did try to expel the FoD. However, as

2652

Balius points out, the "higher committees order[ed] our expulsion,

2653

but this was rejected by the rank and file in the trade union

2654

assemblies and at a plenum of FAI groups held in the Casa

2655

CNT-FAI." [quoted by Agustin Guillamon, Op. Cit., p. 73] Thus

2656

the CNT leadership could never get their desire ratified by

2657

any assembly of unions or FAI groups. Unfortunately, Morrow

2658

gets his facts wrong (and also presents a somewhat false

2659

impression of the relationship of the CNT leadership and

2660

the rank and file).

2661

2662

<a name="app9"><H2>9. Were the Friends of Durruti influenced by

2663

Trotskyists?</h2>

2664

2665

Morrow implies that the Bolshevik-Leninists "established close

2666

contacts with the anarchist workers, especially the 'Friends of

2667

Durruti'" [Op. Cit., p. 139] The truth, as usual, is somewhat

2668

different.

2669

2670

To prove this we must again turn to Guillamon's work in which

2671

he dedicates a chapter to this issue. He brings this chapter

2672

by stating:

2673

2674

"It requires only a cursory perusal of El Amigo del Pueblo

2675

or Balius's statements to establish that the Friends of

2676

Durruti were never marxists, nor influenced at all by the

2677

Trotskyists or the Bolshevik-Leninist Section. But there

2678

is a school of historians determined to maintain the

2679

opposite and hence the necessity for this chapter."

2680

[Op. Cit., p. 94]

2681

</blockquote>

2682

He stresses that the FoD "were not in any way beholden to

2683

Spanish Trotskyism is transparent from several documents"

2684

and notes that while the POUM and Trotskyists displayed "an

2685

interest" in "bringing the Friends of Durruti under their

2686

influence" this was "something in which they never succeeded."

2687

[Op. Cit., p. 96 and p. 110]

2688

2689

Pre-May, 1937, Balius himself states that the FoD "had no

2690

contact with the POUM, nor with the Trotskyists." [Op. Cit.,

2691

p. 104] Post-May, this had not changed as witness E. Wolf

2692

letter to Trotsky in July 1937 which stated that it "will

2693

be impossible to achieve any collaboration with them . . .

2694

Neither the POUMists nor the Friends would agree to the

2695

meeting [to discuss joint action]." [Op. Cit., pp. 97-8]

2696

2697

In other words, the Friends of Durruti did not establish

2698

"close contacts" with the Bolshevik-Leninists after the

2699

May Days of 1937. While the Bolshevik-Leninists may have

2700

wished for such contacts, the FoD did not (they probably

2701

remembered their fellow anarchists and workers imprisoned

2702

and murdered when Trotsky was in power in Russia). They

2703

were, of course, contacts of a limited kind but no influence

2704

or significant co-operation. Little wonder Balius stated in

2705

1946 that the "alleged influence of the POUM or the Trotskyists

2706

upon us is untrue." [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 104]

2707

2708

It is hardly surprising that the FoD were not influenced by

2709

Trotskyism. After all, they were well aware of the policies

2710

Trotsky introduced when he was in power. Moreover, the program

2711

of the Bolshevik-Leninists was similar in rhetoric to the

2712

anarchist vision -- they differed on the question of whether

2713

they actually meant "all power to the working class" or

2714

not (see section <a href="append32.html#app12">12</a> and

2715

<a href="append32.html#app13">13</a>). And, of course, the Trotskyists

2716

activities during the May Days amounted to little more

2717

that demanding that the workers' do what they were already

2718

doing (as can be seen from the leaflet they produced -- as

2719

George Orwell noted, "it merely demanded what was happening

2720

already" [Homage to Catalonia, p. 221]). As usual, the

2721

"vanguard of the proletariat" were trying to catch up with

2722

the proletariat.

2723

2724

In theory and practice the FoD were miles ahead of the

2725

Bolshevik-Leninists -- as to be expected, as the FoD were

2726

anarchists.

2727

2728

<a name="app10"><H2>10. What does the Friends of Durruti's programme tell us about Trotskyism?</h2>

2729

2730

Morrow states that the FoD's "slogans included the essential

2731

points of a revolutionary program: all power to the working

2732

class, and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and

2733

combatants, as the expression of the workers' power."

2734

[Op. Cit., p. 133] It is useful to compare Leninism to these

2735

points to see if that provides a revolutionary program.

2736

2737

Firstly, as we argue in more detail in

2738

<a href="append32.html#app11">section 11</a>, Trotsky

2739

abolished the democratic organs of the Red Army. Lenin's

2740

rule also saw the elimination of the factory committee movement

2741

and its replacement with one-man management appointed from

2742

above (see <a href="append32.html#app17">section 17</a>

2743

and Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers'

2744

Control for details). Both these events occurred before the

2745

start of the Russian Civil War in May 1918. Moreover, neither

2746

Lenin nor Trotsky considered workers' self-management of

2747

production as a key aspects of socialism. On this level,

2748

Leninism in power did not constitute a "revolutionary

2749

program."

2750

2751

Secondly, Leninism does not call for "all power to the

2752

working class" or even "workers' power" to manage their

2753

own affairs. To quote Trotsky, in an article written in

2754

1937, "the proletariat can take power only through its

2755

vanguard." The working classes' role is one of supporting

2756

the party:

2757

2758

"Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without

2759

support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of

2760

the conquest of power.

2761

2762

"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship

2763

are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership

2764

of the vanguard."

2765

</blockquote>

2766

Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power,

2767

it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary

2768

party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means

2769

the sovereign ruler of society." [Stalinism and Bolshevism]

2770

So much for "workers'

2771

power" -- unless you equate that with the "power" to give

2772

your power, your control over your own affairs, to a minority

2773

who claim to represent you. Indeed, Trotsky even attacks the

2774

idea that workers' can achieve power directly via organs of

2775

self-management like workers' councils (or soviets):

2776

2777

"Those who propose the abstraction of the Soviets from the

2778

party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to

2779

the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift

2780

themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the

2781

state form of the proletariat." [Op. Cit.]

2782

</blockquote>

2783

In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in

2784

fact, expressed by "the party dictatorship." In this Trotsky

2785

follows Lenin who asserted that:

2786

2787

"The very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the

2788

Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of

2789

the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' -- is

2790

evidence of the most incredible and hopeless confusion of

2791

mind . . . [because] classes are usually . . . led by political

2792

parties. . . " [Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,

2793

pp. 25-6]

2794

</blockquote>

2795

As has been made clear above, the FoD being anarchists aimed

2796

for a society of generalised self-management, a system in which

2797

working people directly controlled their own affairs and so

2798

society. As these words by Lenin and Trotsky indicate they did

2799

not aim for such a society, a society based on "all power to the

2800

working class." Rather, they aimed for a society in which the

2801

workers would delegate their power into the hands of a few,

2802

the revolutionary party, who would exercise power on their

2803

behalf. The FoD meant exactly what they said when they argued

2804

for "all power to the working class" -- they did not mean this

2805

as a euphemism for party rule. In this they followed Bakunin:

2806

2807

"[T]he federated Alliance of all labour associations . . .

2808

will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a federation

2809

of the standing barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council

2810

will operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each

2811

barricade . . . these deputies being invested with binding

2812

mandates and accountable and revocable at all times. . .

2813

An appeal will be issued to all provinces, communes and

2814

associations inviting them to follow the example set . . .

2815

[and] to reorganise along revolutionary lines . . . and to then

2816

delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all of

2817

those deputies invested with binding mandates and accountable

2818

and subject to recall), in order to found the federation of

2819

insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . Thus it

2820

is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation

2821

of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of

2822

insurgent areas that the . . . Revolution, founded upon . . .

2823

the ruins of States, will emerge triumphant. . .

2824

2825

"Since it is the people which must make the revolution

2826

everywhere, and since the ultimate direction of it must at

2827

all times be vested in the people organised into a free

2828

federation of agricultural and industrial organisations

2829

. . . being organised from the bottom up through

2830

revolutionary delegation . . ." [No God, No Masters,

2831

vol. 1, pp. 155-6]

2832

</blockquote>

2833

And:

2834

2835

"Not even as revolutionary transition will we countenance

2836

national Conventions, nor Constituent Assemblies, nor

2837

provisional governments, nor so-called revolutionary

2838

dictatorships: because we are persuaded that revolution

2839

s sincere, honest and real only among the masses and that,

2840

whenever it is concentrated in the hands of a few governing

2841

individuals, it inevitably and immediately turns into

2842

reaction." [Op. Cit., p. 160]

2843

</blockquote>

2844

As can be seen, Bakunin's vision is precisely, to use Morrow'

2845

words, "all power to the working class, and democratic organs

2846

of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the expression of

2847

the workers' power." Thus the Friends of Durruti's program

2848

is not a "break" with anarchism (as we discussed in more detail

2849

in <a href="append32.html#app8">section 8</a>) but rather in the tradition started

2850

by Bakunin -- in other words, an anarchist program. It is

2851

Leninism, as can be seen, which rejects this "revolutionary

2852

program" in favour of all power to the representatives of

2853

the working class (i.e. party) which it confuses with the

2854

working class as a whole.

2855

2856

Given that Morrow asserts that "all power to the working class"

2857

was an "essential" point of "a revolutionary program" we can only

2858

conclude that Trotskyism does not provide a revolutionary

2859

program -- rather it provides a program based, at best, on

2860

representative government in which the workers' delegate

2861

their power to a minority or, at worse, on party dictatorship

2862

over the working class (the experience of Bolshevik Russia

2863

would suggest the former quickly becomes the latter, and is

2864

justified by Bolshevik ideology).

2865

2866

By his own arguments, here as in so many other cases, Morrow

2867

indicates that Trotskyism is not a revolutionary movement or

2868

theory.

2869

2870

<a name="app11"><H2>11. Why is Morrow's comments against the militarisation of the Militias ironic?</h2>

2871

2872

Morrow denounces the Stalinist militarisation of the militias

2873

(their "campaign for wiping out the internal democratic

2874

life of the militias") as follows:

2875

2876

"The Stalinists early sought to set an 'example' by handing

2877

their militias over to government control, helping to

2878

institute the salute, supremacy of officers behind the

2879

lines, etc. . .

2880

2881

"The example was wasted on the CNT masses . . . The POUM

2882

reprinted for distribution in the militias the original

2883

Red Army Manual of Trotsky, providing for a democratic

2884

internal regime and political life in the army." [Op. Cit.,

2885

p. 126]

2886

</blockquote>

2887

Morrow states that he supported the "democratic election of

2888

soldiers' committees in each unit, centralised in a national

2889

election of soldiers' delegates to a national council."

2890

Moreover, he attacks the POUM leadership because it "forbade

2891

election of soldiers' committees" and argued that the "simple,

2892

concrete slogan of elected soldier's committees was the only

2893

road for securing proletariat control of the army." He attacks

2894

the POUM because its "ten thousand militiamen were controlled

2895

bureaucratically by officials appointed by the Central Committee

2896

of the party, election of soldiers' committees being expressly

2897

forbidden." [Op. Cit., p. 127, p. 128 and pp. 136-7]

2898

2899

Again, Morrow is correct. A revolutionary working class militia

2900

does require self-management, the election of delegates, soldiers'

2901

councils and so on. Bakunin, for example, argued that the fighters

2902

on the barricades would take a role in determining the development

2903

of the revolution as the "Commune will be organised by the standing

2904

federation of the Barricades . . . composed of one or two delegates

2905

from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and

2906

removable mandates." This would complement "the federative Alliance

2907

of all working men's [and women's] associations . . . which will

2908

constitute the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,

2909

pp. 170-1] That is exactly why the CNT militia organised in this

2910

fashion (and, we must note, they were only applying the organisational

2911

principles of the CNT and FAI -- i.e. anarchism -- to the militias).

2912

The militia columns were organised in a libertarian fashion from the

2913

bottom up:

2914

2915

"The establishment of war committees is acceptable to all confederal

2916

militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which

2917

come to accommodations among themselves for small-scale operations.

2918

Ten such groups together make up one centuria, which appoints a delegate

2919

to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which is directed

2920

by a war committee, on which the delegates from the centurias have their

2921

say. . . although every column retains its freedom of action, we arrive

2922

at co-ordination of forces, which is not the same thing as unity of

2923

command." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 256-7]

2924

</blockquote>

2925

In other words, Morrow is arguing for an anarchist solution to the

2926

problem of defending the revolution and organising those who were

2927

fighting fascism. We say anarchist for good reason. What is ironic

2928

about Morrow's comments and description of "workers' control of the

2929

army" is that these features were exactly those eliminated by

2930

Trotsky when he created the Red Army in 1918! Indeed, Trotsky

2931

acted in exactly the same way as Morrow attacks the Stalinists

2932

for acting (and they used many of the same arguments as Trotsky

2933

did to justify it).

2934

2935

As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:

2936

2937

"Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after

2938

Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red

2939

Army. The death penalty for disobedience under fire had

2940

been restored. So, more gradually, had saluting, special

2941

forms of address, separate living quarters and other

2942

privileges for officers. Democratic forms of organisation,

2943

including the election of officers, had been quickly

2944

dispensed with." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control,

2945

p. 37]

2946

</blockquote>

2947

He notes that "[f]or years, Trotskyist literature has denounced

2948

these reactionary facets of the Red Army as examples of what

2949

happened to it 'under Stalinism.'" [Op. Cit., p. 37f] This claim

2950

was, amazingly enough, also made by Trotsky himself. In 1935 he

2951

re-wrote history by arguing that "[i]n the fire of the cruel

2952

struggle [of the Civil War], there could not be even a question

2953

of a privileged position for officers: the very word was scrubbed

2954

out of the vocabulary." Only "after the victories had been won

2955

and the passage made to a peaceful situation" did "the military

2956

apparatus" try to "become the most influential and privileged

2957

part of the whole bureaucratic apparatus" with "the Stalinist

2958

bureaucracy . . . gradually over the succeeding ten to twelve

2959

years" ensuring for them "a superior position" and giving them

2960

"ranks and decorations." [How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?]

2961

2962

In fact, "ranks and decorations" and "superior" positions

2963

were introduced by Trotsky before the outbreak of the Civil

2964

War in May 1918. Having been responsible for such developments

2965

you would think he would remember them!

2966

2967

On March 28th, 1918, Trotsky gave a report to the Moscow City

2968

Conference of the Communist Party. In this report he stated

2969

that "the principle of election is politically purposeless

2970

and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice,

2971

abolished by decree" and that the Bolsheviks "fac[ed] the

2972

task of creating a regular Army." Why the change? Simply

2973

because the Bolshevik Party held power ("political power

2974

is in the hands of the same working class from whose ranks

2975

the Army is recruited"). Of course, power was actually held

2976

by the Bolshevik party, not the working class, but never fear:

2977

2978

"Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system

2979

under which the government is headed by persons who have been

2980

directly elected by the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and

2981

Soldiers' Deputies, there can be no antagonism between the

2982

government and the mass of the workers, just as there is no

2983

antagonism between the administration of the union and the

2984

general assembly of its members, and, therefore, there cannot

2985

be any grounds for fearing the appointment of members of the

2986

commanding staff by the organs of the Soviet Power."

2987

[Work, Discipline, Order]

2988

</blockquote>

2989

Of course, most workers' are well aware that the administration

2990

of a trade union usually works against them during periods of

2991

struggle. Indeed, so are most Trotskyists as they often denounce

2992

the betrayals by that administration. Thus Trotsky's own analogy

2993

indicates the fallacy of his argument. Elected officials do not

2994

necessary reflect the interests of those who elected them. That

2995

is why anarchists have always supported delegation rather

2996

than representation combined with decentralisation, strict

2997

accountability and the power of instant recall. In a highly

2998

centralised system (as created by the Bolsheviks and as exists

2999

in most social democratic trade unions) the ability to recall

3000

an administration is difficult as it requires the agreement of

3001

all the people. Thus there are quite a few grounds for fearing

3002

the appointment of commanders by the government -- no matter

3003

which party makes it up.

3004

3005

If, as Morrow argues, the "simple, concrete slogan of elected

3006

soldier's committees was the only road for securing proletariat

3007

control of the army" then Trotsky's regime in the Red Army ensured

3008

the defeat of proletarian control of that organisation. The question

3009

Morrow raises of who would control the army, the working class or

3010

the bourgeois failed to realise the real question -- who was to

3011

control the army, the working class, the bourgeois or the state

3012

bureaucracy. Trotsky ensured that it would be the latter.

3013

3014

Hence Morrow's own arguments indicate the anti-revolutionary

3015

nature of Trotskyism -- unless, of course, we decide to look

3016

only at what people say and not what they do.

3017

3018

Of course some Trotskyists know what Trotsky actually did

3019

when he held power and try and present apologetics for his

3020

obvious destruction of soldiers' democracy. One argues that

3021

the "Red Army, more than any other institution of the civil

3022

war years, embodied the contradiction between the political

3023

consciousness and circumstantial coercion. On the one hand

3024

the creation of a Red Army was a retreat: it was a conscripted

3025

not a voluntary army; officers were appointed not elected . . .

3026

But the Red Army was also filled with a magnificent socialist

3027

consciousness." [John Rees, "In Defence of October",

3028

International Socialism, no. 52, pp. 3-82, p. 46]

3029

3030

This argument is somewhat weak for two reasons.

3031

3032

Firstly, the regressive features of the Red Army appeared

3033

before the start of the Civil War. It was a political

3034

decision to organise in this way, a decision not justified

3035

at the time in terms of circumstantial necessity. Indeed,

3036

far from it (like most of the other Bolshevik policies of

3037

the period). Rather it was justified under the rather dubious

3038

rationale that workers did not need to fear the actions of a

3039

workers' state. Circumstances were not mentioned at all nor

3040

was the move considered as a retreat or as a defeat. It was

3041

not even considered as a matter of principle.

3042

3043

This perspective was reiterated by Trotsky after the end of

3044

the Civil War. Writing in 1922, he argued that:

3045

3046

"There was and could be no question of controlling troops

3047

by means of elected committees and commanders who were

3048

subordinate to these committees and might be replaced at

3049

any moment . . . [The old army] had carried out a social

3050

revolution within itself, casting aside the commanders from

3051

the landlord and bourgeois classes and establishing organs

3052

of revolutionary self-government, in the shape of the Soviets

3053

of Soldiers' Deputies. These organisational and political

3054

measures were correct and necessary from the standpoint of

3055

breaking up the old army. But a new army capable of fighting

3056

could certainly not grow directly out of them . . . The attempt

3057

made to apply our old organisational methods to the building

3058

of a Red Army threatened to undermine it from the very outset

3059

. . . the system of election could in no way secure competent,

3060

suitable and authoritative commanders for the revolutionary

3061

army. The Red Army was built from above, in accordance with

3062

the principles of the dictatorship of the working class.

3063

Commanders were selected and tested by the organs of the

3064

Soviet power and the Communist Party. Election of commanders

3065

by the units themselves -- which were politically ill-educated,

3066

being composed of recently mobilised young peasants -- would

3067

inevitably have been transformed into a game of chance, and

3068

would often, in fact, have created favourable circumstances

3069

for the machinations of various intriguers and adventurers.

3070

Similarly, the revolutionary army, as an army for action

3071

and not as an arena of propaganda, was incompatible with

3072

a regime of elected committees, which in fact could not

3073

but destroy all centralised control." [The Path of the

3074

Red Army]

3075

</blockquote>

3076

If a "circumstantial" factor exists in this rationale, it is

3077

the claim that the soldiers were "politically ill-educated."

3078

However, every mass movement or revolution starts with

3079

those involved being "politically ill-educated." The very

3080

process of struggle educates them politically. A key part

3081

of this radicalisation is practising self-management and

3082

self-organisation -- in other words, in participating in

3083

the decision making process of the struggle, by discussing

3084

ideas and actions, by hearing other viewpoints, electing

3085

and mandating delegates. To remove this ensures that those

3086

involved remain "politically ill-educated" and, ultimately,

3087

incapable of self-government. It also contains the rationale

3088

for continuing party dictatorship:

3089

3090

"If some people . . . have assumed the right to violate

3091

everybody's freedom on the pretext of preparing the triumph

3092

of freedom, they will always find that the people are not yet

3093

sufficiently mature, that the dangers of reaction are ever-present,

3094

that the education of the people has not yet been completed. And

3095

with these excuses they will seek to perpetuate their own power."

3096

[Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 52]

3097

</blockquote>

3098

In addition, Trotsky's rationale refutes any claim that Bolshevism

3099

is somehow "fundamentally" democratic. The ramifications of it were

3100

felt everywhere in the soviet system as the Bolsheviks ignored

3101

the "wrong" democratic decisions made by the working masses and

3102

replaced their democratic organisations with appointees from above.

3103

Indeed, Trotsky admits that the "Red Army was built from above,

3104

in accordance with the principles of the dictatorship of the

3105

working class." Which means, to state the obvious, appointment

3106

from above, the dismantling of self-government, and so on

3107

are "in accordance with the principles" of Trotskyism. These

3108

comments were not made in the heat of the civil war, but

3109

afterward during peacetime. Notice Trotsky admits that a

3110

"social revolution" had swept through the Tsarist army. His

3111

actions, he also admits, reversed that revolution and replaced

3112

its organs of "self-government" with ones identical to the old

3113

regime. When that happens it is usually called by its true

3114

name, namely counter-revolution.

3115

3116

For a Trotskyist, therefore, to present themselves as a supporter

3117

of self-managed militias is the height of hypocrisy. The Stalinists

3118

repeated the same arguments used by Trotsky and acted in exactly

3119

the same way in their campaign against the CNT and POUM militias.

3120

Certain acts have certain ramifications, no matter who does them

3121

or under what government. In other words, abolishing democracy

3122

in the army will generate autocratic tendencies which will

3123

undermine socialistic ones no matter who does it. The same

3124

means cannot be used to serve different ends as there is an

3125

intrinsic relationship between the instruments used and the

3126

results obtained -- that is why the bourgeoisie do not encourage

3127

democracy in the army or the workplace! Just as the capitalist

3128

workplace is organised to produce proletarians and capital

3129

along with cloth and steel, the capitalist army is organised to

3130

protect and reinforce minority power. The army and the capitalist

3131

workplace are not simply means or neutral instruments. Rather

3132

they are social structures which generate, reinforce and protect

3133

specific social relations. This is what the Russian masses

3134

instinctively realised and conducted a social-revolution in

3135

both the army and workplace to transform these structures into

3136

ones which would enhance rather than crush freedom and working

3137

class autonomy. The Bolsheviks reversed these movements in favour

3138

of structures which reproduced capitalist social relationships

3139

and justified it in terms of "socialism." Unfortunately,

3140

capitalist means and organisations would only generate

3141

capitalist ends.

3142

3143

It was for these reasons that the CNT and its militias were

3144

organised from the bottom up in a self-managed way. It was the

3145

only way socialists and a socialist society could be created --

3146

that is why anarchists are anarchists, we recognise that a socialist

3147

(i.e. libertarian) society cannot be created by authoritarian

3148

organisations. As the justly famous Sonvillier Circular argued

3149

"[h]ow could one expect an egalitarian society to emerge out

3150

of an authoritarian organisation? It is impossible." [quoted

3151

by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 61]

3152

Just as the capitalist state cannot be utilised by the working

3153

class for its own ends, capitalist/statist organisational

3154

principles such as appointment, autocratic management,

3155

centralisation and delegation of power and so on cannot be

3156

utilised for social liberation. They are not designed to be

3157

used for that purpose (and, indeed, they were developed in

3158

the first place to stop it and enforce minority rule!).

3159

3160

In addition, to abolish democracy on the pretext that people

3161

are not ready for it ensures that it will never exist. Anarchists,

3162

in contrast, argue that "[o]nly freedom or the struggle for freedom

3163

can be the school for freedom." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 59]

3164

3165

Secondly, how can a "socialist consciousness" be encouraged,

3166

or continue to exist, without socialist institutions to

3167

express it? Such a position is idealistic nonsense,

3168

expressing the wishful notion that the social relationships

3169

people experiences does not impact on those involved. In

3170

effect, Rees is arguing that as long as the leaders have

3171

the "right ideas" it does not matter how an organisation is

3172

structured. However, how people develop, the ideas they

3173

have in their heads, are influenced by the relations they

3174

create with each other -- autocratic organisations do not

3175

encourage self-management or socialism, they produce

3176

bureaucrats and subjects.

3177

3178

An autocratic organisation cannot encourage a socialist

3179

consciousness by its institutional life, only in spite of it.

3180

For example, the capitalist workplace encourages a spirit of

3181

revolt and solidarity in those subject to its hierarchical

3182

management and this is expressed in direct action -- by

3183

resisting the authority of the boss. It only generates a

3184

socialist perspective via resistance to it. Similarly with

3185

the Red Army. Education programs to encourage reading and

3186

writing does not generate socialists, it generates soldiers

3187

who are literate. If these soldiers do not have the

3188

institutional means to manage their own affairs, a forum

3189

to discuss political and social issues, then they remain

3190

order takers and any socialist conscious will wither and

3191

die.

3192

3193

The Red Army was based on the fallacy that the structure

3194

of an organisation is unimportant and it is the politics of

3195

those in charge that matter (Marxists make a similar claim

3196

for the state, so we should not be too surprised). However,

3197

it is no co-incidence that bourgeois structures are always

3198

hierarchical -- self-management is a politically educational

3199

experience which erodes the power of those in charge and

3200

transforms those who do it. It is to stop this development,

3201

to protect the power of the ruling few, that the bourgeois

3202

always turn to centralised, hierarchical structures -- they

3203

reinforce elite rule. You cannot use the same form of

3204

organisation and expect different results -- they are

3205

designed that way for a reason! To twitter on about

3206

the Red Army being "filled with a magnificent socialist

3207

consciousness" while justifying the elimination of the

3208

only means by which that consciousness could survive,

3209

prosper and grow indicates a complete lack of socialist

3210

politics and any understanding of materialist philosophy.

3211

3212

Moreover, one of the basic principles of the anarchist militia

3213

was equality between all members. Delegates received the same

3214

pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes as the rest of

3215

the unit. Not so in the Red Army. Trotsky thought, when he

3216

was in charge of it, that inequality was "in some cases . . .

3217

quite explicable and unavoidable" and that "[e]very Red Army

3218

warrior fully accepts that the commander of his unit should

3219

enjoy certain privileges as regards lodging, means of transport

3220

and even uniform." [More Equality!]

3221

3222

Of course, Trotsky would think that, being the head commander

3223

of the Army. Unfortunately, because soldier democracy had

3224

been abolished by decree, we have no idea whether the rank

3225

and file of the Red Army agreed with him. For Trotsky,

3226

privilege "is, in itself, in certain cases, inevitable" but

3227

"[o]stentatious indulgence in privilege is not just evil,

3228

it is a crime." Hence his desire for "more" equality rather

3229

than equality -- to aim for "eliminating the most abnormal [!]

3230

phenomena, softening [!] the inequality that exists" rather

3231

than abolish it as they did in the CNT militias. [Op. Cit.]

3232

3233

But, of course, such inequalities that existed in the Red Army

3234

are to be expected in an autocratically run organisation. The

3235

inequality inherent in hierarchy, the inequality in power

3236

between the order giver and order taker, will, sooner or

3237

later, be reflected in material inequality. As happened in

3238

the Red Army (and all across the "workers' state"). All Trotsky

3239

wanted was for those in power to be respectable in their

3240

privilege rather than showing it off. The anarchist militias

3241

did not have this problem because being libertarian, delegates

3242

were subject to recall and power rested with the rank and file,

3243

not an elected government.

3244

3245

As another irony of history, Morrow quotes a Bolshevik-Leninist

3246

leaflet (which "points the road") as demanding "[e]qual pay for

3247

officers and soldiers." [Op. Cit., p. 191] Obviously these good

3248

Trotskyists had no idea what their hero actually wrote on this

3249

subject or did when in power. We have to wonder how long their

3250

egalitarian demands would have survived once they had acquired

3251

power -- if the experience of Trotsky in power is anything to

3252

go by, not very long.

3253

3254

Trotsky did not consider how the abolition of democracy and

3255

its replacement with an autocratic system would effect the

3256

morale or consciousness of the soldiers subject to it. He

3257

argued that in the Red Army "the best soldier does not

3258

mean at all the most submissive and uncomplaining."

3259

Rather, "the best soldier will nearly always be sharper,

3260

more observant and critical than the others. . . by his

3261

critical comments, based on facts accessible to all, he

3262

will pretty often undermine the prestige of the commanders

3263

and commissars in the eyes of the mass of the soldiers."

3264

However, not having a democratic army the soldiers could

3265

hardly express their opinion other than rebellion or

3266

by indiscipline. Trotsky, however, adds a comment that

3267

makes his praise of critical soldiers seem less than

3268

sincere. He states that "counter-revolutionary elements,

3269

agents of the enemy, make conscious and skilful use of

3270

the circumstances I have mentioned [presumably excessive

3271

privilege rather than critical soldiers, but who can tell]

3272

in order to stir up discontent and intensify antagonism

3273

between rank and file and the commanding personnel."

3274

[Op. Cit.] The question, of course, arises of who can

3275

tell the difference between a critical soldier and a

3276

"counter-revolutionary element"? Without a democratic

3277

organisation, soldier are dependent (as in any other

3278

hierarchy) on the power of the commanders, commissars and,

3279

in the Red Army, the Bolshevik Secret Police (the Cheka).

3280

In other words, members of the very class of autocrats

3281

their comments are directed against.

3282

3283

Without democratic organisation, the Red Army could never

3284

be a means for creating a socialist society, only a means

3285

of reproducing autocratic organisation. The influence of

3286

the autocratic organisation created by Trotsky had a

3287

massive impact on the development of the Soviet State.

3288

According to Trotsky himself:

3289

3290

"The demobilisation of the Red Army of five million played

3291

no small role in the formation of the bureaucracy. The

3292

victorious commanders assumed leading posts in the local

3293

Soviets, in economy, in education, and they persistently

3294

introduced everywhere that regime which had ensured success

3295

in the civil war. Thus on all sides the masses were pushed

3296

away gradually from actual participation in the leadership

3297

of the country." [The Revolution Betrayed]

3298

</blockquote>

3299

Obviously Trotsky had forgotten who created the regime in

3300

the Red Army in the first place! He also seems to have

3301

forgotten that after militarising the Red Army, he turned

3302

his power to militarising workers (starting with the

3303

railway workers). He also forgets that Lenin had been

3304

arguing that workers' must "unquestioningly obey the

3305

single will of the leaders of labour" from April 1918

3306

along with granting "individual executives dictatorial

3307

power (or 'unlimited' powers)" and that "the appointment

3308

of individuals, dictators with unlimited powers" was,

3309

in fact, "in general compatible with the fundamental

3310

principles of Soviet government" simply because "the

3311

history of revolutionary movements" had "shown" that

3312

"the dictatorship of individuals was very often the

3313

expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship

3314

of revolutionary classes." He notes that "[u]ndoubtably,

3315

the dictatorship of individuals was compatible with

3316

bourgeois democracy." [The Immediate Tasks of the

3317

Soviet Government, p. 34 and p. 32]

3318

3319

In other words, Lenin urged the creation of, and implemented,

3320

bourgeois forms of workplace management based on the

3321

appointment of managers from above. To indicate that this

3322

was not in contradiction with Soviet principles, he points

3323

to the example of bourgeois revolutions! As if bourgeois

3324

methods do not reflect bourgeois interests and goals. In

3325

addition, these "dictators" were given the same autocratic

3326

powers Trotsky claimed the demobilisation of the Red Army

3327

four years later had "persistently introduced everywhere."

3328

Yes, "on all sides the masses were pushed away gradually

3329

from actual participation in the leadership of the country"

3330

but the process had started immediately after the October

3331

Revolution and was urged and organised by Lenin and Trotsky

3332

before the Civil War had started.

3333

3334

Lenin's support for appointment of ("dictatorial") managers

3335

from above makes Trotsky's 1922 comment that the "Red Army

3336

was built from above, in accordance with the principles of

3337

the dictatorship of the working class" take on a new light.

3338

[The Path of the Red Army] After all, Lenin argued for

3339

an economy system built from above via the appointment of

3340

managers before the start of the Civil War. The Red Army

3341

was created from above via the appointment of officers before

3342

the start of the Civil War. Things had certainly changed since

3343

Lenin had argued in The State and Revolution that "[a]ll

3344

officials, without exception, [would be] elected and

3345

subject to recall at any time." This would "serve as

3346

the bridge between capitalism and socialism." [The Essential

3347

Lenin, p. 302] One major difference, given Trotsky's

3348

rationales, seems to be that the Bolsheviks were now in

3349

power and so election and recall without exception

3350

could be forgotten and replaced by appointment.

3351

3352

In summary, Trotsky's argument against functional democracy

3353

in the Red Army could, and was, used to justify the

3354

suppression of any democratic decision or organisation

3355

of the working class the Bolshevik government disapproved

3356

of. He used the same argument, for example, to justify the

3357

undermining of the Factory Committee movement and the

3358

struggle for workers' control in favour of one-man

3359

management -- the form of management in the workplace was

3360

irrelevant as the workers' were now citizens of a workers'

3361

state and under a workers' government (see

3362

<a href="append32.html#app17">section 17</a>).

3363

Needless to say, a state which eliminates functional

3364

democracy in the grassroots will not stay democratic

3365

for long (and to remain the sovereign power in society,

3366

any state will have to eliminate it or, at the very least,

3367

bring it under central control -- as institutionalised

3368

in the USSR constitution of 1918).

3369

3370

Instead of seeing socialism as a product of free association,

3371

of working class self-organisation from the bottom up by

3372

self-managed organisations, Trotsky saw it as a centralised,

3373

top-down system. Of course, being a democrat of sorts he

3374

saw the Bolshevik Government as being elected by the mass

3375

of the population (or, more correctly, he saw it being

3376

elected by the national congress of soviets). However, his

3377

vision of centralisation of power provided the rationale

3378

for destroying functional democracy in the grass-roots

3379

die. Little wonder, then, that the Bolshevik experiment

3380

proved such a disaster -- yes, the civil war did not help

3381

but the logic of Bolshevism has started to undermine

3382

working class self-management before is started.

3383

3384

Thus Trotsky's argument that the democratic nature of

3385

a workers' army or militia is irrelevant because a

3386

"workers' state" exists is flawed on many different

3387

levels. And the experience of Trotsky in power indicates

3388

well the poverty of Trotskyism and Morrow's criticism

3389

of the CNT -- his suggestion for a self-managed militia

3390

is pure anarchism with nothing to do with Leninism and

3391

the experience of Bolshevism in power.

3392

3393

<a name="app12"><H2>12. What is ironic about Morrow's vision of

3394

revolution?</h2>

3395

3396

Equally ironic as Morrow's comments concerning democratic militias

3397

(see <a href="append32.html#app11">last section</a>) is his argument that the revolution needed

3398

to "give the factory committees, militia committees, peasant

3399

committees, a democratic character, by having them elected

3400

by all workers in each unit; to bring together these elected

3401

delegates in village, city, regional councils . . . [and]

3402

a national congress." [Op. Cit., p. 100]

3403

3404

Such a position is correct, such developments were required

3405

to ensure the success of the revolution. However, it is

3406

somewhat ironic that a Trotskyist would present them as

3407

somehow being opposed to anarchism when, in fact, they are

3408

pure anarchism. Indeed, anarchists were arguing in favour

3409

of workers' councils more than five decades before Lenin

3410

discovered the importance of the Russian Soviets in 1917.

3411

Moreover, as we will indicate, what is even more ironic is

3412

the fact that Trotskyism does not actually see these organs

3413

as an expression of working class self-management and power

3414

but rather as a means of the party to take power. In addition,

3415

we must also note that it was Lenin and Trotsky who helped

3416

undermine the Russian workers' factory committees, militia

3417

committees and so on in favour of party rule. We will discuss

3418

each of these ironies in turn.

3419

3420

Firstly, as noted, such Morrow's stated position is exactly

3421

what Bakunin and the anarchist movement had been arguing since

3422

the 1860s. To quote Bakunin:

3423

3424

"the federative alliance of all working men's associations

3425

. . . constitute the Commune . . . all provinces, communes

3426

and associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary

3427

lines . . . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent

3428

associations, communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a

3429

revolutionary force capable defeating reaction . . . [and

3430

for] self-defence . . . [The] revolution everywhere must be

3431

created by the people, and supreme control must always belong

3432

to the people organised into a free federation of agricultural

3433

and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom

3434

upwards by means of revolutionary delegation. . . " [Michael

3435

Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 170-2]

3436

3437

"The future social organisation must be made solely from the

3438

bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers,

3439

firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions,

3440

nations and finally in a great federation, international

3441

and universal." [Op. Cit., p. 206]

3442

</blockquote>

3443

Here is Kropotkin presenting the same vision:

3444

3445

"independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and

3446

of federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations]

3447

for the organisation of men [and women] in accordance with

3448

their different functions. . . [and] free combines and societies

3449

. . . for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs,

3450

economic, sanitary, and educational; for mutual protection, for

3451

the propaganda of ideas, for arts, for amusement, and so on."

3452

[Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 79]

3453

3454

"the complete independence of the Communes, the Federation of free

3455

communes and the social revolution in the communes, that is to say

3456

the formation of associated productive groups in place of the state organisation." [quoted by Camillo Berneri, Peter Kropotkin: His

3457

Federalist Ideas]

3458

</blockquote>

3459

Bakunin also mentions that those defending the revolution would

3460

have a say in the revolutionary structure -- the "Commune will be

3461

organised by the standing federation of the Barricades and by

3462

the creation of a Revolutionary Council composed of . . .

3463

delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but

3464

accountable and removable mandates." [Op. Cit., p. 171] This

3465

obviously parallels the democratic nature of the CNT militias.

3466

3467

Interestingly enough, Marx commented that "odd barricades,

3468

these barricades of the Alliance [Bakunin's anarchist

3469

organisation], where instead of fighting they spend their

3470

time writing mandates." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism

3471

and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 111] Obviously the importance

3472

of militia self-management was as lost on him as it was

3473

on Lenin and Trotsky -- under Marx's state would its defenders

3474

just be cannon-fodder, obeying their government and officers

3475

without the ability to help determine the revolution they

3476

were fighting for? Apparently so. Moreover, Marx quotes

3477

Bakunin's support for "responsible and recallable delegates,

3478

vested with their imperative mandates" without commenting

3479

on the fact Bakunin predicts those features of the Paris

3480

Commune Marx praised in his Civil War in France by a

3481

number of years. Looks like Morrow is not the first Marxist

3482

to appropriate anarchist ideas without crediting their source.

3483

3484

As can be seen, Morrow's suggestion on how to push the

3485

Spanish Revolution forward just repeats the ideas of

3486

anarchism. Any one familiar with anarchist theory would not

3487

be surprised by this as they would know that we have seen

3488

a free federation of workplace and communal associations

3489

as the basis of a revolution and, therefore, a free society

3490

since the time of Proudhon. Thus Morrow's "Trotskyist" vision

3491

of a federation of workers' council actually reproduces basic

3492

anarchist ideas, ideas which pre-date Lenin's support for

3493

soviets as the basis of his "workers' state" by over half

3494

a century (we will indicate the fundamental difference

3495

between the anarchist vision and the Trotskyist in due

3496

course).

3497

3498

As an aside, these quotes by Bakunin and Kropotkin make a

3499

mockery of Lenin's assertion that anarchists do not analysis

3500

"what to put in the place of what has been destroyed [i.e.

3501

the old state machine] and how" [Essential Works of Lenin,

3502

p. 362] Anarchists have always suggested a clear answer to

3503

what we should "replace" the state with -- namely free federations

3504

of working class organisations created in the struggle against

3505

capital and state. To state otherwise is to either be ignorant

3506

of anarchist theory or seek to deceive.

3507

3508

Some anarchists like Bakunin and the anarcho-syndicalists and

3509

collectivists saw these organisations being based primarily on

3510

libertarian labour unions complemented by whatever organisations

3511

were created in the process of revolution ("The future society

3512

must be nothing else than the universalisation of the organisation

3513

that the International has formed for itself" -- "The Sonvillier

3514

Circular" echoing Bakunin, quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin:

3515

The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 61] Others like Kropotkin and

3516

anarcho-communists saw it as a free federation of organisations

3517

created by the process of revolution itself. While anarchists

3518

did not present a blueprint of what would occur after the

3519

revolution (and rightly so) they did provide a general outline

3520

in terms of a decentralised, free federation of self-managed

3521

workers' associations as well as linking these future forms of

3522

working class self-government with the forms generated in the

3523

current class struggle in the here and now.

3524

3525

Similarly, Lenin's other assertion that anarchists do

3526

not study "the concrete lessons of previous proletarian

3527

revolutions" [Ibid.] is equally baseless, as any one

3528

reading, say, Kropotkin's work would soon realise (for

3529

example, The Great French Revolution, Modern Science

3530

and Anarchism or his pamphlet "Revolutionary Government").

3531

Starting with Bakunin, anarchists analysed the experiences

3532

of the Paris Commune and the class struggle itself to

3533

generalise political conclusions from them (for example,

3534

the vision of a free society as a federation of workers'

3535

associations is clearly a product of analysing the class

3536

struggle and looking at the failures of the Commune). Given

3537

that Lenin states in the same work that "anarchists had

3538

tried to claim the Paris Commune as their 'own'" [p. 350]

3539

suggests that anarchists had studied the Paris Commune

3540

and he was aware of that fact. Of course, Lenin states

3541

that we had "failed to give . . . a true solution" to

3542

its lessons -- given that the solution anarchists proposed

3543

was a federation of workers councils to smash the state and

3544

defend the revolution his comments seem strange as this,

3545

according to The State and Revolution, is the "Marxist"

3546

solution as well (in fact, as we will soon see, Lenin played

3547

lip service to this and instead saw the solution as government

3548

by his party rather than the masses as a whole).

3549

3550

Thus, Morrow's vision of what was required for a successful

3551

revolution parallels that of anarchism. We shall now discuss

3552

where and how they differ.

3553

3554

The essential difference between the anarchist and Trotskyist

3555

vision of workers' councils as the basis of a revolution is

3556

what role these councils should play. For anarchists, these

3557

federations of self-managed assemblies is the actual framework

3558

of the revolution (and the free society it is trying to

3559

create). As Murray Bookchin puts it:

3560

3561

"There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from

3562

the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration

3563

must be achieved by means of self-administration . . . Assembly

3564

and community must arise from within the revolutionary

3565

process itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be

3566

the formation of assembly and community, and with it, the

3567

destruction of power. Assembly and community must become

3568

'fighting words,' not distinct panaceas. They must be

3569

created as modes of struggle against the existing society,

3570

not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions. . . The

3571

factory committees . . . must be managed directly by workers'

3572

assemblies in the factories. . . neighbourhood committees,

3573

councils and boards must be rooted completely in the

3574

neighbourhood assemble. They must be answerable at every

3575

point to the assembly, they and their work must be under

3576

continual review by the assembly; and finally, their

3577

members must be subject to immediate recall by the assembly.

3578

The specific gravity of society, in short, must be shifted

3579

to its base -- the armed people in permanent assembly."

3580

[Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 167-9]

3581

</blockquote>

3582

Thus the anarchist social revolution sees workers' councils

3583

as organs of working class self-management, the means by

3584

which they control their own lives and create a new society

3585

based on their needs, visions, dreams and hopes. They are

3586

not seen as means by which others, the revolutionary party,

3587

seized power on behalf of the people as Trotskyists do.

3588

3589

Harsh words? No, as can be seen from Morrow who is quite clear

3590

on the role of working class organisation -- it is seen

3591

purely as the means by which the party can take power. As

3592

he argues, there is "no magic in the soviet form: it is merely

3593

the most accurate, most quickly reflecting and responsively

3594

changing form of political representation of the masses. . .

3595

It would provide the arena in which the revolutionary

3596

party can win the support of the working class." [Op. Cit.,

3597

p. 136]

3598

3599

He states that initially the "reformist majority in the

3600

executive committee would decline the assumption of state

3601

power. But the workers could still find in the soviets their

3602

natural organs of struggle until the genuinely revolutionary

3603

elements in the various parties banded together to win a

3604

revolutionary majority in the congress and establish a

3605

workers' state." In other words, the "workers' state, the

3606

dictatorship of the proletariat . . . can only be brought

3607

into existence by the direct, political intervention of

3608

the masses, through the factory and village councils

3609

(soviets) at that point where a majority in the soviets

3610

is wielded by the workers' party or parties which are

3611

determined to overthrow the bourgeois state. Such was the

3612

basic theoretical contribution of Lenin." [Op. Cit., p. 100

3613

and p. 113]

3614

3615

From an anarchist perspective, this indicates well the

3616

fundamental difference between anarchism and Trotskyism.

3617

For anarchists, the existence of an "executive committee"

3618

indicates that the workers' council do not, in fact,

3619

have power in society -- rather it is the minority in

3620

the executive committee who have been delegated power.

3621

Rather than govern themselves and society directly,

3622

workers are turned into voters implementing the decisions

3623

their leaders have made on their behalf. If revolutionary

3624

bodies like workers' councils did create a "workers' state"

3625

(as Morrow recommends) then their power would be transferred

3626

and centralised into the hands of a so-called "revolutionary"

3627

government. In this, Morrow follows his guru Trotsky:

3628

3629

"the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In

3630

itself the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient

3631

cultural level of the masses and their heterogeneity. In the

3632

revolutionary vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallised

3633

the aspirations of the masses to obtain their freedom. Without

3634

the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support

3635

of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the

3636

conquest of power.

3637

3638

"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship

3639

are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership

3640

of the vanguard." [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]

3641

</blockquote>

3642

Thus, rather than the working class as a whole "seizing power",

3643

it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary

3644

party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means

3645

the sovereign ruler of society." [Ibid.] He mocks the anarchist

3646

idea that a socialist revolution should be based on the

3647

self-management of workers within their own autonomous

3648

class organisations:

3649

3650

"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party

3651

dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party

3652

dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of

3653

the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the

3654

proletariat." [Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 18]

3655

</blockquote>

3656

In this he followed comments made when he was in power. In

3657

1920 he argued that "[w]e have more than once been accused

3658

of having substituted for the dictatorships of the Soviets

3659

the dictatorship of the party. Yet it can be said with

3660

complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets

3661

became possible only be means of the dictatorship of the

3662

party. It is thanks to the . . . party . . . [that] the

3663

Soviets . . . [became] transformed from shapeless parliaments

3664

of labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour. In

3665

this 'substitution' of the power of the party for the power

3666

of the working class these is nothing accidental, and in

3667

reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists

3668

express the fundamental interests of the working class."

3669

[Terrorism and Communism, p. 109] Any claims that Trotsky's

3670

infamously authoritarian (indeed dictatorial) politics were a

3671

temporary aberration caused by the necessities of the Russian

3672

Civil War are refuted by these quotes -- 17 years later he was

3673

still arguing the same point.

3674

3675

He had the same vision of party dictatorship being the basis

3676

of a revolution in 1924. Commenting on the Bolshevik Party

3677

conference of April 1917, he states that "whole of . . .

3678

Conference was devoted to the following fundamental question:

3679

Are we heading toward the conquest of power in the name of

3680

the socialist revolution or are we helping (anybody and

3681

everybody) to complete the democratic revolution? . . .

3682

Lenin's position was this: . . . the capture of the soviet

3683

majority; the overthrow of the Provisional Government; the seizure

3684

of power through the soviets." Note, through the soviets not

3685

by the soviets thus indicating the fact the Party would hold

3686

the real power, not the soviets of workers' delegates. Moreover,

3687

he states that "to prepare the insurrection and to carry it out

3688

under cover of preparing for the Second Soviet Congress and under

3689

the slogan of defending it, was of inestimable advantage to us."

3690

He continued by noting that it was "one thing to prepare an armed

3691

insurrection under the naked slogan of the seizure of power by the

3692

party, and quite another thing to prepare and then carry out an

3693

insurrection under the slogan of defending the rights of the

3694

Congress of Soviets." The Soviet Congress just provided "the

3695

legal cover" for the Bolshevik plans rather than a desire to

3696

see the Soviets actually start managing society. [The Lessons

3697

of October]

3698

3699

We are not denying that Trotskyists do aim to gain a majority

3700

within working class conferences. That is clear. Anarchists also

3701

seek to gain the support of the mass of the population. It is

3702

what they do next that counts. Trotskyists seek to create

3703

a government above these organisations and dominate the

3704

executive committees that requires. Thus power in society

3705

shifts to the top, to the leaders of the centralised party

3706

in charge of the centralised state. The workers' become

3707

mere electors rather than actual controllers of the revolution.

3708

Anarchists, in contrast, seek to dissolve power back into

3709

the hands of society and empower the individual by giving

3710

them a direct say in the revolution through their workplace,

3711

community and militia assemblies and their councils and

3712

conferences.

3713

3714

Trotskyists, therefore, advocate workers councils because they

3715

see them as the means the vanguard party can take power. Rather

3716

than seeing socialism or "workers' power" as a society in which

3717

everyone would directly control their own affairs, Trotskyists see

3718

it in terms of working class people delegating their power into

3719

the hands of a government. Needless to say, the two things are

3720

not identical and, in practice, the government soon turns from

3721

being the people's servant into its master.

3722

3723

It is clear that Morrow always discusses workers councils in

3724

terms of the strategy and program of the party, not the value

3725

that workers councils have as organs of direct workers control

3726

of society. He clearly advocates workers councils because he sees

3727

them as the best way for the vanguard party to rally workers

3728

around its leadership and organise the seizure of state power.

3729

At no time does he see then as means by which working class

3730

people can govern themselves directly -- quite the reverse.

3731

3732

The danger of such an approach is obvious. The government

3733

will soon become isolated from the mass of the population

3734

and, due to the centralised nature of the state, difficult

3735

to hold accountable. Moreover, given the dominant role of

3736

the party in the new state and the perspective that it is

3737

the workers' vanguard, it becomes increasingly likely that

3738

it will place its power before that of those it claims to

3739

represent.

3740

3741

Certainly Trotsky's role in the Russian revolution tells us

3742

that the power of the party was more important to him than

3743

democratic control by workers through mass bodies. When the

3744

workers and sailors of the Kronstadt navy base rebelled in

3745

1921, in solidarity with striking workers in Petrograd, they

3746

were demanding freedom of the press for socialist and anarchist

3747

groups and new elections to the soviets. But the reaction of

3748

the Bolshevik leadership was to crush the Kronstadt dissent in

3749

blood. Trotsky's attitude towards workers democracy was clearly

3750

expressed at the time:

3751

3752

"They [the dissent Bolsheviks of the Workers' Opposition] have

3753

placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the

3754

Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its

3755

dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed

3756

with the passing moods of the worker's democracy!"

3757

</blockquote>

3758

He spoke of the "revolutionary historic birthright of the Party"

3759

and that it "is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . .

3760

regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working

3761

class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every

3762

given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

3763

[quoted by M. Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 78]

3764

3765

This perspective naturally follows from Trotsky's vanguardist

3766

politics. For Leninists, the party is the bearer of "socialist

3767

consciousness" and, according to Lenin in What is to be Done?,

3768

workers, by their own efforts, can only achieve a "trade

3769

union" consciousness and, indeed, "there can be no talk of

3770

an independent ideology being developed by the masses of

3771

workers in the process of their struggle" and so "the only

3772

choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology" (the

3773

later being developed not by workers but by the "bourgeois

3774

intelligentsia"). [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 82 and

3775

p. 74] To weaken or question the party means to weaken or

3776

question the socialist nature of the revolution and so

3777

weaken the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Thus we

3778

have the paradoxical situation of the "proletarian

3779

dictatorship" repressing workers, eliminating democracy

3780

and maintaining itself against the "passing moods" of

3781

the workers (which means rejecting what democracy is all

3782

about). Hence Lenin's comment at a conference of the

3783

Cheka (his political police) in 1920:

3784

3785

"Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed

3786

enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to

3787

break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other

3788

hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards

3789

the wavering and unstable elements among the masses

3790

themselves." [Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 170]

3791

</blockquote>

3792

Significantly, of the 17 000 camp detainees on whom statistical

3793

information was available on 1 November 1920, peasants and

3794

workers constituted the largest groups, at 39% and 34%

3795

respectively. Similarly, of the 40 913 prisoners held in

3796

December 1921 (of whom 44% had been committed by the Cheka)

3797

nearly 84% were illiterate or minimally educated, clearly,

3798

therefore, either peasants of workers. [George Leggett,

3799

The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police, p. 178] Needless

3800

to say, Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system

3801

in The State and Revolution (a failure shared by Morrow

3802

and later Trotskyists).

3803

3804

It is hard to combine these facts and Lenin's and Trotsky's

3805

comments with the claim that the "workers' state" is an

3806

instrument of class rule -- after all, Lenin is acknowledging

3807

that coercion will be exercised against members of the working

3808

class as well. The question of course arises -- who decides

3809

what a "wavering" or "unstable" element is? Given their

3810

comments on the role of the party and the need for the party

3811

to assume power, it will mean in practice whoever rejects the

3812

government's decisions (for example, strikers, local soviets

3813

who reject central decrees and instructions, workers who

3814

vote for anarchists or parties other than the Bolshevik

3815

party in elections to soviets, unions and so on, socialists

3816

and anarchists, etc.). Given a hierarchical system, Lenin's

3817

comment is simply a justification for state repression of

3818

its enemies (including elements within or even the whole

3819

working class).

3820

3821

It could be argued, however, that workers could use the

3822

soviets to recall the government. However, this fails for

3823

two reasons (we will ignore the question of the interests

3824

of the bureaucratic machine which will inevitably surround

3825

a centralised body -- see <a href="secH3.html#sech39">

3826

section H.3.9</a> for further discussion).

3827

3828

Firstly, the Leninist state will be highly centralised,

3829

with power flowing from the top-down. This means that

3830

in order to revoke the government, all the soviets in

3831

all parts of the country must, at the same time, recall

3832

their delegates and organise a national congress of soviets

3833

(which, we stress, is not in permanent session). The local

3834

soviets are bound to carry out the commands of the central

3835

government (to quote the Soviet constitution of 1918 --

3836

they are to "carry out all orders of the respective higher

3837

organs of the soviet power"). Any independence on their part

3838

would be considered "wavering" or an expression of "unstable"

3839

natures and so subject to "revolutionary coercion". In a highly

3840

centralised system, the means of accountability is reduced

3841

to the usual bourgeois level -- vote in the general election

3842

every few years (which, in any case, can be annulled by the

3843

government to ensure that the soviets do not go back into

3844

the "mud" via the "passing moods" caused by the

3845

"insufficient

3846

cultural level of the masses"). In other words, the soviet

3847

form may be the "most accurate, most quickly reflecting and

3848

responsively changing form of political representation of the

3849

masses" (to use Morrow's words) but only before they

3850

become transformed into state organs.

3851

3852

Secondly, "revolutionary coercion" against "wavering" elements

3853

does not happen in isolation. It will encourage critical workers

3854

to keep quiet in case they, too, are deemed "unstable" and

3855

become subject to "revolutionary" coercion. As a government

3856

policy it can have no other effect than deterring democracy.

3857

3858

Thus Trotskyist politics provides the rationale for eliminating

3859

even the limited role of soviets for electing representatives

3860

they hold in that ideology.

3861

3862

Morrow argues that "[o]ne must never forget . . . that soviets

3863

do not begin as organs of state power" rather they start

3864

as "organs defending the workers' daily interests" and

3865

include "powerful strike committees." [Op. Cit., p. 136]

3866

That is true, initially workers' councils are expressions

3867

of working class power and are organs of working class

3868

self-management and self-activity. They are subject to

3869

direct control from below and unite from the bottom up.

3870

However, once they are turned into "organs of state power"

3871

their role (to re-quote the Soviet constitution of 1918)

3872

becomes that of "carry[ing] out all orders of the

3873

respective higher organs of the soviet power." Soviet

3874

power is replaced by party power and they become a shell

3875

of their former selves -- essentially rubber-stamps for

3876

the decisions of the party central committee.

3877

3878

Ironically, Morrow quotes the main theoretician of the Spanish

3879

Socialist Party as stating "the organ of the proletarian

3880

dictatorship will be the Socialist Party" and states that

3881

they "were saying precisely what the anarchist leaders had

3882

been accusing both communists and revolutionary socialists of

3883

meaning by the proletarian dictatorship." [Op. Cit., p. 99 and

3884

p. 100] This is hardly surprising, as this was what the likes

3885

of Lenin and Trotsky had been arguing. As well as the quotes

3886

we have provided above, we may add Trotsky's comment that the

3887

"fundamental instrument of proletarian revolution is the party."

3888

[Lessons of October] And the resolution of the Second World

3889

Congress of the Communist International which stated that

3890

"[e]very class struggle is a political struggle. The goal of

3891

this struggle . . . is the conquest of political power.

3892

Political power cannot be seized, organised and operated

3893

except through a political party." [cited by Duncan Hallas,

3894

The Comintern, p. 35] In addition, we may quote Lenin's

3895

opinion that:

3896

3897

"The very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship

3898

of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship

3899

(Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the

3900

masses?' -- is evidence of the most incredible and

3901

hopeless confusion of mind . . . [because] classes

3902

are usually . . . led by political parties. . . "

3903

</blockquote>

3904

And:

3905

3906

"To go so far in this matter as to draw a contrast in

3907

general between the dictatorship of the masses and

3908

the dictatorship of the leaders, is ridiculously

3909

absurd and stupid." [Left-wing Communism: An Infantile

3910

Disorder, pp. 25-6 and p. 27]

3911

</blockquote>

3912

As Lenin and Trotsky constantly argued, proletarian dictatorship

3913

was impossible without the political party of the workers

3914

(whatever its name). Indeed, to even discuss any difference

3915

between the dictatorship of the class and that of the party

3916

just indicated a confused mind. Hence Morrow's comments are

3917

incredulous, particularly as he himself stresses that the

3918

soviet form is useful purely as a means of gaining support

3919

for the revolutionary party which would take over the

3920

executive of the workers' councils. He clearly is aware

3921

that the party is the essential organ of proletarian

3922

rule from a Leninist perspective -- without the dictatorship

3923

of the party, Trotsky argues, the soviets fall back into

3924

the mud. Trotsky, indeed, stressed this need for the

3925

dictatorship of the party rather than of the proletariat

3926

in a letter written in 1937:

3927

3928

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for

3929

me not a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It is an

3930

objective necessity imposed upon us by the social realities

3931

class, the necessity for a selected vanguard in order to

3932

assure the victory. The dictatorship of a party belongs to

3933

the barbarian prehistory as does the state itself, but we can

3934

not jump over this chapter, which can open (not at one stroke)

3935

genuine human history. . . The revolutionary party (vanguard)

3936

which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses

3937

to the counter-revolution . . . Abstractly speaking, it would

3938

be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced by

3939

the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling people without any

3940

party, but this presupposes such a high level of political

3941

development among the masses that it can never be achieved

3942

under capitalist conditions. The reason for the revolution

3943

comes from the circumstance that capitalism does not permit

3944

the material and the moral development of the masses."

3945

[Trotsky, Writings 1936-37, pp. 513-4]

3946

</blockquote>

3947

The net result of Bolshevik politics in Russia was that Lenin

3948

and Trotsky undermined the self-management of working class

3949

bodies during the Russian Revolution and before the Civil

3950

War started in May 1918. We have already chronicled Trotsky's

3951

elimination of democracy and equality in the Red Army (see

3952

<a href="append32.html#app11">section 11</a>). A similar fate

3953

befell the factory committees

3954

(see <a href="append32.html#app17">section 17</a>) and soviet

3955

democracy (as noted above).

3956

The logic of Bolshevism is such that at no point did Lenin

3957

describe the suppression of soviet democracy and workers'

3958

control as a defeat (indeed, as far as workers' control

3959

went Lenin quickly moved to a position favouring one-man

3960

management). We discuss the Russian Revolution in more

3961

detail in the appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> and so will not do so here.

3962

3963

All in all, while Morrow's rhetoric on the nature of the

3964

social revolution may sound anarchist, there are important

3965

differences between the two visions. While Trotskyists

3966

support workers' councils on purely instrumentalist grounds

3967

as the best means of gaining support for their party's

3968

assumption of governmental power, anarchists see workers'

3969

councils as the means by which people can revolutionise

3970

society and themselves by practising self-management in

3971

all aspects of their lives. The difference is important

3972

and its ramifications signify why the Russian Revolution

3973

became the "dictatorship over the proletariat" Bakunin

3974

predicted. His words still ring true:

3975

3976

"[b]y popular government they [the Marxists] mean government

3977

of the people by a small under of representatives elected by

3978

the people. . . [That is,] government of the vast majority

3979

of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority,

3980

the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps,

3981

of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers

3982

or representatives of the people will cease to be workers

3983

and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from

3984

the heights of the state. They will no longer represent

3985

the people but themselves and their own pretensions to

3986

govern the people." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 178]

3987

</blockquote>

3988

It was for this reason that he argued the anarchists do "not

3989

accept, even in the process of revolutionary transition, either

3990

constituent assemblies, provisional governments or so-called

3991

revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that

3992

revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of

3993

the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those of a

3994

few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes

3995

reaction." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 237]

3996

The history of the Russian Revolution proved him right. Hence

3997

anarchist support for popular assemblies and federations of

3998

workers' councils as the framework of the social revolution

3999

rather than as a means to elect a "revolutionary" government.

4000

4001

One last point. We must point out that Morrow's follows Lenin

4002

in favouring executive committees associated with workers'

4003

councils. In this he actually ignores Marx's (and Lenin's,

4004

in State and Revolution) comments that the Paris Commune

4005

was "to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive

4006

and legislative at the same time." [Selected Writings,

4007

p. 287] The existence of executive committees was coded

4008

into the Soviet Union's 1918 Constitution. This suggests

4009

two things. Firstly, Leninism and Trotskyism differ on

4010

fundamental points with Marx and so the claim that Leninism

4011

equals Marxism is difficult to support (the existence of

4012

libertarian Marxists like Anton Pannekoek and other

4013

council communists also disprove such claims). Secondly,

4014

it indicates that Lenin's claims in State and Revolution

4015

were ignored once the Bolsheviks took power so indicating

4016

that use of that work to prove the democratic nature of

4017

Bolshevism is flawed.

4018

4019

Moreover, Marx's support of the fusion of executive and

4020

legislative powers is not as revolutionary as some

4021

imagine. For anarchists, as Bookchin argues, "[i]n point

4022

of fact, the consolidation of 'executive and legislative'

4023

functions in a single body was regressive. It simply

4024

identified the process of policy-making, a function that

4025

rightly should belong to the people in assembly, with the

4026

technical execution of these policies, a function that

4027

should be left to strictly administrative bodies subject

4028

to rotation, recall, limitations of tenure . . . Accordingly,

4029

the melding of policy formation with administration placed

4030

the institutional emphasis of classical [Marxist]

4031

socialism on centralised bodies, indeed, by an ironical

4032

twist of historical events, bestowing the privilege of

4033

formulating policy on the 'higher bodies' of socialist

4034

hierarchies and their execution precisely on the more

4035

popular 'revolutionary committees' below." [Toward

4036

an Ecological Society, pp. 215-6]

4037

4038

<a name="app13"><H2>13. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist

4039

"workers' state"?</h2>

4040

4041

Morrow asserts two "fundamental" tenets of

4042

"anarchism" in

4043

his book [Op. Cit., pp. 101-2]. Unfortunately for him, his

4044

claims are somewhat at odds with reality. Anarchism, as we

4045

will prove in <a href="append32.html#app14">section 14</a>,

4046

does not hold one of the positions

4047

Morrow states it does. The first "tenet" of anarchism he fails

4048

to discuss at all and so the reader cannot understand why

4049

anarchists think as they do. We discuss this "tenet" here.

4050

4051

The first tenet is that anarchism "has consistently refused

4052

to recognise the distinction between a bourgeois and a

4053

workers' state. Even in the days of Lenin and Trotsky,

4054

anarchism denounced the Soviet Union as an exploiters'

4055

regime." [Op. Cit., p. 101] It is due to this, he argues,

4056

the CNT co-operated with the bourgeois state:

4057

4058

"The false anarchist teachings on the nature of the state

4059

. . . should logically have led them [the CNT] to refuse

4060

governmental participation in any event . . . the anarchists

4061

were in the intolerable position of objecting to the

4062

necessary administrative co-ordination and centralisation

4063

of the work they had already begun. Their anti-statism 'as

4064

such' had to be thrown off. What did remain, to wreck

4065

disaster in the end, was their failure to recognise the

4066

distinction between a workers' and a bourgeois state."

4067

[Op. Cit., p. 101]

4068

</blockquote>

4069

Needless to say, Morrow does not bother to explain why

4070

anarchists consider the bourgeois and workers' state to

4071

be similar. If he did then perhaps his readers would

4072

agree with the anarchists on this matter. However, before

4073

discussing that we have to address a misrepresentation

4074

of Morrow's. Rather than the expression of anarchist

4075

politics, the actions of the CNT were in direct opposition

4076

to them. As we showed in the <a href="append32.html#app12">

4077

section 12</a>, anarchists see

4078

a social revolution in terms of creating federations of

4079

workers associations (i.e. workers' councils). It was this

4080

vision that had created the structure of the CNT (as

4081

Bakunin had argued, "the organisation of the trade sections

4082

and their representation in the Chambers of Labour . . .

4083

bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society

4084

which is to replace the old one. They are creating not

4085

only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself"

4086

[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255]).

4087

4088

Thus, the social revolution would see the workers' organisation

4089

(be they labour unions or spontaneously created organs) "tak[ing]

4090

the revolution into its own hands . . . an earnest international

4091

organisation of workers' associations . . . [would] replac[e]

4092

this departing political world of States and bourgeoisie."

4093

[The Basic Bakunin, p. 110] This is precisely what the

4094

CNT did not do -- rather it decided against following anarchist

4095

theory and instead decided to co-operate with other parties

4096

and unions in the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias"

4097

(at least temporarily until the CNT stronghold in Saragossa

4098

was liberated by CNT militias). In effect, it created a UGT-like

4099

"Alliance" with other anti-fascist parties and unions and

4100

rejected its pre-war policy of "unity from below." The CNT

4101

and FAI leadership decided not to talk of libertarian communism

4102

but only of the fight against fascism. A greater mistake they

4103

could not have made.

4104

4105

An anarchist approach in the aftermath of the fascist uprising

4106

would have meant replacing the Generalitat with a federal

4107

assembly of delegates from workplace and local community

4108

assemblies (a Defence Council, to use a CNT expression). Only

4109

popular assemblies (not political parties) would be represented

4110

(parties would have an influence only in proportion to their

4111

influence in the basic assemblies). All the CNT would have had

4112

do was to call a Regional Congress of unions and invite the UGT,

4113

independent unions and unorganised workplaces to send delegates

4114

to create the framework of this system. This, we must stress,

4115

was not done. We will discuss why in

4116

<a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a> and so will

4117

refrain from doing so here. However, because the CNT in

4118

effect "postponed" the political aspects of the social

4119

revolution (namely, to quote Kropotkin, to "smash the

4120

State and replace it with the Federation [of Communes]"

4121

[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259]) the natural result

4122

would be exactly as Morrow explains:

4123

4124

"But isn't it a far cry from the failure to create the organs

4125

to overthrow the bourgeoisie, to the acceptance of the role of

4126

class collaboration with the bourgeoisie? Not at all . . .

4127

Without developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it was

4128

inevitable that even the anarchists and the POUM would drift

4129

into governmental collaboration with the bourgeoisie."

4130

[Op. Cit., pp. 88-9]

4131

</blockquote>

4132

As Kropotkin predicted, "there can be no half-way house:

4133

either the Commune is to be absolutely free to endow itself

4134

with whatever institutions it wishes and introduce all

4135

reforms and revolutions it may deem necessary, or else it

4136

will remain . . . a mere subsidiary of the State, chained

4137

in its every movement." [Op. Cit., p. 259] Without an

4138

alternative means of co-ordinating the struggle, the

4139

CNT would, as Morrow argued, have little choice but to

4140

collaborate with the state. However, rather than being a

4141

product of anarchist theory, as Morrow states, this came

4142

about by ignoring that theory (see

4143

<a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a>).

4144

4145

This can be seen from the false alternative used to

4146

justify the CNT's and FAI's actions -- namely, "either

4147

libertarian communism, which means anarchist dictatorship,

4148

or democracy, which means collaboration." The creation

4149

of libertarian communism is done from below by those

4150

subject to capitalist and statist hierarchy overthrowing

4151

those with power over them by smashing the state machine

4152

and replacing it with self-managed organisations as well

4153

as expropriating capital and placing it under workers'

4154

self-management. As Murray Bookchin argues:

4155

4156

"Underlying all [the] errors [of the CNT], at least in

4157

theoretical terms, was the CNT-FAI's absurd notion that

4158

if it assumed power in the areas it controlled, it was

4159

establishing a 'State.' As long as the institutions of

4160

power consisted of armed workers and peasants as

4161

distinguished from a professional bureaucracy, police

4162

force, army, and cabal of politicians and judges,

4163

they were no[t] a State . . . These institutions, in

4164

fact comprised a revolutionary people in arms . . .

4165

not a professional apparatus that could be regarded as

4166

a State in any meaningful sense of the term. . .

4167

That the 'taking of power' by an armed people in

4168

militias, libertarian unions and federations, peasant

4169

communes and industrial collectives could be viewed

4170

as an 'anarchist dictatorship' reveals the incredible

4171

confusion that filled the minds of the 'influential

4172

militants.'" ["Looking Back at Spain," pp. 53-96, The

4173

Radical Papers, pp. 86-7]

4174

</blockquote>

4175

This perspective explains why anarchists do not see any

4176

fundamental difference between a so-called "workers'

4177

state" and the existing state. For anarchists, the state

4178

is based fundamentally on hierarchical power -- the

4179

delegation of power into the hands of a few, of a

4180

government, of an "executive" committee. Unlike Lenin,

4181

who stressed the "bodies of armed men" aspect of the

4182

state, anarchists consider the real question as one of

4183

who will tell these "bodies of armed men" what to do. Will

4184

it be the people as a whole (as expressed through their

4185

self-managed organisations) or will be it a government

4186

(perhaps elected by representative organisations)?

4187

4188

If it was simply a question of consolidating a revolution

4189

and its self-defence then there would be no argument:

4190

4191

"But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the

4192

expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply

4193

the revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession

4194

of the land and the instruments of labour, and trying to

4195

build a society and organise a way of life in which there

4196

will be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the

4197

producers.

4198

4199

"Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would

4200

be the effective power of all workers trying to bring down

4201

capitalist society and would thus turn into Anarchy as soon

4202

as resistance from reactionaries would have ceased and no one

4203

can any longer seek to compel the masses by violence to obey

4204

and work for him. In which case, the discrepancy between us

4205

would be nothing more than a question of semantics. Dictatorship

4206

of the proletariat would signify the dictatorship of everyone,

4207

which is to say, it would be a dictatorship no longer, just as

4208

government by everybody is no longer a government in the

4209

authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word.

4210

4211

"But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

4212

do not take that line, as they are making quite plain in

4213

Russia. Of course, the proletariat has a hand in this, just

4214

as the people has a part to play in democratic regimes,

4215

that is to say, to conceal the reality of things. In reality,

4216

what we have is the dictatorship of one party, or rather,

4217

of one' party's leaders: a genuine dictatorship, with its

4218

decrees, its penal sanctions, its henchmen and above all its

4219

armed forces, which are at present [1919] also deployed in

4220

the defence of the revolution against its external enemies,

4221

but which will tomorrow be used to impose the dictator's

4222

will upon the workers, to apply a break on revolution,

4223

to consolidate the new interests in the process of emerging

4224

and protect a new privileged class against the masses."

4225

[Malatesta, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 38-9]

4226

</blockquote>

4227

Maurice Brinton sums up the issue well when he argued that

4228

"workers' power" "cannot be identified or equated with the

4229

power of the Party -- as it repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks

4230

. . . What 'taking power' really implies is that the vast

4231

majority of the working class at last realises its ability

4232

to manage both production and society -- and organises

4233

to this end." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control,

4234

p. xiv]

4235

4236

The question is, therefore, one of who "seizes power"

4237

party claiming to represent the mass of the population.

4238

The difference is vital -- and anyone who confuses the

4239

issue (like Lenin) does so either out of stupidity or

4240

vested interests.

4241

4242

If it is the mass of people then they have to express

4243

themselves and their power (i.e. the power to manage

4244

their own affairs). That requires that individuals --

4245

no matter where they are, be it in the workplace,

4246

community or on the front line -- are part of

4247

self-managed organisations. Only by self-management

4248

in functional groups can working class people be said

4249

to controlling their own lives and determining their

4250

own fate. Such a system of popular assemblies and their

4251

means of defence would not be a state in the anarchist

4252

sense of the word.

4253

4254

As we argued in <a href="append32.html#app12">section 12</a>,

4255

the Trotskyist vision of

4256

revolution, while seeming in some ways similar to that

4257

of anarchists, differ on this question. For Trotskyists,

4258

the party takes power, not the mass of the population

4259

directly. Only if you view "proletarian" seizure of power in

4260

terms of electing a political party to government could you

4261

see the elimination of functional democracy in the armed

4262

forces and the workplaces as no threat to working class power.

4263

Given Trotsky's actual elimination of democracy in the Red

4264

Army and Navy plus his comments on one-man management (and

4265

their justifications -- see sections

4266

<a href="append32.html#app11">11</a> and

4267

<a href="append32.html#app17">17</a>) it is clear that

4268

Trotskyists consider the workers' state in terms of party

4269

government, not self-management, not functional direct

4270

democracy.

4271

4272

Yes, the Trotskyists do claim that it is the workers, via their

4273

soviets, who will elect the government and hold it accountable

4274

but such a position fails to realise that a social revolution

4275

can only be created from below, by the direct action of the mass

4276

of the population. By delegating power into the hands of a

4277

few, the revolution is distorted. The initiative and power

4278

no longer rests in the hands of the mass of the population

4279

and so they can no longer take part in the constructive work

4280

of the revolution and so it will not reflect their interests

4281

and needs. As power flows from the top-down, bureaucratic

4282

distortions are inevitable.

4283

4284

Moreover, the government will inevitably clash with its subjects

4285

and Trotskyist theory provides the justification for the government

4286

imposing its wishes and negating workers' democracy (see

4287

<a href="append32.html#app12">section 12</a>

4288

for evidence for this claim). Moreover, in the centralised state

4289

desired by Trotskyists democratic accountability will inevitably

4290

suffer as power flows to the top:

4291

4292

"The power of the local soviets passed into the hands of the

4293

[National] Executive Committee, the power of the Executive

4294

Committee passed into the hands of the Council of People's

4295

Commissars, and finally, the power of the Council of People's

4296

Commissars passed into the hands of the Political Bureau of

4297

the Communist Party." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity

4298

Anarchism, p. 152]

4299

</blockquote>

4300

Little wonder, then, these CNT aphorisms:

4301

4302

"power corrupts both those who exercise it and those over whom it

4303

is exercised; those who think they can conquer the State in order

4304

to destroy it are unaware that the State overcomes all its

4305

conquerors. . . dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship

4306

without the proletariat and against them." [Peter Marshall,

4307

Demanding the Impossible, p. 456]

4308

</blockquote>

4309

That, in a nut shell, why anarchists consider the workers' state

4310

as no real change from the bourgeois state. Rather than creating

4311

a system in which working class people directly manage their

4312

own affairs, the workers' state, like any other state, involves

4313

the delegation of that power into the hands of a few. Given that

4314

state institutions generate specific social relations, specific

4315

relations of authority (namely those order giver and order taker)

4316

they cannot help becoming separated from society, becoming a new

4317

class based on the state's bureaucratic machine. Any state

4318

structure (particularly a highly centralised one, as desired by

4319

Leninists) has a certain independence from society and so

4320

serves the interests of those within the State institutions

4321

rather than the people as a whole.

4322

4323

Perhaps a Leninist will point to The State and Revolution

4324

as evidence that Lenin desired a state based round the

4325

soviets -- workers' council -- and so our comments are

4326

unjustified. However, as Marx said, judge people by what

4327

they do, not what they say. The first act of the October

4328

Revolution was to form an executive power over the

4329

soviets (although, of course, in theory accountable to

4330

their national congress). In The State and Revolution

4331

Lenin praised Marx's comment that the Paris Commune was

4332

both administrative and executive. The "workers' state"

4333

created by Lenin did not follow that model (as Russian

4334

anarcho-syndicalists argued in August 1918, "the Soviet

4335

of People's Commissars [i]s an organ which does not stem

4336

from the soviet structure but only interferes with its

4337

work" [The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, p. 118]).

4338

4339

Thus the Bolshevik state was not based around soviet

4340

self-management nor the fusion of executive and

4341

administrative in their hands but rather the use of

4342

the soviets to elect a government (a separate executive)

4343

which had the real power. The issue is quite simple --

4344

either "All power to the Soviets" means just that or it

4345

means "All power to the government elected by the Soviets".

4346

The two are not the same as the first, for the obvious

4347

reason that in the second the soviets become simply

4348

ratification machines for the government and not organs

4349

in which the working masses can run their own affairs. We

4350

must also point out that the other promises made in Lenin's

4351

book went the same way as his support for the combining

4352

administration and executive tasks in the Paris Commune

4353

May 1918 (the usual Trotskyist defence of such betrayals

4354

is blame the Civil War which is hard to do as it had not

4355

started yet).

4356

4357

So it is unsurprising that Morrow does not explain why

4358

anarchists reject the "dictatorship of the proletariat" --

4359

to do so would be to show that Trotskyism is not the revolutionary

4360

movement for workers' liberty it likes to claim it is.

4361

Moreover, it would involve giving an objective account of

4362

anarchist theory and admitting that the CNT did not follow

4363

its teachings.

4364

4365

<a name="app14"><H2>14. What is wrong with Morrow's

4366

"fundamental tenet" of anarchism?</h2>

4367

4368

According to Morrow the "second fundamental tenet in anarchist

4369

teaching" is, apparently, the following:

4370

4371

"Since Bakunin, the anarchists had accused Marxists of

4372

over-estimating the importance of state power, and had

4373

characterised this as merely the reflection of the

4374

petty-bourgeois intellectuals' pre-occupation with

4375

lucrative administrative posts. Anarchism calls upon

4376

workers to turn their backs on the state and seek control

4377

of the factories as the real source of power. The

4378

ultimate sources of power (property relations) being

4379

secured, the state power will collapse, never to be

4380

replaced."

4381

</blockquote>

4382

He then sums up by stating the Spanish anarchists "thus

4383

failed to understand that it was only the collapse of

4384

state power . . . which had enabled them to seize the

4385

factories." [Op. Cit., p. 102]

4386

4387

It would be interesting to discover in what work of Bakunin,

4388

or any anarchist, such a position could be found. Morrow

4389

gives us no references to help us in our quest -- hardly

4390

surprising as no anarchist (Spanish or otherwise) ever

4391

argued this point before July 1936. However, in September

4392

1936, we discover the CNT arguing that the "withering away

4393

of the State is socialism's ultimate objective. Facts have

4394

demonstrated that in practice it is achieved by liquidation

4395

of the bourgeois State, brought to a state of asphyxiation

4396

by economic expropriation." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2,

4397

p. 261] This, we must note, was the same month the CNT decided

4398

to join the Catalan Government! So much for the state

4399

having withered away.

4400

4401

However, will soon be made clear, such comments were a

4402

revision of anarchist theory brought about by the apparent

4403

victory of the CNT on July 19th, 1936 (just as other revisions

4404

occurred to justify CNT participation in the state). In other

4405

words, Morrow's "second fundamental tenet" does not exist in

4406

anarchist theory. To prove this, we will quote Bakunin and a

4407

few other famous anarchists as well as giving an overview of

4408

some of the insurrections organised by the CNT before 1936.

4409

We start with Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta.

4410

4411

Given that Bakunin thought that it was the "power of the State"

4412

which "sustains the privileged classes" against the "legitimate

4413

indignation of the masses of the people" it is hard to know what

4414

Morrow is talking about. [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin,

4415

p. 196] Given this perspective, it naturally follows that to

4416

abolish capitalism, to allow the seizure of factories by the

4417

workers, the state

4418

had to be abolished (or "destroyed"). Equally clear is that

4419

the "natural and necessary consequence of this destruction will

4420

be . . . [among others, the] dissolution of army, magistracy,

4421

bureaucracy, police and priesthood. . . confiscation of

4422

all productive capital and means of production on behalf

4423

of workers' associations, who are to put them to use . . .

4424

the federative Alliance of all working men's associations

4425

. . . will constitute the Commune." [Michael Bakunin:

4426

Selected Writings p. 253 and p. 170]

4427

4428

Thus, the state has to be abolished in order to ensure that

4429

workers' can take over the means of production, so abolishing

4430

capitalism. This is the direct opposite of Morrow's claim

4431

that "[s]ince Bakunin" anarchism had "call[ed] upon the

4432

workers to turn their backs to the state and seek control

4433

of the factories as the real source of power." While control

4434

of the economy by workers is an important, indeed a key, aspect

4435

of a social revolution it is not a sufficient one for anarchists.

4436

It must be combined with the destruction of the state (as

4437

Bakunin argued, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . today

4438

unless it was simultaneously a political and a social revolution"

4439

[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]). As the power of the

4440

state "sustains" the capitalists it clearly follows that

4441

the capitalist only has his property because the state

4442

protects his property claims -- without the state, workers'

4443

would seize the means of production. Which means, contra Morrow,

4444

Bakunin was aware that in order for workers' to take over

4445

their workplaces the state had to be destroyed as it was by

4446

means of the state that capitalist property rights are

4447

enforced.

4448

4449

And, just to stress the obvious, you cannot "turn your backs

4450

on the state" while dissolving the state bureaucracy, the army,

4451

police and so on. This is clear for Bakunin. He argued that

4452

"[l]iberty can only be created by liberty, by an insurrection

4453

of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the

4454

workers from below upward." And the nature of this workers'

4455

organisation? Workers' councils -- the "proletariat . . .

4456

must enter the International [Workers' Association] en

4457

masse, form[ing] factory, artisan, and agrarian sections,

4458

and unite them into local federations." [Statism and Anarchy,

4459

p. 179 and p. 49]

4460

4461

Similarly, we discover Kropotkin arguing that "expropriation"

4462

would occur at the same time as "the capitalists' power to

4463

resist [had] been smashed" and that "the authorities" will

4464

be "overthrown." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 232 and

4465

p. 233] He also recognised the need for self-defence,

4466

arguing that the revolution must "withstand both the

4467

attempts to form a government that would seek to strangle

4468

it and any onslaughts which may emanate from without."

4469

[Op. Cit., p. 232] He argued the Commune "must smash the

4470

State and replace it with the Federation and it will act

4471

accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 259] You cannot do all this by

4472

"turning your backs" on the state. To smash the state you

4473

need to face it and fight it -- there is no other way.

4474

4475

Elsewhere he argued that the commune of the future would base

4476

itself on "the principles of anarchist communism" and "entirely

4477

abolish . . . property, government, and the state." They will

4478

"proclaim and establish their independence by direct socialist

4479

revolutionary action, abolishing private property" when

4480

"governments are swept away by the people . . . the insurgent

4481

people will not wait until some new government decrees, in its

4482

marvellous wisdom, a few economic reforms." Rather, they

4483

"will

4484

take possession on the spot and establish their rights by

4485

utilising it without delay. They will organise themselves in

4486

the workshops to continue the work, but what they will produce

4487

will be what is wanted by the masses, not what gives the highest

4488

profit to employers. . . they will organise themselves to turn to

4489

immediate use the wealth stored up in the towns; they will take

4490

possession of it as if it had never been stolen from them by the

4491

middle class." [The Commune of Paris] Note that Kropotkin

4492

explicitly states that only after "governments are swept

4493

away" would

4494

the "insurgent people . . . organise themselves in the

4495

workshops."

4496

4497

As Malatesta noted, the anarchist principles formulated in 1872

4498

at the Congress of St Imier (under the influence of Bakunin,

4499

obviously) stated that "[d]estruction of all political power

4500

is the first duty of the proletariat" who must "establish

4501

solidarity in revolutionary action outside the framework

4502

of bourgeois politics." He adds, "[n]eedless to say, for the

4503

delegates of St. Imier as for us and for all anarchists, the

4504

abolition of political power is not possible without the

4505

simultaneous destruction of economic privilege." [Life and

4506

Ideas, pp. 157-8]

4507

4508

Malatesta himself always stressed that revolution required

4509

"the insurrectionary act which sweeps away the material

4510

obstacles, the armed forces of the government." He argued

4511

that "[o]nce the government has been overthrown . . . it

4512

will be the task of the people . . . to provide for the

4513

satisfaction of immediate needs and to prepare for the

4514

future by destroying privileges and harmful institutions."

4515

[Op. Cit., p. 163 and p. 161] In other words, the revolution

4516

needs to smash the state and at the same time abolish

4517

capitalism by expropriation by the workers.

4518

4519

Thus anarchism is clear on that you need to destroy the state

4520

in order to expropriate capital. Morrow's assertions on this

4521

are clearly false. Rather than urging "workers to turn their

4522

backs on the state and seek control of the factories as the

4523

real source of power" anarchism calls upon workers to "overthrow,"

4524

"smash," "sweep away," "destroy", "dissolve" the state and

4525

its bureaucratic machinery via an "insurrectionary act" and

4526

expropriate capital at the same time -- in other words, a

4527

popular uprising probably combined with a general strike ("an

4528

excellent means for starting the social revolution," in

4529

Malatesta's words, but not in itself enough to made "armed

4530

insurrection unnecessary" [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist

4531

Reader, pp. 224-5]).

4532

4533

That, in itself, indicates that Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of

4534

anarchism does not, in fact, actually exist. In addition, if we

4535

look at the history of the CNT during the 1930s we discover

4536

that the union organised numerous insurrections which did not,

4537

in fact, involve workers "turning their backs on the state"

4538

but rather attacking the state. For example, in the spontaneous

4539

revolt of CNT miners in January 1932, the workers "seized town

4540

halls, raised the black-and-red flags of the CNT, and declared

4541

communismo liberatario." In Tarassa, the same year, the workers

4542

again "seiz[ed] town halls" and the town "swept by street

4543

fighting." The revolt in January 1933 began with "assaults by

4544

Anarchist action groups . . . on Barcelona's military barracks

4545

. . . Serious fighting occurred in working-class barrios and

4546

the outlying areas of Barcelona . . . Uprising occurred in

4547

Tarassa, Sardanola-Ripollet, Lerida, in several pueblos in

4548

Valencia province, and in Andalusia." In Casas Viejas, as

4549

we discussed in <a href="append32.html#app1">section 1</a>,

4550

the CNT members surrounded and

4551

attacked the barracks of the Civil Guard. In December 1933,

4552

the workers "reared barricades, attacked public buildings,

4553

and engaged in heavy street fighting . . . many villages

4554

declared libertarian communism." [Murray Bookchin, The

4555

Spanish Anarchists, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]

4556

4557

Moreover, "[w]herever possible . . . insurrections had

4558

carried out industrial and agrarian take-overs and established

4559

committees for workers' and peasant's control, libertarian

4560

systems of logistics and distribution -- in short, a

4561

miniature society 'organised on the lines set down by

4562

Kropotkin.'" [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 239]

4563

4564

Now, does all that really sound like workers turning their

4565

backs on the state and only seizing control of their factories?

4566

4567

Perhaps it will be argued that Morrow is referring to after

4568

the insurrection (although he clearly is not). What about

4569

the defence of the revolution? Anarchists have always been

4570

clear on this too -- the revolution would be defended by

4571

the people in arms. We have discussed this issue above (in

4572

sections <a href="append32.html#app1">1</a> and

4573

<a href="append32.html#app8">8</a> in particular) so we do not need to discuss

4574

it in much detail here. We will just provide another quote

4575

by Bakunin (although written in 1865, Bakunin made the same

4576

points over and over again until his death in 1876):

4577

4578

"While it [the revolution] will be carried out locally everywhere,

4579

the revolution will of necessity take a federalist format.

4580

Immediately after established government has been overthrown,

4581

communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary

4582

lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers

4583

will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can

4584

defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary for each of

4585

them to radiate outwards, to raise all its neighbouring communes

4586

in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence."

4587

[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 142]

4588

</blockquote>

4589

This was essentially the position agreed by the CNT in May 1936:

4590

4591

"The armed people will be the best guarantee against all attempts

4592

to restore the destroyed regime by interior or exterior forces . . .

4593

Each Commune should have its arms and elements of defence."

4594

[quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish

4595

Civil War, vol. 1, p. 64]

4596

</blockquote>

4597

Like the CNT with its "Defence Committees" the defence of the

4598

revolution would rest with the commune and its federation. Thus

4599

Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism does not exist. We

4600

have never urged the ignoring of the state nor the idea that

4601

seizing economic power will eliminate political power by itself.

4602

Nor is anarchism against the defence of a revolution. The position

4603

of the CNT in May 1936 was identical to that of Bakunin in 1865.

4604

The question is, of course, how do you organise a revolution

4605

and its defence -- is it by the whole people or is it by a

4606

party representing that people. Anarchists argue for the former,

4607

Trotskyists the latter. Needless to say, a state structure

4608

(i.e. a centralised, hierarchical structure based on the

4609

delegation of power) is required only when a revolution is

4610

seen as rule by a party -- little wonder anarchists reject

4611

the concept of a "workers' state" as a contradiction in terms.

4612

4613

The question of July 1936 however rears its head. If anarchism

4614

does stand for insurrection, workers councils and so on, then

4615

why did the CNT ignore the state? Surely that suggests anarchism

4616

is, as Morrow claims, flawed? No, it does not -- as we argue in

4617

some detail in

4618

<a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a> this confuses mistakes by anarchists

4619

with errors in anarchist theory. The CNT-FAI did not pursue

4620

anarchist theory and so July 1936 does not invalidate anarchism.

4621

As Bakunin argued, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . unless it

4622

was simultaneously a political and a social revolution." [No Gods,

4623

No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141] The revolution of July 1936 was a

4624

social revolution (it expropriated capital and revolutionised

4625

social relationships across society) but it was not a political

4626

revolution -- in other words, it did not destroy the state. The

4627

CNT refused to do this because of the danger of fascism and fear

4628

of isolation (see <a href="append32.html#app20">section 20</a>). Little wonder the social revolution

4629

was defeated -- the CNT did not apply basic anarchist theory. To

4630

dismiss anarchist ideas because they were not applied seems somewhat

4631

strange.

4632

4633

To finish this section we must indicate that Morrow's statement

4634

concerning anarchists "turning our backs" to the state and

4635

concentrating on property actually contradicts both Engels

4636

and Lenin.

4637

4638

As Lenin notes in The State and Revolution, "Marx agreed

4639

with Proudhon on the necessity of 'smashing' the present

4640

state machine. . . [there is] similarity between Marxism

4641

and anarchism (Proudhon and Bakunin) . . . on this point"

4642

and that anarchists advocate "the destruction of the state

4643

machine." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 310 and p. 358]

4644

You can hardly smash the state or destroy the state machine

4645

by "turning your back" to it. Similarly, Engels argued

4646

(although distorting his thought somewhat) that Bakunin

4647

saw "the state as the main evil to be abolished . . .

4648

[and] maintains that it is the state which has created

4649

capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the

4650

grace of the state . . . [Hence] it is above all the state

4651

which must be done away with . . . organise, and when ALL

4652

workers are won over . . . abolish the state and replace it

4653

with the organisation of the International." [The Marx-Engels

4654

Reader, pp. 728-9] You cannot "abolish" and "replace" the state

4655

by ignoring it ("turning your back to it"). We must also stress

4656

that Engels comments disprove Lenin's assertion that anarchists

4657

"have absolutely no clear idea of what the proletariat will

4658

put in its [the states] place." [Op. Cit., p. 358] We have

4659

always been clear, namely a federation of workers' associations

4660

(this was the organisation of the First International). In

4661

other, more modern, words, a system of workers' councils --

4662

a position Marxists only embraced six decades later when Lenin

4663

advocated them as the basis of his "workers' state."

4664

4665

Thus Morrow's comments against anarchism are in contradiction

4666

to usual Marxist claims against anarchism (namely, that we

4667

seek to smash the state but do not understand that the

4668

workers' state is necessary to abolish capitalism). Indeed,

4669

Engels attributed the opposite idea to Bakunin that Morrow

4670

implies anarchists think with regards to property -- namely

4671

the idea that the capitalist has his property because of

4672

the state. Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism not

4673

only does not exist in anarchist theory, it does not even

4674

exist in the Marxist critique of that theory! It is impressive

4675

enough to assign a false doctrine to your enemies, it takes

4676

real ability to make a claim which contradicts your own

4677

theory's assertions!

4678

4679

<a name="app15"><H2>15. Did Spanish Anarchism aim for the creation of "collectives" before the revolution?</h2>

4680

4681

The formation of the worker-managed enterprises called

4682

"collectives" in the Spanish revolution of 1936 has sometimes

4683

led people (particularly Marxists) to misconceptions about

4684

anarcho-syndicalist and communist-anarchist theory. These comments

4685

by a Marxist-Leninist are typical:

4686

4687

"Spanish anarchists believed that a system of autonomous collectives,

4688

with the weakest possible connections between them, was the alternative

4689

to capitalism and also to the Marxist view of society running the entire

4690

economy as one whole."

4691

</blockquote>

4692

And:

4693

4694

"The anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering each

4695

factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there, and not by

4696

the working class as a whole." [Joseph Green, "The Black Autonomy

4697

Collective and the Spanish Civil War", Communist Voice no. 10,

4698

Vol. 2, no. 5, Oct. 1, 1996]

4699

</blockquote>

4700

This assertion is sometimes voiced by Libertarian Marxists of

4701

the council communist tendency (who should know better):

4702

4703

"At the time of the Civil War, a popular idea amongst the Spanish

4704

working class and peasants was that each factory, area of land,

4705

etc., should be owned collectively by its workers, and that

4706

these 'collectives' should be linked with each other on a

4707

'federal' basis - that is, without any superior central

4708

authority.

4709

4710

"This basic idea had been propagated by anarchists in Spain for

4711

more than 50 years. When the Civil War began, peasants and

4712

working class people in those parts of the country which had

4713

not immediately fallen under fascist control seized the

4714

opportunity to turn anarchist ideal into reality." ["Anarchism

4715

and the Spanish 'Revolution'", Subversion no. 18]

4716

</blockquote>

4717

Trotskyist Felix Morrow also presents a similar analysis when

4718

he states that the POUM "recorded the tendency of CNT unions

4719

to treat collectivised property as their own. It never attacked

4720

the anarcho-syndicalist theories which created the tendency."

4721

[Op. Cit., p. 104]

4722

4723

However, the truth of the matter is somewhat different.

4724

4725

Firstly, as will soon become clear, CNT policy and anarchist

4726

theory was not in favour of workers' owning their individual

4727

workplaces. Instead both argued for socialisation of the means

4728

of life by a system of federations of workers' assemblies.

4729

Individual workplaces would be managed by their workers but

4730

they would not exist in isolation or independently of the

4731

others -- they would be members of various federations (minimally

4732

an industrial one and one which united all workplaces regardless

4733

of industry in a geographical area). These would facilitate

4734

co-ordination and co-operation between self-managed workplaces.

4735

The workplace would, indeed, be autonomous but such autonomy

4736

did not negate the need for federal organs of co-ordination nor

4737

did federation negate that autonomy (as we will discuss later

4738

in <a href="append32.html#app18">section 18</a>, autonomy means

4739

the ability to make agreements

4740

with others and so joining a federation is an expression of

4741

autonomy and not necessarily its abandonment, it depends on

4742

the nature of the federation).

4743

4744

Secondly, rather than being the product of "more than 50 years" of

4745

anarchist propaganda or of "anarcho-syndicalist theories", the

4746

"collectives" instituted during the Civil War were seen by the

4747

CNT as merely a temporary stop-gap. They had not been advocated

4748

in the CNT's pre-Civil War program, but came into existence

4749

precisely because the CNT was unable to carry out its libertarian

4750

communist program, which would have required setting up workers

4751

congresses and federal councils to establish co-ordination and

4752

aid the planning of common activities between the self-managed

4753

workplaces. In other words, the idea of self-managed workplaces

4754

was seen as one step in a process of socialisation, the basic

4755

building block of a federal structure of workers' councils. They

4756

were not seen as an end in themselves no matter how important

4757

they were as the base of a socialised economy.

4758

4759

Thus the CNT had never proposed that factories or other

4760

facilities would be owned by the people who happened to

4761

work there. The CNT's program called for the construction of

4762

"libertarian communism." This was the CNT's agreed goal,

4763

recognising it must be freely created from below. In addition,

4764

the Spanish Anarchists argued for "free experimentation, free

4765

show of initiative and suggestions, as well as the freedom of

4766

organisation," recognising that "[i]n each locality the degree of

4767

[libertarian] communism, collectivism or mutualism will depend

4768

on conditions prevailing. Why dictate rules? We who make freedom

4769

our banner, cannot deny it in economy." [D. A. de Santillan,

4770

After the Revolution, p. 97] In other words, the CNT recognised

4771

that libertarian communism would not be created overnight and

4772

different areas will develop at different speeds and in different

4773

directions depending on the material circumstances they faced

4774

and what their population desired.

4775

4776

However, libertarian communism was the CNTs declared goal. This

4777

meant that the CNT aimed for a situation where the economy as

4778

a whole would be socialised and not an mutualist economy

4779

consisting independent co-operatives owned and controlled

4780

by their workers (with the producers operating totally

4781

independently of each other on the basis of market exchange).

4782

Instead, workers would manage their workplace directly,

4783

but would not own it -- rather ownership would rest with

4784

society as a whole but the day-to-day management of the

4785

means of production would be delegated to those who did the

4786

actual work. Councils of workers' delegates, mandated by and

4787

accountable to workplace assemblies, would be created to

4788

co-ordinate activity at all levels of the economy.

4789

4790

A few quotes will be needed to show that this was, in fact,

4791

the position of the Spanish Anarchists. According to Issac

4792

Puente, the "national federations will hold as common property

4793

all the roads, railways, buildings, equipment, machinery and

4794

workshops." The village commune "will federate with its

4795

counterparts in other localities and with the national

4796

industrial federations." [Libertarian Communism, p. 29

4797

and p. 26] In D. A. de Santillan's vision, libertarian

4798

communism would see workers' councils overseeing 18

4799

industrial sectors.

4800

There would also be "councils of the economy" for local,

4801

regional and national levels (ultimately, international as well).

4802

[Op. Cit., pp. 50-1 and pp. 80-7] These councils would be

4803

"constitute[d] by delegations or through assemblies" and

4804

"receives [their] orientation from below and operates in

4805

accordance with the resolutions" of their appropriate

4806

"assemblies." [Op. Cit., p. 83 and p. 86]

4807

4808

The CNT's national conference in Saragossa during May 1936

4809

stressed this vision. Its resolution declared that the

4810

revolution would abolish "private property, the State,

4811

the principle of authority, and . . . classes." It argued

4812

that "the economic plan of organisation, throughout national

4813

production, will adjust to the strictest principles of

4814

social economy, directly administered by the producers

4815

through their various organs of production, designated

4816

in general assemblies of the various organisations, and

4817

always controlled by them." In urban areas, "the workshop

4818

or factory council" would make "pacts with other labour

4819

centres" via "Councils of Statistics and Production"

4820

which are the "organ of relations of Union to Union

4821

(association of producers)", in other words, workers'

4822

councils. These would "federate among themselves, forming

4823

a network of constant and close relations among all the

4824

producers of the Iberian Confederation." In rural areas,

4825

"the producers of the Commune" would create a "Council

4826

of Cultivation" which would "establish the same network

4827

of relations as the Workshop, Factory Councils and those

4828

of Production and Statistics, complementing the free

4829

federation represented by the Commune."

4830

4831

The resolution argues that "[b]oth the Associations of industrial

4832

producers and Associations of agricultural producers will federate

4833

nationally" and "Communes will federate on a county and regional

4834

basis . . . Together these Communes will constitute an Iberian

4835

Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes." Being anarchists,

4836

the CNT stressed that "[n]one of these organs will have executive

4837

or bureaucratic character" and their members "will carry out their

4838

mission as producers, meeting after the work day to discuss questions

4839

of details which don't require the decision of the communal

4840

assemblies." The assemblies themselves "will meet as often as

4841

needed by the interests of the Commune. . . When problems are

4842

dealt with which affect a country or province, it must be the

4843

Federations which deliberate, and in the meetings and assemblies

4844

all Communities will be represented and the delegates will bring

4845

points of view previously agreed upon" by the Commune assembly.

4846

[quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish

4847

Revolution, vol. 1, p. 59, p. 60 and p. 62]

4848

4849

Joan Ferrer, a bookkeeper who was the secretary of the CNT

4850

commercial workers union in Barcelona, explained this vision:

4851

4852

"It was our idea in the CNT that everything should start from

4853

the worker, not -- as with the Communists -- that everything

4854

should be run by the state. To this end we wanted to set up

4855

industrial federations -- textiles, metal-working, department

4856

stores, etc. -- which would be represented on an overall Economics

4857

Council which would direct the economy. Everything, including

4858

economic planning, would thus remain in the hands of the

4859

workers." [quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 180]

4860

</blockquote>

4861

However, social revolution is a dynamic process and things

4862

rarely develop exactly as predicted or hoped in pre-revolutionary

4863

times. The "collectives" in Spain are an example of this.

4864

Although the regional union conferences in Catalonia had

4865

put off overthrowing the government in July of 1936, workers

4866

began taking over the management of industries as soon as

4867

the street-fighting had died down. The initiative for this

4868

did not come from the higher bodies -- the regional and national

4869

committees -- but from the rank-and-file activists in the

4870

local unions. In some cases this happened because the top

4871

management of the enterprise had fled and it was necessary

4872

for the workers to take over if production was to continue.

4873

But in many cases the local union militants decided to take

4874

advantage of the situation to end wage labour by creating

4875

self-managed workplaces.

4876

4877

As to be expected of a real movement, mistakes were made by

4878

those involved and the development of the movement reflected

4879

the real problems the workers faced and their general level

4880

of consciousness and what they wanted. This is natural and

4881

to denounce such developments in favour of ideal solutions

4882

means to misunderstand the dynamic of a revolutionary

4883

situation. In the words of Malatesta:

4884

4885

"To organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large

4886

scale it would be necessary to transform all economic life

4887

radically, such as methods of production, of exchange and

4888

consumption; and all this could not be achieved other than

4889

gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted and to the

4890

extent that the masses understood what advantages could be

4891

gained and were able to act for themselves." [Life and Ideas,

4892

p. 36]

4893

</blockquote>

4894

This was the situation in revolutionary Spain. Moreover, the

4895

situation was complicated by the continued existence of the

4896

bourgeois state. As Gaston Leval, in his justly famous study

4897

of the collectives, states "it was not . . . true socialisation,

4898

but . . . a self-management straddling capitalism and socialism,

4899

which we maintain would not have occurred had the Revolution

4900

been able to extend itself fully under the direction of our

4901

syndicates." [Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,

4902

p. 227-8] Leval in fact terms it "a form of workers neo-capitalism"

4903

but such a description is inaccurate (and unfortunate) simply

4904

because wage labour had been abolished and so it was not a form

4905

of capitalism -- rather it was a form of mutualism, of workers'

4906

co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour on the

4907

market.

4908

4909

However, Leval basic argument was correct -- due to the fact

4910

the political aspect of the revolution (the abolition of the

4911

state) had been "postponed" until after the defeat of fascism,

4912

the economic aspects of the revolution would also remain

4913

incomplete. The unions that had seized workplaces were confronted

4914

with a dilemma. They had control of their individual workplaces,

4915

but the original libertarian plan for economic co-ordination was

4916

precluded by the continued existence of the State. It was in

4917

this context of a partial revolution, under attack by the

4918

counter-revolution, that the idea of "collectives" was first

4919

put forward to solve some of the problems facing the workers

4920

and their self-managed workplaces. Unfortunately, this very

4921

"solution" caused problems of its own. For example, Gaston Leval

4922

indicates that the collectivisation decree of October 1936

4923

"legalising collectivisation", "distorted everything right from

4924

the start" [Op. Cit., p. 227] and did not allow the collectives

4925

to develop beyond a mutualist condition into full libertarian

4926

communism. It basically legalised the existing situation while

4927

hindering its development towards libertarian communism by

4928

undermining union control.

4929

4930

This dilemma of self-managed individual workplaces and lack of

4931

federations to co-ordinate them was debated at a CNT union plenary

4932

in September of 1936. The idea of converting the worker-managed

4933

workplaces into co-operatives, operating in a market economy, had

4934

never been advocated by the Spanish anarchists before the Civil War,

4935

but was now seen by some as a temporary stop-gap that would solve

4936

the immediate question of what to do with the workplaces that had

4937

been seized by the workers. It was at this meeting that the term

4938

"collective" was first adopted to describe this solution. This

4939

concept of "collectivisation" was suggested by Joan Fabregas, a

4940

Catalan nationalist of middle class origin who had joined the CNT

4941

after July of 1936. As one CNT militant recalled:

4942

4943

"Up to that moment, I had never heard of collectivisation as a

4944

solution for industry -- the department stores were being run

4945

by the union. What the new system meant was that each collectivised

4946

firm would retain its individual character, but with the ultimate

4947

objective of federating all enterprises within the same industry."

4948

[quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 212]

4949

</blockquote>

4950

However, a number of unions went beyond "collectivisation" and

4951

took over all the facilities in their industries, eliminating

4952

competition between separate firms. The many small barber and

4953

beauty shops in Barcelona were shut down and replaced with large

4954

neighbourhood haircutting centres, run through the assemblies

4955

of the CNT barbers' union. The CNT bakers union did something

4956

similar. The CNT Wood Industry Union shut down the many small

4957

cabinet-making shops, where conditions were often dangerous and

4958

unhealthy. They were replaced with two large factories, which

4959

included new facilities for the benefit of the workforce, such

4960

as a large swimming pool.

4961

4962

The union ran the entire industry, from the felling of timber in

4963

the Val d'Aran to the furniture showrooms in Barcelona. The railway,

4964

maritime shipping and water, gas and electric industry unions also

4965

pursued this strategy of industrial unification, as did the textile

4966

union in the industrial town of Badalona, outside Barcelona. This

4967

was considered to be a step in the direction of eventual socialisation.

4968

4969

At the Catalan union plenary of September, 1936, "the bigger, more

4970

powerful unions, like the woodworkers, the transport workers, the

4971

public entertainment union, all of which had already socialised [i.e.

4972

unified their industries under union management], wanted to extend

4973

their solution to the rest of industry. The smaller, weaker unions

4974

wanted to form co-operatives. . ." [Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 212]

4975

4976

The collectives came out of this conflict and discussion as a sort

4977

of "middle ground" -- however, it should be stressed that it did

4978

not stop many unions from ignoring the Catalan's governments'

4979

attempt to legalise (and so control) the collectives (the so-called

4980

"collectivisation" decree) as far as they could. As Albert Perez-Baro,

4981

a Catalan Civil Servant noted, "the CNT . . . pursued its own,

4982

unilateral objectives which were different. Syndical collectivisation

4983

or syndicalised collectives, I would call those objectives; that's

4984

to say, collectives run by their respective unions . . . The

4985

CNT's policy was thus not the same as that pursued by the decree."

4986

[quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., pp. 212-3] Indeed, Abad de Santillan

4987

stated later that he "was an enemy of the decree because I considered

4988

it premature . . . When I became [economics] councillor [of the

4989

Generalitat for the CNT], I had no intention of taking into account

4990

of carrying out the decree; I intended to allow our great people

4991

to carry on the task as they saw fit, according to their own

4992

aspiration." [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 212f]

4993

4994

Therefore, when Leninist Joseph Green argues the initial collectivisation

4995

of workplaces "was the masses starting to take things into their own

4996

hands, and they showed that they could continue production in their

4997

workplaces . . . The taking over of the individual workplaces and

4998

communities is one step in a revolutionary process. But there is yet

4999

more that must be done -- the workplaces and communities must be

5000

integrated into an overall economy" he is just showing his ignorance.

5001

The CNT, despite Green's assertions to the contrary, were well aware

5002

that the initial collectivisations were just one step in the

5003

revolution and were acting appropriately. It takes some gall (or

5004

extreme ignorance) to claim that CNT theory, policy and actions

5005

were, in fact, the exact opposite of what they were. Similarly,

5006

when he argues "[h]ow did the anarchists relate the various workplace

5007

collectives to each other in Barcelona? . . . they made use of a

5008

patchwork system including a Central Labour Bank, an Economic Council,

5009

credit . . ." he strangely fails to mention the socialisation attempts

5010

made by many CNT industrial unions during the revolution, attempts which

5011

reflected pre-war CNT policy. But such facts would get in the way of

5012

a political diatribe and so are ignored. [Green, Op. Cit.]

5013

5014

Green continues his inaccurate diatribe by arguing that:

5015

5016

"The problem is that, saddled with their false theory, they could not

5017

understand the real nature of the economic steps taken in the collectives,

5018

and thus they could not deal with the economic relations that arose

5019

among the collectives." [Op. Cit.]

5020

</blockquote>

5021

However, the only thing false about this is the false assertions

5022

concerning anarchist theory. As is crystal clear from our comments

5023

above, the Spanish anarchists (like all anarchists) were well aware

5024

of the need for economic relations between collectives (self-managed

5025

workplaces) before the revolution and acted to create them during

5026

it. These were the industrial federations and federations of rural communities/collectives predicted in anarchist and CNT theory and

5027

actually created, in part at least, during the revolution itself.

5028

5029

Thus Green's "critique" of anarchism is, in fact, exactly what

5030

anarchist theory actually argues and what the Spanish anarchists

5031

themselves argued and tried to implement in all industries. Of

5032

course, there are fundamental differences between the anarchist

5033

vision of socialisation and the Leninist vision of Nationalisation

5034

but this does not mean that anarchism is blind to the necessity of

5035

integrating workplaces and communities into a coherent system of

5036

federations of workers' councils (as proven above). However, such

5037

federation has two sources -- it is either imposed from above or

5038

agreed to from below. Anarchists choose the former as the latter

5039

negates any claim that a revolution is a popular, mass movement

5040

from below (and, incidentally, the Leninist claim that the "workers'

5041

state" is simply a tool of the workers to defeat capitalist

5042

oppression).

5043

5044

The actual process in Spain towards industrial federations and so

5045

socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved --

5046

as would be expected in a true social revolution. For example, the

5047

department stores were collectivised and an attempt to federate the

5048

stores failed. The works councils opposed it, considering the

5049

enterprises as their own and were unwilling to join a federation --

5050

the general assemblies of the collectives agreed. Joan Ferrer, the

5051

secretary of the CNT commercial union, considered it natural as

5052

"[o]nly a few months before, the traditional relationship between

5053

employer and worker had been overthrown. Now the workers were

5054

being asked to make a new leap -- to the concept of collective

5055

ownership. It was asking a lot to expect the latter to happen

5056

overnight." [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 220]

5057

5058

However, before Leninists like Green rush in and assert that

5059

this proves that "anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist

5060

considering each factory as owned simply by the workers that

5061

laboured there" we should point out two things. Firstly, it

5062

was the "ordinary anarchists" who were trying to organise

5063

socialisation (i.e. CNT members and militants). Secondly,

5064

the Russian Revolution also saw workers taking over their

5065

workplaces and treating them as their own property. Leninists

5066

like Green would have a fit if we took these examples to "prove"

5067

that Leninism "led to the ordinary Bolshevik worker considering

5068

each factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there"

5069

(which was what the Mensheviks did argue in 1917 when Martov

5070

"blamed the Bolsheviks for creating the local, particularistic

5071

attitudes prevailing among the masses." [Samuel Farber, Before

5072

Stalinism, p. 72]). In other words, such events are a natural

5073

part of the process of a revolution and are to be expected

5074

regardless of the dominant theory in that revolution.

5075

5076

To summarise.

5077

5078

The Spanish revolution does confirm anarchist theory and in no

5079

way contradicts it. While many of the aspects of the collectives

5080

were in accord with pre-war CNT policy and anarchist theory,

5081

other aspects of them were in contradiction to them. This was

5082

seen by the militants of the CNT and FAI who worked to transform

5083

these spontaneously created organs of economic self-management

5084

into parts of a socialised economy as required for libertarian

5085

communism. Such a transformation flowed from below and was not

5086

imposed from above, as would be expected in a libertarian social

5087

revolution.

5088

5089

As can be seen, the standard Marxist account of the collectives

5090

and its relationship to anarchist theory and CNT policy is

5091

simply wrong.

5092

5093

<a name="app16"><H2>16. How does the development of the collectives

5094

indicate the differences between Bolshevism and anarchism?</h2>

5095

5096

As argued in the <a href="append32.html#app15">last section</a>,

5097

the collectives formed during

5098

the Spanish Revolution reflected certain aspects of anarchist

5099

theory but not others. They were a compromise solution brought

5100

upon by the development of the revolution and did not, as such,

5101

reflect CNT or anarchist theory or vision bar being self-managed

5102

by their workers. The militants of the CNT and FAI tried to convince

5103

their members to federate together and truly socialise the

5104

economy, with various degrees of success. A similar process

5105

occurred during the Russian Revolution of 1917. There workers

5106

created factory committees which tried to introduce workers'

5107

self-management of production. The differences in outcome in

5108

these two experiences and the actions of the Bolsheviks and

5109

anarchists indicate well the fundamental differences between

5110

the two philosophies. In this section we discuss the contrasting

5111

solutions pursued by the CNT and the Bolsheviks in their

5112

respective revolutions.

5113

5114

The simple fact is that revolutions are complex and dynamic

5115

processes which involve many contradictory developments. The

5116

question is how do you push them forward -- either from below

5117

or from above. Both the Spanish and the Russian revolution

5118

were marked by "localism" -- when the workers in a factory

5119

consider it their own property and ignore wider issues and

5120

organisation.

5121

5122

Lenin and the Bolsheviks "solved" the problem of localism by

5123

eliminating workers' self-management in favour of one-man

5124

management appointed from above. Attempts by the workers and

5125

factory committees themselves to combat localism were stopped

5126

by the Bolshevik dominated trade unions which "prevented the

5127

convocation of a planned All-Russian Congress of Factory

5128

Committees" in November 1917 when "called upon" by the

5129

Bolsheviks "to render a special serve to the nascent Soviet

5130

State and to discipline the Factory Committees." [I. Deutscher,

5131

quoted by Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers'

5132

Control, p. 19] Instead, the Bolsheviks built from the

5133

top-down their system of "unified administration" based on

5134

converting the Tsarist system of central bodies which governed

5135

and regulated certain industries during the war. [Brinton,

5136

Op. Cit., p. 36] The CNT, in comparison, tried to solve the

5137

problem of localism by a process of discussion and debate from

5138

below. Both were aware of the fact the revolution was progressing

5139

in ways different from their desired goal but their solution

5140

reflected their different politics -- libertarian in the case

5141

of the CNT, authoritarian in the case of Bolshevism.

5142

5143

Therefore, the actual economic aspects of the Spanish revolution

5144

reflected the various degrees of political development in each

5145

workplace and industry. Some industries socialised according to

5146

the CNT's pre-war vision of libertarian communism, others remained

5147

at the level of self-managed workplaces in spite of the theories

5148

of the union and anarchists. This was the case with other aspects

5149

of the collectives. As Vernon Richards points out, "[i]n some

5150

factories . . . the profits or income were shared out among the

5151

workers . . . As a result, wages fluctuated in different factories

5152

and even within the same industry . . . But fortunately . . . the

5153

injustice of this form of collectivisation was recognised and

5154

combated by the CNT syndicates from the beginning." [Lessons

5155

of the Spanish Revolution, pp. 106-7]

5156

5157

Thus the collectives, rather than expressing the economic vision

5158

of communist-anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism, came into existence

5159

precisely because the CNT was unable to carry out its libertarian

5160

communist program, which would have required setting up workers

5161

congresses and co-ordinating councils to establish common ownership

5162

and society wide self-management. To assert that the collectives

5163

were an exact reflection of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist theory

5164

is, therefore, incorrect. Rather, they reflected certain aspects

5165

of that theory (such as workers' self-management in the workplace)

5166

while others (industrial federations to co-ordinate economic

5167

activity, for example) were only partially meet. This, we must

5168

stress, is to be expected as a revolution is a process and

5169

not an event. As Kropotkin argued:

5170

5171

"It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps

5172

five years that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution

5173

in the property system and in social organisation." [Words of

5174

a Rebel, p. 72]

5175

</blockquote>

5176

Thus the divergence of the actual revolution from the program

5177

of the CNT was to be expected and so did not represent a

5178

failure or a feature of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist

5179

theory as Morrow and other Marxists assert. Rather, it

5180

expresses the nature of a social revolution, a movement

5181

from below which, by its very nature, reflects real needs

5182

and problems and subject to change via discussion and debate.

5183

Bakunin's comments stress this aspect of the revolution:

5184

5185

"I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised

5186

from the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,

5187

confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced

5188

that what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands

5189

times better and more just than any existing organisation.

5190

Moreover, this . . . organisation, being on the one hand open

5191

to revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not

5192

petrified by the intervention of the State . . . will develop

5193

and perfect itself through free experimentation as fully as

5194

one can reasonably expect in our times.

5195

5196

"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation

5197

of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development

5198

of each commune will take its point of departure the actual

5199

condition of its civilisation . . ." [Bakunin on Anarchism,

5200

p. 207]

5201

</blockquote>

5202

To impose an "ideal" solution would destroy a revolution --

5203

the actions and decisions (including what others may consider

5204

mistakes) of a free people are infinitely more productive and

5205

useful than the decisions and decrees of the best central

5206

committee. Moreover, a centralised system by necessity is

5207

an imposed system (as it excludes by its very nature the

5208

participation of the mass of the people in determining their

5209

own fate). As Bakunin argued, "Collectivism could be imposed

5210

only on slaves, and this kind of collectivism would then be

5211

the negation of humanity. In a free community, collectivism

5212

can come about only through the pressure of circumstances,

5213

not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous

5214

movement from below." [Op. Cit., p. 200] Thus socialisation

5215

must proceed from below, reflecting the real development and

5216

desires of those involved. To "speed-up" the process via

5217

centralisation can only result in replacing socialisation

5218

with nationalisation and the elimination of workers'

5219

self-management with hierarchical management. Workers'

5220

again would be reduced to the level of order-takers,

5221

with control over their workplaces resting not in their

5222

hands but in those of the state.

5223

5224

Lenin argued that "Communism requires and presupposes the

5225

greatest possible centralisation of large-scale production

5226

throughout the country. The all-Russian centre, therefore,

5227

should definitely be given the right of direct control over all

5228

the enterprises of the given branch of industry. The regional

5229

centres define their functions depending on local conditions

5230

of life, etc., in accordance with the general production

5231

directions and decisions of the centre." He continued by

5232

explicitly arguing that "[t]o deprive the all-Russia centre

5233

of the right to direct control over all the enterprises of

5234

the given industry . . . would be regional anarcho-syndicalism,

5235

and not communism." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and

5236

Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 292]

5237

5238

We expect that Morrow would subscribe to this "solution" to

5239

the problems of a social revolution generates. However, such

5240

a system has its own problems.

5241

5242

First is the basic fallacy that the centre will not start to

5243

view the whole economy as its property (and being centralised,

5244

such a body would be difficult to effectively control). Indeed,

5245

Stalin's power was derived from the state bureaucracy which

5246

ran the economy in its own interests. Not that it suddenly arose

5247

with Stalin. It was a feature of the Soviet system from the start.

5248

Samuel Farber, for example, notes that, "in practice, [the]

5249

hypercentralisation [pursued by the Bolsheviks from early 1918

5250

onwards] turned into infighting and scrambles for control among

5251

competing bureaucracies" and he points to the "not untypical

5252

example of a small condensed milk plant with few than 15 workers

5253

that became the object of a drawn-out competition among six

5254

organisations including the Supreme Council of National Economy,

5255

the Council of People's Commissars of the Northern Region, the

5256

Vologda Council of People's Commissars, and the Petrograd Food

5257

Commissariat." [Op. Cit., p. 73] In other words, centralised

5258

bodies are not immune to viewing resources as their own property

5259

(and compared to an individual workplace, the state's power to

5260

enforce its viewpoint against the rest of society is considerably

5261

stronger).

5262

5263

Secondly, to eliminate the dangers of workers' self-management

5264

generating "propertarian" notions, the workers' have to have

5265

their control over their workplace reduced, if not eliminated.

5266

This, by necessity, generates bourgeois social relationships

5267

and, equally, appointment of managers from above (which the

5268

Bolsheviks did embrace). Indeed, by 1920 Lenin was boasting

5269

that in 1918 he had "pointed out the necessity of recognising

5270

the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the pursue

5271

of carrying out the Soviet idea" and even claimed that at

5272

that stage "there were no disputes in connection with the

5273

question" of one-man management. [quoted by Brinton, Op. Cit.,

5274

p. 65] While the first claim is true (Lenin argued for one-man

5275

management appointed from above before the start of the Civil

5276

War in May 1918) the latter one is not true (excluding

5277

anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, there were also the

5278

dissent Left-Communists in the Bolshevik party itself).

5279

5280

Thirdly, a centralised body effectively excludes the mass

5281

participation of the mass of workers -- power rests in the

5282

hands of a few people which, by its nature, generates

5283

bureaucratic rule. This can be seen from the example of

5284

Lenin's Russia. The central bodies the Bolsheviks created

5285

had little knowledge of the local situation and often gave

5286

orders that contradicted each other or had little bearing to

5287

reality, so encouraging factories to ignore the centre.

5288

In other words the government's

5289

attempts to centralise actually led to localism (as well as

5290

economic mismanagement)! Perhaps this was what Green means

5291

when he argues for a "new centralism" which would be "compatible

5292

with and requiring the initiative of the workers at the base"

5293

[Green Op. Cit.]-- that is, the initiative of the workers to

5294

ignore the central bodies and keep the economy going

5295

in spite of the "new centralism"?

5296

5297

The simple fact is, a socialist society must be created

5298

from below, by the working class itself. If the workers do

5299

not know how to create the necessary conditions for a

5300

socialist organisation of labour, no one else can do it for

5301

them or compel them to do it. If the state is used to combat

5302

"localism" and such things then it obviously cannot be in

5303

the hands of the workers' themselves. Socialism can only

5304

be created by workers' own actions and organisations

5305

otherwise it will not be set up at all -- something else

5306

will be, namely state capitalism.

5307

5308

Thus, a close look at Lenin's "solution" indicates that Trotskyist

5309

claim that their state is the "tool of the majority in their fight

5310

against exploitation by the few" (to use Joseph Green's words) is

5311

refuted by their assertion that this state will also bring the

5312

economy under centralised control and by the actions of the

5313

Bolsheviks themselves.

5314

5315

Why is this? Simply because if the mass of collectives are not

5316

interested in equality and mutual aid in society as a whole then

5317

how can the government actually be the "tool" of the majority when

5318

it imposes such "mutual aid" and "equality" upon the collectives?

5319

In other words, the interests of the government replace those of

5320

the majority. After all, if workers did favour mutual aid and

5321

equality then they would federate themselves to achieve it. (which

5322

the collectives were actually doing all across Spain, we must

5323

note). If

5324

they do not do this then how can the "workers' state" be said to

5325

be simply their tool when it has to impose the appropriate

5326

economic structure upon them? The government is elected by the

5327

whole people, so it will be claimed, and so must be their tool.

5328

This is obviously flawed -- "if," argued Malatesta, "you consider

5329

these worthy electors as unable to look after their own interests

5330

themselves, how is it that they will know how to choose for

5331

themselves the shepherds who must guide them? And how will

5332

they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of

5333

producing a genius from the votes of a mass of fools? And

5334

what will happen to the minorities which are still the most

5335

intelligent, most active and radical part of a society?"

5336

[Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 53]

5337

5338

What does all this mean? Simply that Trotskyists recognise, implicitly

5339

at least, that the workers' state is not, in fact, the simple tool

5340

of the workers. Rather, it is the means by which "socialism" will

5341

be imposed upon the workers by the party. If workers do not practice

5342

mutual aid and federation in their day-to-day running of their

5343

lives, then how can the state impose it if it is simply their

5344

tool? It suggests what is desired "by all of the working people as

5345

a whole" (nearly always a euphemism for the party in Trotskyist

5346

ideology) is different that what they actually want (as expressed

5347

by their actions). In other words, a conflict exists between

5348

the workers' and the so-called "workers' state" -- in Russia,

5349

the party imposed its concept of the interests of the working

5350

class, even against the working class itself.

5351

5352

Rather than indicate some kind of failure of anarchist theory, the

5353

experience of workers' self-management in both Spain and Russia

5354

indicate the authoritarian core of Trotskyist ideology. If workers

5355

do not practice mutual aid or federation then a state claiming to

5356

represent them, to be simply their tool, cannot force them to do

5357

so without exposing itself as being an alien body with power over

5358

the workers.

5359

5360

For these reasons Bakunin was correct to argue that anarchists

5361

have "no faith except in freedom. Both [Marxists and anarchists],

5362

equally supporters of science which is to destroy superstition

5363

and replace belief, differ in the former wishing to impose it,

5364

and the latter striving to propagate it; so human groups,

5365

convinced of its truth, may organise and federate spontaneously,

5366

freely, from the bottom up, by their own momentum according

5367

to their real interests, but never according to any plan laid

5368

down in advance and imposed upon the ignorant masses by

5369

some superior intellects." Anarchists, he continues, "think

5370

that there is much more practical and intellectual common

5371

sense in the instinctive aspirations and in the real needs of

5372

the mass of the people than in the profound intelligence of

5373

all these doctors and teachers of mankind who, after so many

5374

fruitless attempts to make humanity happy, still aspire to

5375

add their own efforts." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,

5376

p. 198]

5377

5378

In summary, the problem of "localism" and any other problems faced

5379

by a social revolution will be solved in the interests of the

5380

working class only if working class people solve them themselves.

5381

For this to happen it requires working class people to manage their

5382

own affairs directly and that implies self-managed organising from

5383

the bottom up (i.e. anarchism) rather than delegating power to a

5384

minority at the top, to a "revolutionary" party or government. This

5385

applies economically, socially and politically. As Bakunin argued,

5386

the "revolution should not only be made for the people's sake; it

5387

should also be made by the people." [No Gods, No Masters,

5388

vol. 1, p. 141]

5389

5390

Thus the actual experience of the collectives and their development,

5391

rather than refuting anarchism, indicates well that it is the only

5392

real form of socialism. Attempts to nationalise the means of

5393

production inevitably disempower workers and eliminate meaningful

5394

workers' self-management or control. It does not eliminate wage

5395

labour but rather changes the name of the boss. Socialism can

5396

only be built from below. If it is not, as the Russian experience

5397

indicated, then state capitalism will be the inevitable outcome.

5398

5399

<a name="app17"><H2>17. Why is Morrow's support for "proletarian

5400

methods of production" ironic?</h2>

5401

5402

Morrow states "[i]n the midst of civil war the factory committees

5403

are demonstrating the superiority of proletarian methods of

5404

production." [Op. Cit., p. 53] This is ironic as the Bolsheviks

5405

in power fought against the factory committees and their attempts

5406

to introduce the kind of workers' self-management Morrow praises

5407

in Spain (see Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers'

5408

Control for details). Moreover, rather than seeing workers'

5409

self-management as "proletarian methods of production" Lenin

5410

and Trotsky thought that how a workplace was managed was

5411

irrelevant under socialism. Trotsky argued that "[i]t would be

5412

a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy

5413

of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the

5414

head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is

5415

expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of

5416

production, in the supremacy of the collective will of the workers

5417

[a euphemism for the Party -- M.B.] and not at all in the form in

5418

which individual economic organisations are administered." Indeed,

5419

"I consider if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs

5420

of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with

5421

initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of

5422

one-man management in the sphere of economic administration

5423

much sooner and much less painfully." [quoted by Maurice

5424

Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 66 and pp. 66-7]

5425

5426

In other words, Trotsky both in theory and in practice opposed

5427

"proletarian methods of production" -- and if the regime introduced

5428

by Trotsky and Lenin in Russia was not based on "proletarian

5429

methods of production" then what methods was it based on? One-man

5430

management with "the appointment of individuals, dictators

5431

with unlimited powers" by the government and "the people

5432

unquestioningly obey[ing] the single will of the leaders

5433

of labour." [The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,

5434

p. 32 and p. 34] In other words, the usual bourgeois methods

5435

of production with the workers' doing what the boss tells them.

5436

At no time did the Bolsheviks support the kind of workers'

5437

self-management introduced by the anarchist influenced workers

5438

of Spain -- indeed they hindered it and replaced it with one-man

5439

management at the first opportunity (see Maurice Brinton's

5440

classic The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for details).

5441

5442

To point out the obvious, bourgeois methods of production

5443

means bourgeois social relations and relations of production.

5444

In other words, Morrow comments allows us to see that Lenin

5445

and Trotsky's regime was not proletarian at the point of

5446

production. How ironic. And if it was not proletarian at

5447

the point of production (i.e. at the source of economic

5448

power) how could it remain proletarian at the political

5449

level? Unsurprisingly, it did not -- party power soon

5450

replaced workers' power and the state bureaucracy replaced

5451

the party.

5452

5453

Yet again Morrow's book exposes the anti-revolutionary

5454

politics of Trotskyism by allowing anarchists to show the

5455

divergence between the rhetoric of that movement and what

5456

it did when it was in power. Morrow, faced with a workers'

5457

movement influenced by anarchism, inadvertently indicates

5458

the poverty of Trotskyism when he praises the accomplishments

5459

of that movement. The reality of Leninism in power was that

5460

it eliminated the very things Morrow praises -- such as

5461

"proletarian methods of production," democratic militias,

5462

workers' councils and so on. Needless to say, the irony of

5463

Morrow's work is lost on most of the Trotskyists who read

5464

it.

5465

5466

<a name="app18"><H2>18. Were the federations of collectives an "abandonment" of anarchist ideas?</h2>

5467

5468

From our discussion in <a href="append32.html#app15">section 15</a>,

5469

it is clear that anarchism

5470

does not deny the need for co-ordination and joint activity, for

5471

federations of self-managed workplaces, industries and rural

5472

collectives at all levels of society. Far from it. As proven

5473

in sections <a href="append32.html#app12">12</a> and

5474

<a href="append32.html#app15">15</a>, such federations are a basic idea of

5475

anarchism. In anarchy co-ordination flows from below and

5476

not imposed by a few from above. Unfortunately Marxists

5477

cannot tell the difference between solidarity from below

5478

and unity imposed from above. Morrow, for example, argues

5479

that "the anarchist majority in the Council of Aragon led

5480

in practice to the abandonment of the anarchist theory of

5481

the autonomy of economic administration. The Council acted

5482

as a centralising agency." [Op. Cit., pp. 205-6]

5483

5484

Of course it does nothing of the kind. Yes, anarchists are

5485

in favour of autonomy -- including the autonomy of economic

5486

administration. We are also in favour of federalism to

5487

co-ordinate join activity and promote co-operation on a

5488

wide-scale (what Morrow would, inaccuracy, call "centralism"

5489

or "centralisation"). Rather than seeing such agreements of

5490

joint activity as the "abandonment" of autonomy, we see it

5491

as an expression of that autonomy. It would be a strange

5492

form of "freedom" that suggested making arrangements and

5493

agreements with others meant a restriction of your liberty.

5494

For example, no one would argue that to arrange to meet your

5495

friend at a certain place and time meant the elimination

5496

of your autonomy even though it obviously reduces your

5497

"liberty" to be somewhere else at the same time.

5498

5499

Similarly, when an individual joins a group and takes part

5500

in its collective decisions and abides by their decisions,

5501

this does not represent the abandonment of their autonomy.

5502

Rather, it is an expression of their freedom. If we took

5503

Morrow's comment seriously then anarchists would be against

5504

all forms of organisation and association as they would

5505

mean the "abandonment of autonomy" (of course some Marxists

5506

do make that claim, but such a position indicates an

5507

essentially negative viewpoint of liberty, a position

5508

they normally reject). In reality, of course, anarchists

5509

are aware that freedom is impossible outside of association.

5510

Within an association absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but

5511

such "autonomy" would restrict freedom to such a degree

5512

that it would be so self-defeating as to make a mockery

5513

of the concept of autonomy and no sane person would seek it.

5514

5515

Of course anarchists are aware that even the best association

5516

could turn into a bureaucracy that does restrict freedom.

5517

Any organisation could transform from being an expression of

5518

liberty into a bureaucratic structure which restricts liberty

5519

because power concentrates at the top, into the hands of an

5520

elite. That is why we propose specific forms of organisation,

5521

ones based on self-management, decentralisation and federalism

5522

which promote decision-making from the bottom-up and ensure

5523

that the organisation remains in the hands of its members and

5524

its policies are agreements between them rather than ones

5525

imposed upon them. For this reason the basic building block

5526

of the federation is the autonomous group assembly. It is

5527

this body which decides on its own issues and mandates

5528

delegates to reach agreements within the federal structure,

5529

leaving to itself the power to countermand the agreements

5530

its delegates make. In this way autonomy is combined with

5531

co-ordination in an organisation that is structured to

5532

accurately reflect the needs and interests of its members

5533

by leaving power in their hands. In the words of Murray Bookchin,

5534

anarchists "do not deny the need for co-ordination between

5535

groups, for discipline, for meticulous planning, and for

5536

unity in action. But [we] believe that co-ordination,

5537

discipline, planning, and unity in action must be achieved

5538

voluntarily, by means of self-discipline nourished by

5539

conviction and understanding, not by coercion and a

5540

mindless, unquestioning obedience to orders from above."

5541

[Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 215]

5542

5543

Therefore, anarchist support for "the autonomy of economic

5544

administration" does not imply the lack of co-operation and

5545

co-ordination, of joint agreements and federal structures

5546

which may, to the uninformed like Morrow, seem to imply the

5547

"abandonment" of autonomy. As Kropotkin argued, the commune

5548

"cannot any longer acknowledge any superior: that, above it,

5549

there cannot be anything, save the interests of the Federation,

5550

freely embraced by itself in concert with other Communes."

5551

[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259] This vision was stressed

5552

in the CNT's Saragossa resolution on Libertarian Communism made

5553

in May, 1936, which stated that the "the foundation of this

5554

administration will be the commune. These communes are to be

5555

autonomous and will be federated at regional and national levels

5556

to achieve their general goals. The right to autonomy does not

5557

preclude the duty to implement agreements regarding collective

5558

benefits." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish

5559

Revolution, p. 106] Hence anarchists

5560

do not see making collective decisions and working in a

5561

federation as an abandonment of autonomy or a violation of

5562

anarchist theory.

5563

5564

The reason for this is simple. To exercise your autonomy by

5565

joining self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing

5566

to abide by the decisions you help make is not a denial of

5567

that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical structure, we

5568

must stress). That is why anarchists have always

5569

stressed the importance of the nature of the associations

5570

people join as well as their voluntary nature -- as Kropotkin

5571

argued, the "communes of the next revolution will not only break

5572

down the state and substitute free federation for parliamentary

5573

rule; they will part with parliamentary rule within the commune

5574

itself . . . They will be anarchist within the commune as they

5575

will be anarchist outside it." [The Commune of Paris]

5576

Moreover, within the federal structures anarchists envision,

5577

the actual day-to-day running

5578

of the association would be autonomous. There would be little

5579

or no need for the federation to interfere with the mundane

5580

decisions a group has to make day in, day out. As

5581

the Saragossa resolution makes clear:

5582

5583

"[The] commune . . . will undertake to adhere to whatever general

5584

norms may be agreed by majority vote after free debate . . . The

5585

inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their internal

5586

problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major problems

5587

affecting a country or province and all communes are to be

5588

represented at their reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling

5589

their delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their

5590

respective communes . . . every commune which is implicated

5591

will have its right to have its say . . . On matters of a

5592

regional nature, it is the duty of the regional federation to

5593

implement agreements . . . So the starting point is the individual,

5594

moving on through the commune, to the federation and right on up

5595

finally to the confederation." [quoted by Jose Peirats,

5596

Op. Cit., pp. 106-7]

5597

</blockquote>

5598

Since the Council of Aragon and the Federation of Collectives

5599

were based on a federal structure, regular meetings of mandated

5600

delegates and decision-making from the bottom up, it would

5601

be wrong to call them a "centralising agency" or an "abandonment"

5602

of the principle of "autonomy." Rather, they were expressions

5603

of that autonomy based around a federal and not centralised

5604

organisation. The autonomy of the collective, of its mass

5605

assembly, was not restricted by the federation nor did the

5606

federation interfere with the day to day running of the

5607

collectives which made it up. The structure was a federation

5608

of autonomous collectives. The role of the Council was to

5609

co-ordinate the decisions of the federation delegate meetings

5610

collective agreements. To confuse this with centralisation is

5611

a mistake common to Marxists, but it is still a confusion.

5612

5613

To summarise, what Morrow claims is an "abandonment" of

5614

anarchism is, in fact, an expression of anarchist ideas. The

5615

Council of Aragon and the Aragon Federation of Collectives were

5616

following the CNT's vision of libertarian communism and not

5617

abandoning it, as Morrow claims. As anyone with even a basic

5618

understanding of anarchism would know.

5619

5620

<a name="app19"><H2>19. Did the experience of the rural collectives refute anarchism?</h2>

5621

5622

Some Leninists attack the rural collectives on similar lines as

5623

they attack the urban ones (as being independent identities and

5624

without co-ordination -- see <a href="append32.html#app15">section

5625

15</a> for details). They argue

5626

that "anarchist theory" resulted in them considering themselves as

5627

being independent bodies and so they ignored wider social issues

5628

and organisation. This meant that anarchist goals could not

5629

be achieved:

5630

5631

"Let's evaluate the Spanish collectives according to one of the

5632

basic goals set by the anarchists themselves. This was to ensure

5633

equality among the toilers. They believed that the autonomous

5634

collectives would rapidly equalise conditions among themselves

5635

through 'mutual aid' and solidarity. This did not happen . . .

5636

conditions varied greatly among the Spanish collectives, with

5637

peasants at some agricultural collectives making three times

5638

that of peasants at other collectives." [Joseph Green, Op. Cit.]

5639

</blockquote>

5640

Of course, Green fails to mention that in the presumably "centralised"

5641

system created by the Bolsheviks, the official rationing system had

5642

a differentiation of eight to one under the class ration of May

5643

1918. By 1921, this, apparently, had fallen to around four to one

5644

(which is still higher than the rural collectives) but, in fact,

5645

remained at eight to one due to workers in selected defence-industry

5646

factories getting the naval ration which was approximately double

5647

that of the top civilian workers' ration. [Mary McAuley, Bread and

5648

Justice: State and Society in Petrograd 1917-1922, pp. 292-3] This,

5649

we note, ignores the various privileges associated with state

5650

office and Communist Party membership which would increase differentials

5651

even more (and such inequality extended into other fields, Lenin for

5652

example warned in 1921 against "giving non-Party workers a false

5653

sense of having some increase in their rights" [Marx, Engels and

5654

Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 325]). The various resolutions made by workers

5655

for equality in rations were ignored by the government (all this

5656

long before, to use Green's words "their party degenerated into

5657

Stalinist revisionism").

5658

5659

So, if equality is important, then the decentralised rural collectives

5660

were far more successful in achieving it than the "centralised" system

5661

under Lenin (as to be expected, as the rank-and-file were in control,

5662

not a few at the top).

5663

5664

Needless to the collectives could not unify history instantly. Some

5665

towns and workplaces started off on a more favourable position than

5666

others. Green quotes an academic (David Miller) on this:

5667

5668

"Such variations no doubt reflected historical inequalities of wealth,

5669

but at the same time the redistributive impact of the [anarchist]

5670

federation had clearly been slight."

5671

</blockquote>

5672

Note that Green implicitly acknowledges that the collectives did

5673

form a federation. This makes a mockery of his claims that earlier

5674

claims that the anarchists "believed that the village communities

5675

would enter the realm of a future liberated society if only they

5676

became autonomous collectives. They didn't see the collectives as

5677

only one step, and they didn't see the need for the collectives

5678

to be integrated into a broader social control of all production."

5679

[Op. Cit.] As proven above, such assertions are either the product

5680

of ignorance or a conscious lie. We quoted numerous Spanish anarchist

5681

documents that stated the exact opposite to Green's assertions. The

5682

Spanish anarchists were well aware of the need for self-managed

5683

communities to federate. Indeed, the federation of collectives

5684

fits exactly pre-war CNT policy and anarchist theory (see

5685

sections <a href="append32.html#app15">15</a> and

5686

<a href="append32.html#app18">18</a> for details). To re-quote

5687

a Spanish Anarchist pamphlet, the village commune "will federate

5688

with its counterparts in other localities and with the national

5689

industrial federations." [Issac Puente, Libertarian Communism,

5690

p. 26] Thus what Green asserts the CNT and FAI did not see the

5691

need of, they in fact did see the need for and argued for their

5692

creation before the Civil War and actually created during it!

5693

Green's comments indicate a certain amount of "doublethink" --

5694

he maintains that the anarchists rejected federations while

5695

acknowledging they did federate.

5696

5697

However, historical differences are the product of centuries

5698

and so it will take some time to overcome them, particularly when

5699

such changes are not imposed by a central government. In addition,

5700

the collectives were not allowed to operate freely and were soon

5701

being hindered (if not physically attacked) by the state within

5702

a year. Green dismisses this recognition of reality by arguing

5703

"one could argue that the collectives didn't have much time to

5704

develop, being in existence for only two and a half years at

5705

most, with the anarchists only having one year of reasonably

5706

unhindered work, but one could certainly not argue that this

5707

experience confirmed anarchist theory." However, his argument

5708

is deeply flawed for many reasons.

5709

5710

Firstly, we have to point out that Green quotes Miller who is using

5711

data from collectives in Castille. Green, however, was apparently

5712

discussing the collectives of Aragon and the Levante and their

5713

respective federations (as was Miller). To state the obvious, it

5714

is hard to evaluate the activities of the Aragon or Levante

5715

federation using data from collectives in the Castille federation.

5716

Moreover, in order to evaluate the redistributive activities of

5717

the federations you need to look at the differentials before and

5718

after the federation was created. The data Miller uses does not

5719

do that and so the lack of success of the federation cannot be

5720

evaluated using Green's source. Thus Green uses data which is,

5721

frankly, a joke to dismiss anarchism. This says a lot about the

5722

quality of his critique.

5723

5724

As far as the Castille federation goes, Robert Alexander notes

5725

"[a]nother feature of the work of regional federation was that

5726

of aiding the less fortunate collectives. Thus, within a year,

5727

it spent 2 000 000 pesetas on providing chemical fertilisers

5728

and machines to poorer collectives, the money from this being

5729

provided by the sale of products of the wealthier ones." [The

5730

Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 438] He also

5731

quotes an article from an anarchist paper which states "there

5732

does not yet exist sufficient solidarity" between rich and

5733

poor collectives and that notes "the difficulties which the

5734

State has put in the way of the development of the collectives."

5735

[Op. Cit., p. 439] Thus the CNT was open about the difficulties

5736

it was experiencing in the collectives and the problems facing

5737

it.

5738

5739

Secondly, the collectives may have been in existence for about

5740

one year before the Stalinists attacked but their federations

5741

had not. The Castille federation was born in April, 1937 (the

5742

general secretary stated in July of that year "[w]e have fought

5743

terrible battles with the Communists" [Op. Cit., p. 446]). The

5744

Aragon federation was created in February 1937 (the Council

5745

of Aragon was created in October 1936) and the Communists

5746

under Lister attacked in August 1937. The Levante federation

5747

was formed a few weeks after the start of the war and the

5748

attacks against them started in March 1937. The longest

5749

period of free development, therefore, was only seven months

5750

and not a year. Thus the federations of collectives -- the means

5751

seen by anarchist theory to co-ordinate economic and social

5752

activities and promote equality -- existed for only a few

5753

months before they were physically attacked by the state.

5754

Green expects miracles if he thinks history can be nullified

5755

in half a year.

5756

5757

Thirdly, anarchists do not think communist-anarchism, in all

5758

its many aspects, is possible overnight. Anarchists are well

5759

aware, to quote Kropotkin, the "revolution may assume a variety

5760

of characters and differing degrees of intensity among different

5761

peoples." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 231] Also, as

5762

noted above, we are well aware that a revolution is a process

5763

("By revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act"

5764

[Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 156]) which will take some time

5765

to fully develop once the state has been destroyed and capital

5766

expropriated. Green's assertion that the Spanish Revolution

5767

refutes anarchist theory is clearly a false one.

5768

5769

Green argues that a "vast organisational task faces the oppressed

5770

masses who are rising up to eliminate the old exploiting system,

5771

but anarchist theory just brushes aside this problem -- co-ordination

5772

between collective would supposedly be easily accomplished by 'mutual

5773

aid' or 'voluntary co-operation' or, if absolutely need be, by the

5774

weakest possible federation." [Op. Cit.] As can be seen from our

5775

discussion, such a claim is a false one. Anarchists are well aware

5776

of difficulties involved in a revolution. That is why we stress that

5777

revolution must come from below, by the actions of the oppressed

5778

themselves -- it is far too complex to left to a few party leaders

5779

to decree the abolition of capitalism. Moreover, as proven above

5780

anarchist theory and practice is well aware of the need for

5781

organisation, co-operation and co-ordination. We obviously do

5782

not "brush it aside." This can be seen from Green's reference to

5783

"the weakest possible federation." This obviously is a cover just

5784

in case the reader is familiar with anarchist theory and history

5785

and knows that anarchists support the federation of workers'

5786

associations and communes as the organisational framework of

5787

a revolution and of the free society.

5788

5789

This distorted vision of anarchism even extents to other aspects

5790

of the revolution. Green decides to attack the relative lack of

5791

international links the Spanish anarchist movement had in 1936.

5792

He blames this on anarchist theory and states "again the localist

5793

anarchist outlook would go against such preparations. True, the

5794

anarchists had had their own International association in the 1870s,

5795

separate from the original First International and the Marxists. It

5796

had flopped so badly that the anarchists never tried to resuscitate

5797

it and seem to prefer to forget about it. Given anarchist localism,

5798

it is not surprising that this International doesn't even seem

5799

to be been missed by current-day anarchists." [Op. Cit.]

5800

5801

Actually, the anarchist International came out of the First

5802

International and was made up of the libertarian wing of that

5803

association. Moreover, in 1936 the CNT was a member of the

5804

International Workers' Association founded in 1922 in Berlin.

5805

The IWA was small, but this was due to state and Fascist

5806

repression. For example, the German FAUD, the Italian USI

5807

and the FORA in Argentina had all been destroyed by fascist

5808

governments. However, those sections which did exist (such

5809

as the Swedish SAC and French CGTSR) did send aid to Spain

5810

and spread CNT and FAI news and appeals (as did anarchist groups

5811

across the world). The IWA still exists today, with sections

5812

in over a dozen countries (including the CNT in Spain). In

5813

addition, the International Anarchist Federation also exists,

5814

having done so for a number of decades, and also has sections

5815

in numerous countries. In other words, Green either knows

5816

nothing about anarchist history and theory or he does and

5817

is lying.

5818

5819

He attacks the lack of CNT support for Moroccan independence during the

5820

war and states "[t]hey just didn't seem that concerned with the issue

5821

during the Civil War." Actually, many anarchists did raise this

5822

important issue. Just one example, Camillo Berneri argued that "we

5823

must intensify our propaganda in favour of Morocco autonomy." ["What

5824

can we do?", Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no. 4, p. 51]

5825

Thus to state "the anarchists . . . didn't seem that concerned" is

5826

simply false. Many anarchists were and publicly argued for it.

5827

Trapped as a minority force in the government, the CNT could not

5828

push through this position.

5829

5830

Green also points out that inequality existed between men and woman.

5831

He even quotes the anarchist women's organisation Mujeres Libres

5832

to prove his point. He then notes what the Bolsheviks did to combat

5833

sexism, "[a]mong the methods of influence was mobilising the local

5834

population around social measures promulgated throughout the country.

5835

The banner of the struggle was not autonomy, but class-wide effort."

5836

Two points, Mujeres Libres was a nation wide organisation which aimed

5837

to end sexism by collective action inside and outside the anarchist

5838

movement by organising women to achieve their own liberation (see

5839

Martha Ackelsberg's , Free Women of Spain for more details). Thus

5840

its aims and mode of struggle was "class-wide" -- as anyone familiar

5841

with that organisation and its activities would know. Secondly, why

5842

is equality between men and women important? Because inequality reduces

5843

the freedom of women to control their own lives, in a word, it hinders

5844

they autonomy. Any campaign against sexism is based on the banner

5845

of autonomy -- that Green decides to forget this suggests a lot about

5846

his politics.

5847

5848

Thus Green gets it wrong again and again. Such is the quality of

5849

most Leninist accounts of the Spanish revolution.

5850

5851

<a name="app20"><H2>20. Does the experience of the Spanish Revolution

5852

indicate the failure of anarchism or the failure of anarchists?</h2>

5853

5854

Marxists usually point to the events in Catalonia after July 19th,

5855

1936, as evidence that anarchism is a flawed theory. They bemoan

5856

the fact that, when given the chance, the anarchists did not

5857

"seize power" and create a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

5858

To re-quote Trotsky:

5859

5860

"A revolutionary party, even having seized power (of which the

5861

anarchist leaders were incapable in spite of the heroism of the

5862

anarchist workers), is still by no means the sovereign ruler of

5863

society." [Stalinism and Bolshevism]

5864

</blockquote>

5865

However, as we argued in <a href="append32.html#app12">

5866

section 12</a>, the Trotskyist "definition" of

5867

"workers' power" and "proletarian dictatorship" is, in fact,

5868

party power, party dictatorship and party sovereignty -- not

5869

working class self-management. Indeed, in a letter written in

5870

1937, Trotsky clarified what he meant: "Because the leaders

5871

of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left

5872

the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." [our emphasis,

5873

Writings 1936-7, p. 514]

5874

5875

Hence the usual Trotskyist lament concerning the CNT is that

5876

the anarchist leaders did not seize power themselves and

5877

create the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" (i.e.

5878

the dictatorship of those claiming to represent the proletariat).

5879

A strange definition of "workers' power," we must admit. The

5880

"leaders" of the CNT and FAI quite rightly rejected such a

5881

position -- unfortunately they also rejected the anarchist

5882

position at the same time, as we will see.

5883

5884

Trotsky states that the "leaders of the CNT . . . explained their

5885

open betrayal of the theory of anarchism by the pressure of

5886

'exceptional circumstances' . . . Naturally, civil war is

5887

not a peaceful and ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.'

5888

Every serious revolutionary organisation, however, prepares

5889

precisely for 'exceptional circumstances.'" ["Stalinism

5890

and Bolshevism", Op. Cit., p. 16]

5891

5892

Trotsky is, for once, correct. We will ignore the obvious fact

5893

that his own (and every other Leninist) account of the degeneration

5894

of the Russian Revolution into Stalinism is a variation of the

5895

"exceptional circumstances" excuse and turn to his essential

5896

point. In order to evaluate anarchism and the actions of the CNT

5897

we have to evaluate all the revolutionary situations it found

5898

itself in, not just July, 1936 in Catalonia. This is something

5899

Trotsky and his followers seldom do -- for reasons that will

5900

become clear.

5901

5902

Obviously space considerations does not allow us to discuss

5903

every revolutionary situation anarchism faced. We will,

5904

therefore, concentrate on the Russian Revolution and the

5905

activities of the CNT in Spain in the 1930s. These examples

5906

will indicate that rather than signifying the failure of

5907

anarchism, the actions of the CNT during the Civil War

5908

indicate the failure of anarchists to apply anarchist theory

5909

and so signifies a betrayal of anarchism. In other words,

5910

that anarchism is a valid form of revolutionary politics.

5911

5912

If we look at the Russian Revolution, we see anarchist theory

5913

gain its most wide scale influence in those parts of the

5914

Ukraine protected by the Makhnovist army. The Makhnovists

5915

fought against White (pro-Tsarist), Red and Ukrainian

5916

Nationalists in favour of a system of "free soviets" in

5917

which the "working people themselves must freely choose their

5918

own soviets, which are to carry out the will and desires of

5919

the working people themselves. that is to say, administrative,

5920

not ruling councils." As for the economy, the "land, the

5921

factories, the workshops, the mines, the railroads and the

5922

other wealth of the people must belong to the working people

5923

themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say,

5924

they must be socialised." ["Some Makhnovist Proclamations",

5925

contained in Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist

5926

Movement, p. 273]

5927

5928

To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up

5929

governments in the towns and cities they liberated, instead

5930

urging the creation of free soviets so that the working

5931

people could govern themselves. Taking the example of

5932

Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the

5933

Makhnovists "immediately invited the working population

5934

to participate in a general conference . . . it was

5935

proposed that the workers organise the life of the city

5936

and the functioning of the factories with their own

5937

forces and their own organisations . . . The first

5938

conference was followed by a second. The problems of

5939

organising life according to principles of self-management

5940

by workers were examined and discussed with animation

5941

by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas

5942

with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers

5943

took the first step . . . They formed a committee

5944

charged with organising the railway network of the

5945

region . . . From this point, the proletariat of

5946

Aleksandrovsk began systematically to the problem

5947

of creating organs of self-management." [Op. Cit.,

5948

p. 149]

5949

5950

They also organised free agricultural communes which

5951

"[a]dmittedly . . . were not numerous, and included only

5952

a minority of the population . . . But what was most

5953

precious was that these communes were formed by the poor

5954

peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any

5955

pressure on the peasants, confining themselves to propagating

5956

the idea of free communes." [Op. Cit., p. 87] Makhno played

5957

an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed

5958

gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional

5959

congresses equalised the use of the land between all

5960

sections of the peasant community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

5961

5962

Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve

5963

the whole population in discussing the development of the

5964

revolution, the activities of the army and social policy.

5965

They organised numerous conferences of workers', soldiers'

5966

and peasants' delegates to discuss political and social

5967

issues. They organised a regional congress of peasants

5968

and workers when they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When

5969

the Makhnovists tried to convene the third regional

5970

congress of peasants, workers and insurgents in April

5971

1919 and an extraordinary congress of several regions

5972

in June 1919 (including Red Army soldiers) the Bolsheviks

5973

viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban them

5974

and declared their organisers and delegates outside the law.

5975

For example, Trotsky issued order 1824 which stated the June

5976

1919 congress was forbidden, that to inform the population of

5977

it was an act of high treason and all delegates should be

5978

arrested immediately as were all the spreading the call.

5979

[Op. Cit., p. 98-105 and p. 122-31]

5980

5981

The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway

5982

and asking "[c]an there exist laws made by a few people

5983

who call themselves revolutionaries, which permit them to

5984

outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary than they

5985

are themselves?" and "[w]hose interests should the revolution

5986

defend: those of the Party or those of the people who set

5987

the revolution in motion with their blood?" Makhno himself

5988

stated that he "consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the

5989

workers and peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call

5990

conferences on their own account, to discuss their affairs."

5991

[Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129] These actions by the Bolsheviks

5992

should make the reader ponder if the elimination of workers'

5993

democracy during the civil war can fully be explained by

5994

the objective conditions facing Lenin's government or whether

5995

Leninist ideology played an important role in it. As Arshinov

5996

argues, "[w]hoever studies the Russian Revolution should

5997

learn it [Trotsky's order no. 1824] by heart." [Op. Cit.,

5998

p. 123] Obviously the Bolsheviks considered that soviet

5999

system was threatened if soviet conferences were called

6000

and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was undermined

6001

if the proletariat took part in such events.

6002

6003

In addition, the Makhnovists "full applied the revolutionary

6004

principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press,

6005

and of political association. In all cities and towns

6006

occupied by the Makhnovists, they began by lifting all

6007

the prohibitions and repealing all the restrictions

6008

imposed on the press and on political organisations by

6009

one or another power." Indeed, the "only restriction that

6010

the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the

6011

Bolsheviks, the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other

6012

statists was a prohibition on the formation of those

6013

'revolutionary committees' which sought to impose a

6014

dictatorship over the people." [Op. Cit., p. 153 and

6015

p. 154]

6016

6017

The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was

6018

fundamentally democratic (although, of course, the horrific

6019

nature of the civil war did result in a few deviations from

6020

the ideal -- however, compared to the regime imposed on the

6021

Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were much more democratic

6022

movement). Arshinov proves a good summary:

6023

6024

"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according

6025

to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the

6026

electoral principle, and self-discipline.

6027

6028

"Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed

6029

only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their

6030

own free will.

6031

6032

"The electoral principle meant that the commanders of

6033

all units of the army, including the staff, as well as

6034

all the men who held other positions in the army, were

6035

either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit

6036

in question or by the whole army.

6037

6038

"Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline

6039

were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved

6040

by general assemblies of the various units; once approved,

6041

they were rigorously observed on the individual responsibility

6042

of each insurgent and each commander." [Op. Cit., p. 96]

6043

</blockquote>

6044

Thus the Makhnovists indicate the validity of anarchist theory.

6045

They organised the self-defence of their region, refused to

6046

form of a "revolutionary" government and so the life of the

6047

region, its social and revolutionary development followed the

6048

path of self-activity of the working people who did not allow

6049

any authorities to tell them what to do. They respected freedom

6050

of association, speech, press and so on while actively encouraging

6051

workers' and peasants' self-management and self-organisation.

6052

6053

Moving to the Spanish movement, the various revolts and uprisings

6054

organised by the CNT and FAI that occurred before 1936 were

6055

marked by a similar revolutionary developments as the Makhnovists.

6056

We discuss the actual events of the revolts in 1932 and 1933

6057

in more detail in <a href="append32.html#app14">section 14</a>

6058

and so will not repeat ourselves

6059

here. However, all were marked by the anarchist movement

6060

attacking town halls, army barracks and other sources of

6061

state authority and urging the troops to revolt and side with

6062

the masses (the anarchists paid a lot of attention to this

6063

issue -- like the French syndicalists they produced

6064

anti-militarist propaganda arguing that soldiers should

6065

side with their class and refuse orders to fire on

6066

strikers and to join popular revolts). The revolts also

6067

saw workers taking over their workplaces and the land,

6068

trying to abolish capitalism while trying to abolish the

6069

state. In summary, they were insurrections which combined

6070

political goals (the abolition of the state) and social ones

6071

(expropriation of capital and the creation of self-managed

6072

workplaces and communes).

6073

6074

The events in Asturias in October 1934 gives a more detailed

6075

account of nature of these insurrections. The anarchist role

6076

in this revolt has not been as widely known as it should be

6077

and this is an ideal opportunity to discuss it. Combined

6078

with the other insurrections of the 1930s it clearly indicates

6079

that anarchism is a valid form of revolutionary theory.

6080

6081

While the CNT was the minority union in Asturias, it had

6082

a considerable influence of its own (the CNT had over 22 000

6083

affiliates in the area and the UGT had 40 000). The CNT

6084

had some miners in their union (the majority were in the UGT)

6085

but most of their membership was above ground, particularly

6086

in the towns of Aviles and Gijon. The regional federation

6087

of the CNT had joined the Socialist Party dominated "Alianza

6088

Obrera," unlike the other regional federations of the CNT.

6089

6090

When the revolt started, the workers organised attacks on

6091

barracks, town halls and other sources of state authority

6092

(just as the CNT revolts of 1932 and 1933 had). Bookchin

6093

indicates that "[s]tructurely, the insurrection was managed

6094

by hundreds of small revolutionary committees whose delegates

6095

were drawn from unions, parties, the FAI and even anti-Stalinist

6096

Communist groups. Rarely, if at all, were there large councils

6097

(or 'soviets') composed of delegates from factories." [The

6098

Spanish Anarchists, p. 249] This, incidentally, indicates

6099

that Morrow's claims that in Asturias "the Workers' Alliances

6100

were most nearly like soviets, and had been functioning for

6101

a year under socialist and Communist Left leadership" are

6102

false. [Op. Cit., p. 31] The claims that the Asturias

6103

uprising had established soviets was simply Communist and

6104

government propaganda.

6105

6106

In fact, the Socialists "generally functioned through

6107

tightly knit committees, commonly highly centralised

6108

and with strong bureaucratic proclivities. In Asturias,

6109

the UGT tried to perpetuate this form wherever possible

6110

. . . But the mountainous terrain of Asturias made such

6111

committees difficult to co-ordinate, so that each one

6112

became an isolated miniature central committee of its

6113

own, often retaining its traditional authoritarian

6114

character." The anarchists, on the other hand, "favoured

6115

looser structures, often quasi-councils composed of

6116

factory workers and assemblies composed of peasants.

6117

The ambience of these fairly decentralised structures,

6118

their improvisatory character and libertarian spirit,

6119

fostered an almost festive atmosphere in Anarchist-held

6120

areas." [Op. Cit., p. 249] Bookchin quotes an account

6121

which compares anarchist La Felguera with Marxist

6122

Sama, towns of equal size and separated only by the

6123

Nalon river:

6124

6125

"[The October Insurrection] triumphed immediately in

6126

the metallurgical and in the mining town. . . . Sama

6127

was organised along military lines. Dictatorship of the

6128

proletariat, red army, Central Committee, discipline.

6129

authority . . . La Felguera opted for communismo

6130

libertario: the people in arms, liberty to come and

6131

go, respect for the technicians of the Duro-Felguera

6132

metallurgical plant, public deliberations of all

6133

issues, abolition of money, the rational distribution

6134

of food and clothing. Enthusiasm and gaiety in La

6135

Felguera; the sullenness of the barracks in Sama.

6136

The bridges [of Sama] were held by a corp of guards

6137

complete with officers and all. No one could enter or

6138

leave Sama without a safe-conduct pass, or walk through

6139

the streets without passwords. All of this was ridiculously

6140

useless, because the government troops were far away

6141

and the Sama bourgeoisie disarmed and neutralised . . .

6142

The workers of Sama who did not adhere to the Marxist

6143

religion preferred to go to La Felguera, where at least

6144

they could breathe. Side by side there were two concepts

6145

of socialism: the authoritarian and the libertarian; on

6146

each bank of the Nalon, two populations of brothers

6147

began a new life: with dictatorship in Sama; with liberty

6148

in La Felguera." [Op. Cit., pp. 249-50]

6149

</blockquote>

6150

Bookchin notes that "[i]n contrast to the severely delimited

6151

Marxist committee in Sama, La Felguera workers met in

6152

popular assembly, where they socialised the industrial

6153

city's economy. The population was divided into wards,

6154

each of which elected delegates to supply and distribution

6155

committees. . . The La Felguera commune . . . proved to

6156

be so successful, indeed so admirable, that surrounding

6157

communities invited the La Felguera Anarchists to advice

6158

them on reorganising their own social order. Rarely were

6159

comparable institutions created by the Socialists and,

6160

where they did emerge, it was on the insistence of the

6161

rank-and-file workers." [Op. Cit., p. 250]

6162

6163

In other words, the Asturias uprising saw anarchists yet

6164

again applying their ideas with great success in a

6165

revolutionary situation. As Bookchin argues:

6166

6167

"Almost alone, the Anarchists were to create viable

6168

revolutionary institutions structured around workers'

6169

control of industry and peasants' control of land. That

6170

these institutions were to be duplicated by Socialist

6171

workers and peasants was due in small measure to Anarchist

6172

example rather than Socialist precept. To the degree

6173

that the Asturian miners and industrial workers in

6174

various communities established direct control over

6175

the local economy and structured their committees

6176

along libertarian lines, these achievements were due

6177

to Anarchist precedents and long years of propaganda

6178

and education." [Op. Cit., p. 250-1]

6179

</blockquote>

6180

Unlike their Socialist and Communist allies, the anarchists

6181

in Asturias took the Alianza's slogan "Unity, Proletarian

6182

Brothers" seriously. A key factor in the defeat of the

6183

uprising (beyond its isolation due to socialist incompetence

6184

elsewhere -- see <a href="append32.html#app6">section 6</a>)

6185

was the fact that "[s]o far

6186

as the Aviles and Gijon Anarchists were concerned . . .

6187

their Socialist and Communist 'brothers' were to honour

6188

the slogan only in the breach. When Anarchist delegates

6189

from the seaports arrived in Oviedo on October 7, pleading

6190

for arms to resist the imminent landings of government

6191

troops, their requests were totally ignored by Socialists

6192

and Communists who, as [historian Gabriel] Jackson notes,

6193

'clearly mistrusted them.' The Oviedo Committee was to

6194

pay a bitter price for its refusal. The next day, when

6195

Anarchist resistance, hampered by the pitiful supply

6196

of weapons, failed to prevent the government from

6197

landing its troops, the way into Asturias lay open. The

6198

two seaports became the principal military bases for

6199

launching the savage repression of the Asturian

6200

insurrection that occupied so much of October and

6201

claimed thousands of lives." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit.,

6202

p. 248]

6203

6204

Therefore, to state as Morrow does that before July 1936,

6205

"anarchism had never been tested on a grand scale" and

6206

now "leading great masses, it was to have a definite test"

6207

is simply wrong. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Anarchism had had

6208

numerous definite tests before involving "great masses,"

6209

both in Spain and elsewhere. The revolts of the 1930s, the

6210

Makhnovists in the Ukraine, the factory occupations in

6211

Italy in 1920 (see <a href="secA5.html#seca55">section A.5.5</a>)

6212

and in numerous other

6213

revolutionary and near revolutionary situations anarchism

6214

had been tested and had passed those tests. Defeat came

6215

about by the actions of the Marxists (in the case of

6216

Asturias and Italy) or by superior force (as in the 1932

6217

and 1933 Spanish insurrections and the Ukraine) not

6218

because of anarchist theory or activities. At no time did

6219

they collaborate with the bourgeois state or compromise

6220

their politics. By concentrating on July 1936, Marxists

6221

effectively distort the history of anarchism -- a bit

6222

like arguing the actions of the Social Democratic Party

6223

in crushing the German discredits Marxism while ignoring

6224

the actions and politics of the council communists during

6225

it or the Russian Revolution.

6226

6227

But the question remains, why did the CNT and FAI make

6228

such a mess (politically at least) of the Spanish Revolution

6229

of 1936? However, even this question is unfair as the

6230

example of the Aragon Defence Council and Federation of

6231

Collectives indicate that anarchists did apply their

6232

ideas successfully in certain areas during that revolution.

6233

6234

Morrow is aware of that example, as he argues that the

6235

"Catalonian [i.e. CNT] militia marched into Aragon as

6236

an army of social liberation . . . Arriving in a village,

6237

the militia committees sponsor the election of a village

6238

anti-fascist committee . . . [which] organises production

6239

on a new basis" and "[e]very village wrested from the

6240

fascists was transformed into a forest of revolution."

6241

Its "municipal councils were elected directly by the

6242

communities. The Council of Aragon was at first largely

6243

anarchist." He notes that "[l]ibertarian principles

6244

were attempted in the field of money and wages" yet

6245

he fails to mention the obvious application of libertarian

6246

principles in the field of politics with the state

6247

abolished and replaced by a federation of workers'

6248

associations. To do so would be to invalidate his basic

6249

thesis against anarchism and so it goes unmentioned,

6250

hoping the reader will not notice this confirmation of

6251

anarchist politics in practice. [Op. Cit., p. 53, p. 204

6252

and p. 205]

6253

6254

So, from the experience of the Ukraine, the previous revolts in

6255

1932, 1933 and 1934 and the example of the Council of Aragon it

6256

appears clear that rather than exposing anarchist theory (as

6257

Marxists claim), the example of July 1936 in Catalonia is an

6258

aberration. Anarchist politics had been confirmed as a valid

6259

revolutionary theory many times before and, indeed, shown

6260

themselves as the only one to ensure a free society. However,

6261

why did this aberration occur?

6262

6263

Most opponents of anarchism provide a rather (in)famous quote

6264

from FAI militant Juan Garcia Oliver, describing the crucial

6265

decision made in Catalonia in July of '36 to co-operate with

6266

Companys' government to explain the failure of the CNT to

6267

"seize power":

6268

6269

"The CNT and FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, eschewing

6270

revolutionary totalitarianism . . . by the anarchist and Confederal

6271

dictatorship." [quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!,

6272

p. 105]

6273

</blockquote>

6274

In this statement Garcia Oliver describes the capitalist state as

6275

"democracy" and refers to the alternative of the directly democratic

6276

CNT unions taking power as "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship."

6277

Marxists tend to think this statement tells us something about the

6278

CNT's original program in the period leading up to the crisis of

6279

July 1936. As proven above, any such assertion would be false (see

6280

also <a href="append32.html#app8">section 8</a>). In fact this statement was made in December of

6281

1937, many months after Garcia Oliver and other influential CNT

6282

activists had embarked upon collaboration in the government

6283

ministries and Republican army command. The quote is taken

6284

from a report by the CNT leadership, presented by Garcia Oliver

6285

and Mariano Vazquez (CNT National Secretary in 1937) at the

6286

congress of the International Workers Association (IWA). The CNT

6287

was aware that government participation was in violation of the

6288

principles of the IWA and the report was intended to provide a

6289

rationalisation. That report is an indication of just how far

6290

Garcia Oliver and other influential CNT radicals had been

6291

corrupted by the experience of government collaboration.

6292

6293

Garcia Oliver's position in July of 1936 had been entirely

6294

different. He had been one of the militants to argue in favour

6295

of overthrowing the Companys government in Catalonia in the

6296

crucial union assemblies of July 20-21. As Juan Gomez Casas

6297

argues:

6298

6299

"The position supported by Juan Garcia Oliver [in July of '36]

6300

has been described as `anarchist dictatorship' Actually, though,

6301

Oliver was advocating application of the goals of the Saragossa

6302

Congress in Barcelona and Catalonia at a time in history when,

6303

in his opinion, libertarian communism was a real possibility.

6304

It would always signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated

6305

to the idea of [state] power, or at least make it impossible for

6306

them to pursue their politics aimed at seizure of power. There

6307

will always be pockets of opposition to new experiences and

6308

therefore resistance to joining 'the spontaneity of the popular

6309

masses.' In addition, the masses would have complete freedom of

6310

expression in the unions and in the economic organisations of the

6311

revolution as well as in their political organisations."

6312

[Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 188f]

6313

</blockquote>

6314

Those libertarians who defended government participation in Spain

6315

argued that a non-hierarchical re-organisation of society in Catalonia

6316

in July of '36 could only have been imposed by force, against the

6317

opposition of the parties and sectors of society that have a vested

6318

interest in existing inequalities. They argued that this would have

6319

been a "dictatorship," no better than the alternative of government

6320

collaboration.

6321

6322

If this argument were valid, then it logically means that anarchism

6323

itself would be impossible, for there will always be sectors of

6324

society -- bosses, judges, politicians, etc. -- who will oppose

6325

social re-organisation on a libertarian basis. As Malatesta once

6326

argued, some people "seem almost to believe that after having

6327

brought down government and private property we would allow both to

6328

be quietly built up again, because of a respect for the freedom of

6329

those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A

6330

truly curious way of interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, p. 41]

6331

It is doubtful he would have predicted that certain anarchists

6332

would be included in such believers!

6333

6334

Neither anarchism nor the CNT program called for suppressing other

6335

viewpoints. The various viewpoints that existed among the workforce

6336

and population would be reflected in the deliberations and debates

6337

of the workplace and community assemblies as well as in the various

6338

local and regional congresses and conference and on their co-ordinating

6339

Councils. The various political groups would be free to organise,

6340

publish their periodicals and seek influence in the various self-managed

6341

assemblies and structures that existed. The CNT would be dominant

6342

because it had overwhelming support among the workers of Catalonia

6343

(and would have remained dominant as long as that continued).

6344

6345

What is essential to a state is that its authority and armed power

6346

be top-down, separate and distinct from the population. Otherwise

6347

it could not function to protect the power of a boss class. When

6348

a population in society directly and democratically controls the

6349

armed force (in fact, effectively is the armed force as in the

6350

case of the CNT militias), directly manages its own fairs in

6351

decentralised, federal organisations based on self-management

6352

from the bottom upwards and manages the economy, this is not a

6353

"state" in the historical sense. Thus the CNT would not in any

6354

real sense had "seized power" in Catalonia, rather it would

6355

have allowed the mass of people, previously disempowered by the

6356

state, to take control of their own lives -- both individually

6357

and collectively -- by smashing the state and replacing it by

6358

a free federation of workers' associations.

6359

6360

What this means is that a non-hierarchical society must be

6361

imposed by the working class against the opposition of those

6362

who would lose power. In building the new world we must destroy

6363

the old one. Revolutions are authoritarian by their very nature,

6364

but only in respect to structures and social relations which promote

6365

injustice, hierarchy and inequality. It is not "authoritarian" to

6366

destroy authority, in other words! Revolutions, above all else, must

6367

be libertarian in respect to the oppressed (indeed, they are acts

6368

of liberation in which the oppressed end their oppression by their

6369

own direct action). That is, they must develop structures that

6370

involve the great majority of the population, who have previously

6371

been excluded from decision making about social and economic issues.

6372

6373

So the dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration"

6374

was a false one and fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of

6375

banning parties, etc. under an anarchist system, far from it. Full

6376

rights of free speech, organisation and so on should have existed

6377

for all but the parties would only have as much influence as they

6378

exerted in union, workplace, community, militia (and so on)

6379

assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes, but

6380

within the rank and file and within organisations organised

6381

in a libertarian manner. Anarchism does not respect the "freedom"

6382

to be a capitalist, boss or politician.

6383

6384

Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, the CNT

6385

and FAI committees favoured "collaboration" from the top down.

6386

In this they followed the example of the UGT and its "Workers'

6387

Alliances" rather than their own activities previous to the

6388

military revolt. Why? Why did the CNT and FAI in Catalonia

6389

reject their previous political perspective and reject the

6390

basis ideas of anarchism? As shown above, the CNT and FAI

6391

has successfully applied their ideas in many insurrections

6392

before hand. Why the change of direction? There were two

6393

main reasons.

6394

6395

Firstly, while a majority in Catalonia and certain other

6396

parts of Spain, the CNT and FAI were a minority in such

6397

areas as Castille and Asturias. To combat fascism required

6398

the combined forces of all parties and unions and by

6399

collaborating with a UGT-like "Anti-Fascist Alliance" in

6400

Catalonia, it was believed that such alliances could be

6401

formed elsewhere, with equality for the CNT ensured by the

6402

Catalan CNT's decision of equal representation for minority

6403

organisations in the Catalan Anti-Fascist Committee. This

6404

would, hopefully, also ensure aid to CNT militias via the

6405

government's vast gold reserves and stop foreign intervention

6406

by Britain and other countries to protect their interests if

6407

libertarian communism was declared.

6408

6409

However, as Vernon Richards argues:

6410

6411

"This argument contains . . . two fundamental mistakes,

6412

which many of the leaders of the CNT-FAI have since

6413

recognised, but for which there can be no excuse, since

6414

they were not mistakes of judgement but the deliberate

6415

abandonment of the principles of the CNT. Firstly, that

6416

an armed struggle against fascism or any other form of

6417

reaction could be waged more successfully within the

6418

framework of the State and subordinating all else,

6419

including the transformation of the economic and social

6420

structure of the country, to winning the war. Secondly,

6421

that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate with

6422

political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and

6423

sincerely, and at a time when power was in the hands

6424

of the two workers organisations. . .

6425

6426

"All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The

6427

politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a

6428

desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by any

6429

stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco.

6430

On the contrary, it was clear that collaboration with

6431

political parties meant the recreation of governmental

6432

institutions and the transferring of initiative from the armed

6433

workers to a central body with executive powers. By removing

6434

the initiative from the workers, the responsibility for the

6435

conduct of the struggle and its objectives were also

6436

transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could not

6437

have other than an adverse effect on the morale of the

6438

revolutionary fighters." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution,

6439

p. 42]

6440

</blockquote>

6441

In addition, in failing to take the initiative to unite the

6442

working class independently of the Republican state at the

6443

crucial moment, in July of '36, the CNT of Catalonia was in

6444

effect abandoning the only feasible alternative to the Popular

6445

Front strategy. Without a libertarian system of popular

6446

self-management, the CNT and FAI had no alternative but to

6447

join the bourgeois state. For a revolution to be successful,

6448

as Bakunin and Kropotkin argued, it needs to create libertarian

6449

organisations (such as workers' associations, free communes

6450

and their federations) which can effectively replace the state

6451

and the market, that is to create a widespread libertarian

6452

organisation for social and economic decision making

6453

through which working class people can start to set their own

6454

agendas. Only by going this can the state and capitalism be

6455

effectively smashed. If this is not done and the state is

6456

ignored rather than smashed, it continue and get stronger as

6457

it will be the only medium that exists for wide scale decision

6458

making. This will result in revolutionaries having to work within

6459

it, trying to influence it since no other means exist to reach

6460

collective decisions.

6461

6462

The failure to smash the state, this first betrayal of anarchist

6463

principles, led to all the rest, and so the defeat of the revolution.

6464

Not destroying the state meant that the revolution could never

6465

be fully successful economically as politics and economics are

6466

bound together so closely. Only under the political conditions

6467

of anarchism can its economic conditions flourish and vice versa.

6468

6469

The CNT had never considered a "strategy" of collaboration with the

6470

Popular Front prior to July of '36. In the months leading up to

6471

the July explosion, the CNT had consistently criticised the Popular

6472

Front strategy as a fake unity of leaders over the workers, a

6473

strategy that would subordinate the working class to capitalist

6474

legality. However, in July of '36, the CNT conferences in Catalonia

6475

had not seen clearly that their "temporary" participation in the

6476

Anti-Fascist Militia Committee would drag them inexorably into a

6477

practice of collaboration with the Popular Front. As Christie

6478

argues, "the Militias Committee was a compromise, an artificial

6479

political solution . . . It . . . drew the CNT-FAI leadership

6480

inexorably into the State apparatus, until them its principle

6481

enemy, and led to the steady erosion of anarchist influence

6482

and credibility." [Op. Cit., p. 105]

6483

6484

Secondly, the fear of fascism played a key role. After all,

6485

this was 1936. The CNT and FAI had seen their comrades in

6486

Italy and Germany being crushed by fascist dictatorships,

6487

sent to concentration camps and so on. In Spain, Franco's

6488

forces were slaughtering union and political militants and

6489

members by the tens of thousands (soon to reach hundreds of

6490

thousands by the end of the war and beyond). The insurrection

6491

had not been initiated by the people themselves (as had the

6492

previous revolts in the 1930s) and this also had a psychological

6493

impact on the decision making process. The anarchists were,

6494

therefore, in a position of being caught between two evils --

6495

fascism and the bourgeois state, elements of which had fought

6496

with them on the streets. To pursue anarchist politics at such

6497

a time, it was argued, could have resulted in the CNT fighting

6498

on two fronts -- against the fascists and also against the

6499

Republican government. Such a situation would have been

6500

unbearable and so it was better to accept collaboration than

6501

aid Fascism by dividing the forces of the anti-fascist camp.

6502

6503

However, such a perspective failed to appreciate the depth

6504

of hatred the politicians and bourgeois had for the CNT.

6505

Indeed, by their actions it would appear they preferred

6506

fascism to the social revolution. So, in the name of

6507

"anti-fascist" unity, the CNT worked with parties and

6508

classes which hated both them and the revolution. In the

6509

words of Sam Dolgoff "both before and after July 19th,

6510

an unwavering determination to crush the revolutionary

6511

movement was the leitmotif behind the policies of the

6512

Republican government; irrespective of the party in power."

6513

[The Anarchist Collectives, p. 40]

6514

6515

Rather than eliminate a civil war developing within the civil

6516

war, the policy of the CNT just postponed it -- until such

6517

time as the state was stronger than the working class. The

6518

Republican government was quite happy to attack the gains of the

6519

revolution, physically attacking rural and urban collectives,

6520

union halls, assassinating CNT and FAI members of so on. The

6521

difference was the CNT's act only postponed such conflict

6522

until the balance of power had shifted back towards the status

6523

quo.

6524

6525

Moreover, the fact that the bourgeois republic was fighting

6526

fascism could have meant that it would have tolerated the

6527

CNT social revolution rather than fight it (and so weakening

6528

its own fight against Franco). However, such an argument

6529

remains moot.

6530

6531

It is clear that anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not

6532

fascism. As a Scottish anarchist in Barcelona during the

6533

revolution argued, "Fascism is not something new, some new

6534

force of evil opposed to society, but is only the old enemy,

6535

Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding name . . .

6536

Anti-Fascism is the new slogan by which the working class is

6537

being betrayed." [Ethal McDonald, Workers Free Press,

6538

Oct. 1937] This was also argued by the Friends of Durruti

6539

who stated that "[d]emocracy defeated the Spanish people,

6540

not Fascism." [The Friends of Durruti Accuse]

6541

6542

The majority at the July 20-21 conferences went along with

6543

proposal of postponing the social revolution, of starting

6544

the work of creating libertarian communism, and smashing the

6545

state and replacing it with a federation of workers' assemblies.

6546

Most of the CNT militants there saw it as a temporary expedient,

6547

until the rest of Spain was freed from Franco's forces (in

6548

particular, Aragon and Saragossa). Companys' (the head of

6549

the Catalan government) had proposed the creation of a

6550

body containing representatives of all anti-fascist parties

6551

and unions called the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist

6552

Militias," sponsored by his government. The CNT meeting agreed

6553

to this proposal, though only on condition that the CNT be given

6554

the majority on it. A sizeable minority of delegates were

6555

apparently disgusted by this decision. The delegation from

6556

Bajo Llobregat County (an industrial area south of Barcelona)

6557

walked out saying they would never go along with government

6558

collaboration.

6559

6560

Therefore, the decision to postpone the revolution and so to

6561

ignore the state rather than smashing was a product of isolation

6562

and the fear of a fascist victory. However, while "isolation" may

6563

explain the Catalan militants' fears and so decisions, it does not

6564

justify their decision. If the CNT of Catalonia had given Companys

6565

the boot and set up a federation of workplace and community

6566

assemblies in Catalonia, uniting the rank-and-file of the other

6567

unions with the CNT, this would have strengthened the resolve

6568

of workers in other parts of Spain, and it might have also

6569

inspired workers in nearby countries to move in a similar direction.

6570

6571

Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution across

6572

Spain and the dangers of fascism were real problems, but they

6573

do not excuse the libertarian movement for its mistakes. On the

6574

contrary, in following the course of action advised by leaders

6575

like Horacio Prieto and Abad Diego de Santillan, the CNT only

6576

weakened the revolution and helped to discredit libertarian

6577

socialism. After all, as Bakunin and Kropotkin continually

6578

stressed, revolutions break out in specific areas and then

6579

spread outward -- isolation is a feature of revolution which

6580

can only be overcome by action, by showing a practical example

6581

which others can follow.

6582

6583

Most of the CNT militants at the July 20th meeting saw the

6584

compromise as a temporary expedient, until the rest of Spain

6585

was freed from Franco's forces (in particular, Aragon and

6586

Saragossa). As the official account states, "[t]he situation

6587

was considered and it was unanimously decided not to mention

6588

Libertarian Communism until such time as we had captured that

6589

part of Spain that was in the hands of the rebels." [quoted by

6590

Christie, Op. Cit., p. 102] However, the membership of the CNT

6591

decided themselves to start the social revolution ("very

6592

rapidly collectives . . . began to spring up. It did not

6593

happen on instructions from the CNT leadership . . . the

6594

initiative came from CNT militants" [Ronald Fraser, Blood

6595

of Spain, p. 349]). The social revolution began anyway,

6596

from below, but without the key political aspect (abolition

6597

of the state) and so was fatally compromised from the beginning.

6598

6599

As Stuart Christie argues:

6600

6601

"The higher committees of the CNT-FAI-FIJL in Catalonia saw

6602

themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma: social revolution,

6603

fascism or bourgeois democracy. Either they committed themselves

6604

to the solutions offered by social revolution, regardless of the

6605

difficulties involved in fighting both fascism and international

6606

capitalism, or, through fear of fascism . . . they sacrificed

6607

their anarchist principles and revolutionary objectives to

6608

bolster, to become part of the bourgeois state . . . Faced with

6609

an imperfect state of affairs and preferring defeat to a possibly

6610

Pyrrhic victory, Catalan anarchist leadership renounced anarchism

6611

in the name of expediency and removed the social transformation

6612

of Spain from their agenda.

6613

6614

"But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the

6615

decision whether or not to implement Libertarian Communism

6616

was not theirs to make. Anarchism was not something which

6617

could be transformed from theory to practice by organisational

6618

decree. . .

6619

6620

"What the CNT-FAI leadership had failed to take on board was

6621

the fact that the spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July

6622

had developed a political direction of its own. On their own

6623

initiative, without any intervention by the leadership of

6624

the unions or political parties, the rank and file militants

6625

of the CNT, representing the dominant force within the

6626

Barcelona working class, together with other union militants

6627

had, with the collapse of State power, . . . been welded . . .

6628

into genuinely popular non-partisan revolutionary committees

6629

. . . in their respective neighbourhoods. They were the

6630

natural organisms of the revolution itself and direct

6631

expression of popular power." [Op. Cit., p. 99]

6632

</blockquote>

6633

In other words, the bulk of the CNT-FAI membership acted in

6634

an anarchist way while the higher committees compromised their

6635

politics and achievements in the name of anti-fascist unity.

6636

In this the membership followed years of anarchist practice

6637

and theory. It was fear of fascism which made many of the

6638

leading militants of the CNT abandon anarchist politics and

6639

instead embrace "anti-fascist unity" and compromise with the

6640

bourgeois republic. To claim that July 1936 indicated the

6641

failure of anarchism means to ignore the constructive work

6642

of millions of CNT members in their workplaces, communities

6643

and militias and instead concentrate on a few militants who

6644

made the terrible mistake of ignoring their political ideas

6645

in an extremely difficult situation. As we said above, this

6646

may explain the decision but it does not justify it.

6647

6648

Therefore, it is clear that the experiences of the CNT and FAI

6649

in 1936 indicate a failure of anarchists to apply their politics

6650

rather than the failure of those politics. The examples of the

6651

Makhnovists, the revolts in Spain between 1932 and 1934 as

6652

well as the Council of Aragon show beyond doubt that this is

6653

the case. Rather than act as anarchists in July 1936, the

6654

militants of the Catalan CNT and FAI ignored their basic ideas

6655

(not lightly, we stress, but in response to real dangers). They

6656

later justified their decisions by putting their options in a

6657

Marxist light -- "either we impose libertarian communism, and

6658

so become an anarchist dictatorship, or we collaborate with the

6659

democratic government." As Vernon Richards makes clear:

6660

6661

"Such alternatives are contrary to the most elementary principles

6662

of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism. In the first place,

6663

an 'anarchist dictatorship' is a contradiction in terms (in

6664

the same way as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is), for

6665

the moment anarchists impose their social ideas on the people

6666

by force, they cease being anarchists . . . the arms of the

6667

CNT-FAI held could be no use for imposing libertarian communism

6668

. . . The power of the people in arms can only be used in the

6669

defence of the revolution and the freedoms won by their militancy

6670

and their sacrificed. We do not for one moment assume that all

6671

social revolutions are necessarily anarchist. But whatever form

6672

the revolution against authority takes, the role of anarchists is

6673

clear: that of inciting the people to abolish capitalistic property

6674

and the institutions through which it exercises its power

6675

for the exploitation of the majority by a minority. . . the role

6676

of anarchists [is] to support, to incite and encourage the

6677

development of the social revolution and to frustrate any

6678

attempts by the bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise itself,

6679

which it would seek to do." [Op. Cit., pp. 43-6]

6680

</blockquote>

6681

Their compromise in the name of anti-fascist unity contained

6682

the rest of their mistakes. Joining the "Central Committee of

6683

Anti-Fascist Militias" was the second mistake as at no time

6684

could it be considered as the embryo of a new workers'

6685

power. It was, rather, an organisation like the pre-war

6686

UGT "Workers' Alliances" -- an attempt to create links

6687

between the top-level of other unions and parties. Such

6688

an organisation, as the CNT recognised before the war

6689

(see <a href="append32.html#app5">section 5</a>), could not be a means of creating a

6690

revolutionary federation of workers' associations and

6691

communes and, in fact, a hindrance to such a development,

6692

if not its chief impediment.

6693

6694

Given that the CNT had rejected the call for revolution in

6695

favour of anti-fascist unit on July 20th, such a development

6696

does not reflect the CNT's pre-war program. Rather it was a

6697

reversion to Felix Morrow's Trotskyist position of joining the

6698

UGT's "Workers' Alliance" in spite of its non-revolutionary

6699

nature (see <a href="append32.html#app5">section 5</a>).

6700

6701

The CNT did not carry out its program (and so apply anarchist

6702

politics) and so did not replace the Generalitat (Catalan State)

6703

with a Defence Council in which only union/workplace assemblies

6704

(not political parties) were represented. To start the process

6705

of creating libertarian communism all the CNT would have had do

6706

was to call a Regional Congress of unions and invite the UGT,

6707

independent unions and unorganised workplaces to send delegates.

6708

It could also have invited the various neighbourhood and

6709

village defence committees that had either sprung up

6710

spontaneously or were already organised before the war as

6711

part of the CNT. Unlike the other revolts it took part in the

6712

1930s, the CNT did not apply anarchist politics. However,

6713

to judge anarchism by this single failure means to ignore

6714

the whole history of anarchism and its successful applications

6715

elsewhere, including by the CNT and FAI during numerous

6716

revolts in Spain during the 1930s and in Aragon in 1936.

6717

6718

Ironically enough, Kropotkin had attacked the official CNT

6719

line of not mentioning Libertarian Communism "until such time

6720

as we had captured that part of Spain that was in the hands of

6721

the rebels." In analysing the Paris Commune Kropotkin had

6722

lambasted those who had argued "Let us first make sure of

6723

victory, and then see what can be done." His comments are worth

6724

quoting at length:

6725

6726

"Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of forming a free

6727

commune without laying hands upon property! As if there were any

6728

way of conquering the foe while the great mass of the people is

6729

not directly interested in the triumph of the revolution, by

6730

seeing that it will bring material, moral and intellectual

6731

well-being to everybody.

6732

6733

"The same thing happened with regard to the principle of government.

6734

By proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an

6735

essential anarchist principle, which was the breakdown of the state.

6736

6737

"And yet, if we admit that a central government to regulate the

6738

relations of communes between themselves is quite needless, why

6739

should we admit its necessity to regulate the mutual relations

6740

of the groups which make up each commune? . . . There is no more

6741

reason for a government inside the commune than for a government

6742

outside." [The Commune of Paris]

6743

</blockquote>

6744

Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting

6745

until victory in the war they were defeated. Kropotkin also

6746

indicated the inevitable effects of the CNT's actions in

6747

co-operating with the state and joining representative bodies.

6748

In his words:

6749

6750

"Paris sent her devoted sons to the town hall. There, shelved in the

6751

midst of files of old papers, obliged to rule when their instincts

6752

prompted them to be and to act among the people, obliged to discuss

6753

when it was needful to act, to compromise when no compromise was the

6754

best policy, and, finally, losing the inspiration which only comes

6755

from continual contact with the masses, they saw themselves reduced

6756

to impotence. Being paralysed by their separation from the people --

6757

the revolutionary centre of light and heat -- they themselves paralysed

6758

the popular initiative." [Op. Cit.]

6759

</blockquote>

6760

Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of

6761

the CNT who collaborated with the state. As anarchist turned Minister

6762

admitted after the war, "[w]e were in the government, but the streets

6763

were slipping away from us. We had lost the workers' trust and the

6764

movement's unity had been whittled away." [No Gods, No Masters,

6765

vol. 2, p. 274] The actions of the CNT-FAI higher committees and

6766

Ministers helped paralyse and defeat the May Days revolt of 1937.

6767

The CNT committees and leaders become increasingly isolated from

6768

the people, they compromised again and again and, ultimately,

6769

became an impotent force. Kropotkin was proved correct. Which

6770

means that far from refuting anarchist politics or analysis, the

6771

experience of the CNT-FAI in the Spanish Revolution confirms

6772

it.

6773

6774

In summary, therefore, the Spanish Revolution of 1936 indicates

6775

the failure of anarchists rather than the failure of anarchism.

6776

6777

One last point, it could be argued that anarchist theory

6778

allowed the leadership of the CNT and FAI to paint their

6779

collaboration with the state as a libertarian policy. That

6780

is, of course, correct. Anarchism is against the so-called

6781

"dictatorship of the proletariat" just as much as it is

6782

against the actual dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e.

6783

the existing system and its off-shoots such as fascism).

6784

This allowed the CNT and FAI leaders to argue that they were

6785

following anarchist theory by not destroying the state

6786

completely in July 1936. Of course, such a position cannot

6787

be used to discredit anarchism simply because such a

6788

revision meant that it can never be libertarian to abolish

6789

government and the state. In other words, the use made of

6790

anarchist theory by the leaders of the CNT and FAI in this

6791

case presents nothing else than a betrayal of that theory

6792

rather than its legitimate use.

6793

6794

Also, and more importantly, while anarchist theory was corrupted

6795

to justify working with other parties and unions in a democratic

6796

state, Marxist theory was used to justify the brutal one-party

6797

dictatorship of the Bolsheviks, first under Lenin and the Stalin.

6798

That, we feel, sums up the difference between anarchism and Leninism

6799

quite well.

6800

6801

</body>

6802

</html>